This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I guess you haven't noticed, but I've started the review at Talk:Cross of Gold speech/GA1-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I have created something of a proposal here that has to do with revitalizing WP History. I am wondering if you have any ideas about this. DCI talk 23:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Template:Editnotices/Page/John Diefenbaker has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. LikeLakers2 ( talk | Sign my guestbook!) 18:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I have reviewed and approved your Cross of Gold speech DYK nomination however you might like to respond to the point I raise there about citations in the article. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Seasonal greetings and much happiness for 2012! | |
(This historic image shows Brian, on the right, requesting a peer review from Malleus Fatuorum, on the left. The spirit of SandyGeorgia hovers between them.) Brianboulton ( talk) 15:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC) |
(I hope this won't get me blocked)
Hey! Sorry to bother you with another silly question, but if I wanted to cite a Polish source for an article, and wanted to provide a |quote= in the {{
citation}}
: Empty citation (
help), am I permitted to make the translate into English myself, or must I put the quote in the original Polish for people to put into Google Translate themselves if they want to? Do I put both, with a warning that it's my own translation? Google Translate is OK sometimes, but my Polish is rather better. Of course, one then has to trust that my translation is accurate—hence the question.
Iloveandrea (
talk)
17:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I have reviewed and approved your Cross of Gold speech DYK nomination however you might like to respond to the point I raise there about citations in the article. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Seasonal greetings and much happiness for 2012! | |
(This historic image shows Brian, on the right, requesting a peer review from Malleus Fatuorum, on the left. The spirit of SandyGeorgia hovers between them.) Brianboulton ( talk) 15:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC) |
(I hope this won't get me blocked)
Happy Holidays | ||
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 17:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC) |
Is the Milhist tag for his (nearly nonexistent) Civil War service or something else? I think we don't tag for that, but I'll ask to make sure. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for the short notice for this meetup, but let's discuss when, where & what for DC Meetup #17. Also, if you haven't yet, please join wikimedia-dc mailing list to stay informed. Cheers, User:Aude ( talk)
Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude
The next DC Wikimedia meetup is scheduled for Saturday, May 7, 3:30-5:30 pm at the Tenleytown Library (adjacent to the Tenleytown Metro Station, Red Line), followed by dinner & socializing at some nearby place.
This is the first official meeting of our proposed Wikimedia DC chapter, with discussion of bylaws and next steps. Other agenda items include, update everyone on our successful Wikimania bid and next steps in the planning process, discuss upcoming activities that we want to do over the summer and fall, and more.
Please RSVP here and see a list of additional tentatively planned meetups & activities for late May & June on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC page.
Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude
You did it again! | |
Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making Canoe River train crash a Featured Article! Thank you; your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) |
Notice I didn't say Director. You have my support all the way. What I'm seeing at WT:FAC is downright scary. PumpkinSky talk 02:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I've been through Cross of Gold speech and in the process have noticed two (or three) missing citations. I've started stubs for them in the bibliography, but more details need to be added.
Lange and Taxay are used as refs and are in the footnotes, but they are not fully defined. Hardine is also undefined, but most likely is just a typo for Harpine. "Hardine" is in the prose twice, too; I stubbed "Hardine", but the stub should be cut if this is in fact just a typo. I almost assumed on this, but since I was going to alert you to the others, I figure it best to just ask re all. Oh, you may want to bookmark this, which I used. Nice article; good read. Alarbus ( talk) 10:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
<ref name="Sereney 1995 p=41">{{harvnb|Sereny|1995|p=645}}.</ref>
{{sfn|Sereny|1995|p=645}}
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 • 00:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
On 20 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cross of Gold speech, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that although William Jennings Bryan delivered the Cross of Gold speech at the 1896 Democratic National Convention, he was not even a delegate when the convention started? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cross of Gold speech.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 14:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC) 16:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Season's greetings! | |
I hope the holiday season is relaxing and fulfilling, and that 2012 will be fruitful for you. -- John ( talk) 00:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC) |
Happy Holidays! | |
Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season! Keep up the great work you are doing here – you are one of the few who can take on a big-picture topic and turn it into a legitimate and interesting FA. Your friend, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC) |
Season's greetings and best wishes for 2012! | |
Thanks for all you do here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC) |
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 13:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
As a professional writer myself, I couldn't help noticing that none of the sentences on the Kruschev page began with "and," "but," or "so" unless they were part of a direct quote. First-rate writers, and the professional editors who edit their work, use them as sentence starters between 10-20% of the time. But when I added one to the page, it was removed. In the first instance because of a desire to "minimize" the use of "but" as a sentence starter, and the second because it "sounded better" to stick with "however." If there's an unspoken rule to avoid them, let me know. But I gather from the MoS that we're to use reputable grammar guides in making changes, and I can't find one that endorses "however" over "but" (except for my daughter's second-grade teacher). Rule 56 ( talk) 19:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually it's quite common, and not at all new-fangled. Take this section from the U.S. Constitution:
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
Three sentences; two of them begin with "and" and "but." Rule 56 ( talk) 20:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
"(rephrase "but". Do I get Summary Judgment or should I file an affidavit?)" Well, I appreciate your flexibility. But that rephrasing was an awful lot of gymnastics just to avoid beginning a sentence with "but." Be bold. It really is okay. And it'll make your writing much more lucid, concise, and readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rule 56 ( talk • contribs) 23:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Ian, three of the best commonwealth writers of all time began sentences with conjunctions: Chaucer, Churchill, and Shakespeare. And they did so frequently. My suspicion is that if you looked for authority to support your position, you'd come up empty. The idea that you can't is superstition--no matter what side of the pond you live on. Best, Rule 56 ( talk) 00:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
"Everyone has their own style of writing." True enough. So if it's a matter of preference, that's fine. I'll take my ball and go home. But if it's this hobgoblin that conjunctions just don't serve as sentence starters, I'd like to clear that up. But we can do it another day. Best, Rule 56 ( talk) 00:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Article at peer review, with a Hobart connection. Maybe you'd like to look it over? Brianboulton ( talk) 23:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Shield obverse.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 11:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Shieldwithrays.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 11:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a note to let the main editors of Peace dollar know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 28, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 28, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 ( talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:
The Peace dollar is a United States dollar coin minted from 1921 to 1928, and again in 1934 and 1935. Designed by Anthony de Francisci, the coin resulted from a competition seeking designs emblematic of peace, and its reverse depicts an eagle at rest clutching an olive branch, with the legend "PEACE". It was the last United States silver dollar to be struck for circulation. With the passage of the Pittman Act in 1918, the United States Mint was required to strike millions of silver dollars, and began doing so in 1921 using the Morgan dollar design. Numismatists began urging the Mint to issue a coin evoking peace; although they failed to get Congress to pass a bill requiring the redesign, they were able to persuade government officials to take action. The Peace dollar was approved in December 1921, completing the redesign of United States coinage which had begun in 1907. The public believed the announced design, which included a broken sword, was illustrative of defeat, and the Mint hastily acted to remove the sword from the design. The Peace dollar was first struck on December 28, 1921; just over a million were coined bearing a 1921 date. When the Pittman Act requirements were met in 1928, the Mint ceased to strike the dollars. ( more...)
UcuchaBot ( talk) 23:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I cannot accept that it is correct to contradict the MP TFA extract by using an image that, according to the extract, should not exist. Either use an image of the coin from within the dates described, or edit the blurb to mention the 1964 issue. The current state of affairs is simply misleading the reader, which is not how a reliable encyclopaedic project attracts readers to its article.
Kevin McE (
talk)
13:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The Peace dollar is a United States dollar coin minted from 1921 to 1928, and again in 1934 and 1935. Designed by Anthony de Francisci, the coin resulted from a competition seeking designs emblematic of peace, and its reverse depicts an eagle at rest clutching an olive branch, with the legend "PEACE". It was the last United States silver dollar to be struck for circulation. With the passage of the Pittman Act in 1918, the United States Mint was required to strike millions of silver dollars, and began doing so in 1921 using the Morgan dollar design. Numismatists began urging the Mint to issue a coin evoking peace; although they failed to get Congress to pass a bill requiring the redesign, they were able to persuade government officials to take action. The Peace dollar was approved in December 1921. The public believed the announced design, which included a broken sword, was illustrative of defeat, and the Mint hastily acted to remove the sword from the design. The Peace dollar was first struck on December 28, 1921; just over a million were coined bearing a 1921 date. When the Pittman Act requirements were met in 1928, the Mint ceased to strike the dollars. In 1965, the Mint struck over 300,000 Peace dollars bearing a 1964 date; these were never issued and are believed to have been melted.( more...)
The Politics Barnstar | |
For your work on political articles, I hereby award you this barnstar! :) ♫GoP♫ T C N 16:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hi. My name is Jivesh. One month ago, I contacted Sandy to ask her for some very good copy-editors. Some of her friends suggested you to me. I would be very grateful if you could copy-edit " Best Thing I Never Had" before I take it to FAC? A random question, Are you good at paraphrasing big quotes (four lines or less)? Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 12:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Happy holidays, and happy new year!
Just checking on FDS: Are all of the new changes ok with you? She has, for example, put the names of the songs in the list of songs into quotes, which is not standard musicals project format. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, done. What do you think about the Ovation Awards (including nominations). Are they helpful, or really too trivial? I can see using them for a show that never when to Broadway, but once the show was up for the Tonys, it seems to me that the Ovations are superseded. What do you think? Also, what do you think about Theatreworld Award? I'm not sure about that either way. Finally, I think the Tonys should go first for each production rather than alphabetically. Do you agree? Can you think about that and ping me on my talk page when you come to a conclusion? Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
If you can spare time and find the inclination, I have Charles Villiers Stanford up for peer review. His music won't have come your way, I imagine, but he was an interesting character, and I found him fun to write about. Any comments will be gratefully received, as always, though I'd quite understand if you preferred to sit this one out. Tim riley ( talk) 15:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
My FAC for HMS New Zealand needs non-Ships/MilHist reviewers. Your comments would be most welcome if you have time to spare.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 05:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. EdwardsBot ( talk) 01:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt, I haven't seen any action on the review in a while. I asked Dana boomer to have a look at it. I hope that's OK with you. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 04:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for suggesting someone who I can seek help from. I don't really need help with the material as I'm well versed on the subject of venomous snakes. It's the prose. My writing style is off. I was never good at English composition classes, not in high school or college. Bastian ( talk) 17:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, I want you to take a look at Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. A difficulty is that the article is based on Russian-language sources and concepts, many of which are used only in Russian psychiatry, and can easily cause conflicts between editors. I’am afraid of the conflicts, but I have a lot of Russian-language books on the psychiatry, and I’ll be able to explain some questions if you will ask me to help you. On the other hand, you can format the article in every way you want to. Happy New Year. -- Psychiatrick ( talk) 02:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
At this diff you sighed as you removed your own comment. This worried me as it seemed to indicate you could have felt that discussion couldn't be productive in any way? Fifelfoo ( talk) 13:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Wehwalt. I've noticed an issue with Nikita Khrushchev that I'm stuck on. In this version (and for some time) there are duplicate named refs and this is causing incorrect footnoting. Specifically, there is (in #Kaganovich protégé) this:
<ref name="struggle">{{Harvnb|Tompson|1995|pp=31–32}}.</ref>
which is soon followed by
<ref name="struggle" />
which would seem fairly typical. However somewhat later in the article there is (in #Struggle for control) this:
<ref name="struggle">{{Harvnb|Taubman|2003|p=259}}.</ref>
and that too is followed by a
<ref name="struggle" />
The footnotes generated are incorrect and I really don't know which way to fix this. They are all being collated together as "Tompson 1995, pp. 31–32." ( here) and none appear as "Taubman 2003, p. 259." For the third this is assuredly not what is intended. It seems likely that the two "/" are intended to refer to the explicit ones immediately proceeding them, but that would be guessing... This is certainly some sort of inadvertent copy-paste and general name issue. This is inevitable with any manual collating system which is why I favour leaving it to automatic methods. I'm asking you because I see that you've edited it quite a lot and may-well have the sources. Also, there are several missing/typo sources that I've tagged with [citation not found]. Help appreciated. Alarbus ( talk) 07:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
<ref name="Alarbus2011p123-124">
/{{
harvnb}}s. I've seen worse cases where <ref name"sample" />
just gets copied around resulting in refs that may refer to the right work, but some completely wrong page. Not saying in Nikta K., but the named-ref system is very error prone.<ref>{{Harvnb|Khrushchev|2001|p=334}}.</ref>
when {{sfn|Khrushchev|2001|p=334}}
is available; same thing, more succinct and more flexible.
Alarbus (
talk)
11:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)And I agree with you on the gridlock of this place; I see the citevar restriction as more stopping arguments than anything else. That being said, it might be wise to move this discussion to the NK talk page in case other editors who take an interest in the article, such as User:BorisG are unaware of it. As this is more a working user talk page than a social one, it is not widely watchlisted. It's the part of the backstage where people are pushing amps and other heavy objects around, the dressing room is someplace else. :) -- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
"Howdy". What I zoo I'm glossing over. As I said, it's about hostility; incivility is just one means to that end.
Anyway, hope you hade a happy new year; I did. I appreciate that you saw nothing objectionable in Nikita; more articles need this sort of attention and I'll do Bryan next. I nosed about some of the other pages you've worked on and see a few links that I can make work properly. I'll do light work on those over this week and touch base if I get stuck on anything.
I work on a pretty wide range of articles. I've focused one navboxes a lot and this gets me looking at many things. I've built a lot of websites, so I've a pragmatic view of 'content'. It's a client responsibility, an input to be output in proper form.
Alarbus is a character from Titus Andronicus. Because I edited some stuff related to Shakespeare, I ran into the whole authorship “question”. I see it mostly as real-world idiots out to sell mass market books. And it has become damaging to articles here. I walked away form that mess, but it does need people with more weight involved. I'd appreciate it if you could keep an eye on some of that; there's a prior arbitration case about it and I believe the gist of it is that disruptive editors may be ejected with ease (which I see as needful). Alarbus ( talk) 08:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Yikes. I have 1500+ pages watchlisted (mostly articles, but some user pages). I'm of the opinion that every article I start - I'm responsible for and should watchlist. Doesn't always mean I catch all vandalism but it does catch the majority. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I have Samuel Colt at FAC and you seem to have a better knack at historical bios than I do. Does it seem like I am missing anything? Too many of the "gun inventor" articles get hung up on all the models while leaving out other parts of their lives. Thanks in advance.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, where did that proposal get to? Johnbod ( talk) 22:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Following up that comment at WT:FAC, I thought you might be the right person to ask about the best way to source a photograph of a medal if I fail to get permission to photograph any existing ones in London. The medal is the Honorary Gold Medal of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, and it has been awarded about 40 or so times since 1802 (actually, the first award was in 1822). One of the awards went to a surgeon called Robert Fletcher and his medal ended up in the US National Library of Medicine (others got melted down!). I can't find a picture of it online, but was wondering if it being in the USA and all that means it might be easier to get a freely licensed picture, or what the best way is to approach museums and archives about photographing items in their collections? Carcharoth ( talk) 03:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
hello,
User:Jimfbleak copedited the article, the article is now in the article namespace. He himself stated he is not a very good copeditor. In case you are not busy, can you re-check the prose and copyedit parts if needed? Thanks. ♫GoP♫ T C N 17:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for starting your peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Wilson desk/archive1 I have sent an e-mail to the curator of the Senate to find more information the beginnings of the desk, and one of the assistants will be getting back to me next week. I'm just wondering when you might be finishing your review? In just the few comments you have posted you have brought up alot of good points and I look forward to hearing the rest of your comments and ideas.-- Found5dollar ( talk) 19:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not following too closely, but I saw your wikibreak tag ... I hope everything's going okay with you. I'd love for us to put a bit more effort together into Time, Inc. v. Hill at some point soon, when you've got a chance, could be a fun project to polish up a bit more? — Cirt ( talk) 23:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
This edit summary really makes me not want to do anything but stay out of things. And it makes me think you're running some sort of coy 19th century " front porch campaign". If you really want serious discussion - suggest everyone start discussing and not making snippy remarks. I actually favor some sort of confirmation vote - but the actions of folks agitating for it are making me rethink my opinion. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I've moved a portion of our discussion to the talk, as is recommended if the page is getting long and the points have been dealt with. If they are not are dealt with, feel free to undo the edits, but I noted that you didn't refer to them so I thought this would be OK. In the mean time, I'll respond to the new points. Thanks, Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 17:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Wehwalt. It's Camryn, again. I still haven't responded to that post that was probably a year ago, but better late than never. It probably won't go to the top of the list of your priorities, but i was just hoping that we could close down the CamrynRocks! account so that I can ge in line with Wikipedia rules. Thank you so much! Mountain Girl 77 ( talk) 03:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=Wehwalt&year=2012&month=1 – Why? The trial ended. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 15:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
This is not a game. Recuse yourself, please. Publicly. So FAC can get on with what it does. -- Moni3 ( talk) 16:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
... for having started the work on BTINH. Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 17:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Your attention is requested here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Reshoot_of_Yogo_sapphires. PumpkinSky talk 23:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar much appreciated, especially since the rest of the team that brought Elvis to FAC has stepped away.
And speaking of FAC... I don't understand everything that's going on (e.g., what is this months-long "attack on FAC" Sandy keeps talking about?), but I do believe strongly in democracy, however messy, and I support your efforts to change the process, and the culture. DocKino ( talk) 00:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if you saw it (I just did), but in August someone at the Resource Center offered to go to the Diefenbaker center in Saskatoon for you. Not sure if you still need any info. TCO ( Reviews needed) 20:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I read this in The Independent today:-
A one-cent coin from the earliest days of the US mint has sold for a record $1.38 million at a Florida auction. The coin was minted in 1793, the first year the US made its own coins. The price is believed to be the highest ever for a US copper coin sold at auction. The unnamed buyer was said to be a "major collector".
Hmmmm. Brianboulton ( talk) 00:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Wehwalt, do you know what the email address for OTRS is? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
...what with the gallimaufry on the FAC talkpage, and your current reviewing output, and your impending involvement in debaucheries, but could you spare a few minutes to look at Martha Layne Collins, by User:Acdixon, now at FAC? It was archived a few weeks back having received no substantive comments; it's back again now, with the much same indifference. I've left a few comments by way of encouragement, but it would be good if the heavyweight politicos showed an interest. Yes, I know Collins is a Democrat, but I have reviewed Nixon, Hobart, Hanna etc and I'm an unreconstructed leftie. The article has a target TFA date of 8 March. Dixon is dedicated to fighting the idea that all Kentuckians are barefoot, toothless, and pregnant, which is surely an endeavour worth endorsing unless of course it happens to be true. Brianboulton ( talk) 17:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hiya. Just two quick ones; is Freudenberg 2008 a typo for Freudenberg 2009? (#44 & #56) and is Kelly 1975 really Kelly 1995? (#99) (in oldid). I fixed some other busted links; Oates was funny. Alarbus ( talk) 06:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Round_2_of_reshoot for new ones. These are much better if I can say so myself. Input appreciated. PumpkinSky talk 01:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
This look interesting. First fix. Alarbus ( talk) 02:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't know what happened here, but it appears to be a "midnight" move when no one was watching. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 06:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
Hi. Can you p[ease explain this to me? Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 04:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I reviewed an article ( 2011 Virginia earthquake) for GA status, made my recommendations known on the review page, no changes were made in the 48 hour window (actually it was more like 96 cause I forgot), so I failed the review and removed it from the GAN page. Unfortunately, the bot added it right back to the GAN page just two minutes later. Well, over the course of the past couple days, a user made all the changes for that I recommended and I told him to put it back through at GAN. Problem is, it has been there (again) since the bot readded it back on January 7. What do I do? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that the post is here if you want to comment. Take Care... Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I have put Stanford up for FAC. If you are disposed to look in and comment I shall be most grateful. – Tim riley ( talk) 17:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I saw the Holloway stuff. I'm in the midst of another Arbcom case, and its doing nothing but reinforcing my opinion that Arbcom misses the fundamental points of most cases that come before it.— Kww( talk) 20:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if you noticed the quote marks I added to the lead. I am not so sure what I did was right given the Gettysburg Address, but the edit summary is clear as to why I did what I did.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Please strike Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Workshop#John_continues_to_adhere_to_his_position per John's statement [5] Nobody Ent 22:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I've pretty much finished with the cites on Speer. Thanks for catching the loose "<". I mis-selected text, I expect. I've a couple of notes: The Museen der Stadt Nürnberg link redirects to a generic page and a search on Zeppelinfeld yielded nothing. And the three cites to Durth & Gutschow 1988 should have page numbers. I didn't tag them. I touched Nikita and a few others; you'll have seen them. DrKiernan reverted but he also called me uncivil for asking Gadget to chime it. I was rather surprised at all that. Alarbus ( talk) 23:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
First they came… for Fegelein … and I've mentioned Speer as an example of a trivia-free article. Alarbus ( talk) 04:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Not doubting it. fn#4 says Self 2010, pp. 2–3. This may be an omitted source but is more likely either Self 2006 or Smart 2010. Meanwhile, other bits... Alarbus ( talk) 04:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Yes I have seen this. Do you think that this should have implication on the Hermann Fegelein article? I don't think so. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 08:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
On John Diefenbaker there are still about a dozen footnotes that should be taken further. About half are {cite web}s and I'll move them to the end of the bibliography (which possibly should be Sources or have an Online label). This is ordinary stuff. The others are the explanatory notes that are still in the Citations block. I see these as out of place. See Adolph Hitler, here and here. As you must know, refs can not much be nested. I see explanatory notes and footnotes as much the same thing. In a robustly developed and structured article there will likely be a bunch of both (more footnotes in most cases). There will also be a bibliography/sources list. I think that the explanatory notes and footnotes should follow the same look and both link to the bib/src further down. Some articles are intent on using footnotes in the explanatory notes instead of the same method as the footnotes use [Author Year, p. 123.]; this effectively precludes segregating the explanatory notes in their own block as the footnotes require that the note be inline to not be nested. But the prose is clearer if the notes are off in a lower section (much more important with hundreds of citation that make prose unreadable). I see the inline clutter as a huge deterrent to editing as you have a sentence and then a big discontinuity in the text for a citation. lather rinse repeat. Further, I think this results in an incentive to limit the detail and structure of citations; most evident as a clinging to plaintext refs that are terse and short on detail.
On Dief, citations/notes #28, #75 and #133 are awkward as they have more than one link to a source. I can restructure them, but the resulting notes may need tweaks to read easily and to clarify just what parts of the note are associated with which source.
Thanks for the Trusted user, Alarbus ( talk) 05:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I gave you a response, not sure what you want me to do, cause I don't want to divulge the emails online. WP:FAC#New York State Route 319. Mitch32( Never support those who think in the box) 23:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
See Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Latest_pear_and_purple_photos. Hope you think they're better, and just in time for the Great Wiki Blackout of jan 2012! PumpkinSky talk 01:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
SarahStierch ( talk) 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I've finished making initial responses on your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Martha Layne Collins/archive2. Some will require further discussion, but I think most can be struck now. Thanks for a very thorough review. Hopefully, we can wrap up the loose ends soon. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 16:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
-- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 00:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Wehwaklt, the Pope John Paul II article is currently on peer review, if you are interested in participating -- Marek. 69 talk 02:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Because out of 10 million users, you are in the top 5. You are huge. You are undersung. You are the model of what a Wikipedian should be. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 12:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC) |
I noticed this. Great book, isn't it? -- John ( talk) 23:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like to add a photo to an existing article. The photo is from a music website. I e-mailed the owners of the website to ask permission to use one of their photos for Wikipedia and they said that I could but just be sure to give them credit for the photo. My question is how do you get the photo from their website onto Wikipedia? Aesopposea ( talk) 01:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Someone has attempted to reformat all of the references. I have seen this type of formatting before, and I think it's a bad idea. It makes it impossible for anyone except a very experienced editor to work with the text and refs, and even for many experienced editors, I think it is very difficult to work with; certainly it would make it harder for me to help maintain the article. I have reverted and opened a discussion on the talk page. Would you kindly weigh in either way? All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Now at peer review if you are in reviewing mode (when you're ready) Brianboulton ( talk) 21:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Wehwalt. Hope you still remember me. :) How are have you been lately? Do you know someone who does spotchecks? Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 10:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey! I'm new to Wikipedia and need a LOT of help with my editing. i LOVE writing and am working on publishing books now. i would like it a lot if u would respond and adopt me :)
Thanks, Sorceress150 ( talk) 15:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh my gosh!!! I"m not having a good day because of you. I accidentally fell down the stairs because you stressed me out. IMDB doesn't have answers for any of my questions involving the movie called Dead At 17. If you never saw Dead At 17, then why did you reply to my article on Entertainment Reference Desk? Have you seen Dead At 17? Have you seen Monk Season 3 Episode 1? The plot summary for Monk Season 3 Episode 1 doesn't give enough details.( 76.20.90.53 ( talk) 07:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)).
My email address's ralphaelturtle@yahoo.com If we use email to contact each other, then it'll be easier for me to communicate with you. What's your email address?( 76.20.90.53 ( talk) 04:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)).
See here. In that old version of the page, that source is referred to three times. In the next version, it's used only twice and the other footnote leads to this. This is about multiple definitions of a named reference. The source Commission votes for U.S. flag on 2010 1¢ was present in the wiki-text all along but was not being displayed to readers due to MediaWiki taking only the first definition of the named-ref. I fixed this by renaming them (<ref name="ccac">, do check; I'm quite sure the date on issue 2565 should be June 8, 2009, not May 18, 2009; more copy-paste-oops). *This* is the sort of thing that a process the purports to review for 'best' status should catch, but quite obviously does not. Anyway, I'm going further, so please don't jump right in and edit conflict me. Alarbus ( talk) 11:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Me again, importuning as usual. I have Barbirolli up for FAC if you have time and disposition to look in. Tim riley ( talk) 17:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a note to let the main editors of Liberty Head nickel know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 31, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 31, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 ( talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:
The Liberty Head nickel was an American five-cent piece. It was struck for circulation from 1883 until 1912, with at least five pieces being surreptitiously struck dated 1913. The original copper–nickel five-cent piece, the Shield nickel, had longstanding production problems, and in the early 1880s, the United States Mint was looking to replace it. Mint Chief Engraver Charles Barber was instructed to prepare designs for proposed one-, three-, and five-cent pieces, which were to bear similar designs. Only the new five-cent piece was approved, and went into production in 1883. For almost thirty years large quantities of coin of this design were produced to meet commercial demand, especially as coin-operated machines became increasingly popular. Beginning in 1911, the Mint began work to replace the Liberty head design, and a new design, which became known as the Buffalo nickel, went into production in February 1913. Although no 1913 Liberty head nickels were officially struck, five are known to exist. While it is uncertain how these pieces originated, they have come to be among the most expensive coins in the world, with one selling in 2010 for $3,737,500. ( more...)
UcuchaBot ( talk) 23:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt, I appreciated your comments at this Help Desk thread. I have followed up with a tmbox on my user talk page and I wonder if you have any thoughts about its appropriateness for a template. Thanks, EdChem ( talk) 04:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
1. Have you seen the movie called Accused At 17?
2. Did you also see Monk Season 3 Episode 1?
3. Why are you refusing to answer my questions about particular movies & tv shows?( 76.20.90.53 ( talk) 18:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)).
*****************The Beyoncé Knowles WikiProject Thanks You***************** | ||
I, Jivesh, thank you wholeheartedly for your much appreciated help and copy-edits on " Halo", which is now an FA. Your kind and encouraging words helped me even more (morally). May God bless both you and the day I came across a kind and helpful person like you on Wikipedia. |
Good grief. It's the freaking Sanchez legacy text fiasco all over again. I'll let you know once I get things straightened out which likely won't be for a while. Thanks for getting things started though. By the way, the story you mentioned at PR was about Jim Ringo. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
This may not bother you, but: "At least TCO has the excuse of stupidity, Wehawat is a darker horse, willing to used the mentally unstable to get his end." ( [6]) The guy can't spell, particularly user names, if his life depended on it, but I'm assuming he means you. The sentence is part of a broader, almost surreal conversation.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 05:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Wehwalt, thanks so much for your interest, but please see my comments at the "Jewish adage" section you've been helping me with. I'm starting to get a bad feeling I've led you on a wild goose chase, and it may be a more contemporary secular quote that was used in part of a discussion about a Jewish prayer, rather than part of the prayer itself. I've been continuing to play with googling various word combinations, and I might have a bit of a lead (possibly Durkheim? Although I haven't yet found the quote, the name sounds kind of right, and from reading our article on him, it seems to be something he might have said.) Please don't go to any more trouble (unless, of course, you're enjoying the chase), I'd hate to think I'm causing you needless work. I'll let you know if I find anything. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 14:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt, if you have some free time during the next few days, could you have a look at List of Ohio class submarines? I'm in no big rush at the moment. Any contributions to the article's ACR will be greatly welcomed and appreciated; if not, well thanks anyway for taking your time to read this request :) -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 03:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Wehwalt, can you explain how you can overlook clearly sexist remarks such as these Lecen made on Alarbus' page, [7], and yet feel the need to chastise Ceoil over a different set of comments. This shows a serious pattern of impartiality and moreover that as an admin, you don't see that the comments against Sandy were very problematic, makes me wonder. You do realize don't you, that Alarbus, who I did not know in his previous wiki incarnation, started all of this with me, drew you and Lecen in b/c of some dispute somebody had a long time ago and that no one even cares about, and now it's just all over the place. I think you should disengage. Seriously. Truthkeeper ( talk) 13:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Let me jump in here, because I like being unpopular, just to say that Wehwalt is not the reason for the upheaval of all this: Lecen's block, Ceoil's block, Truthkeeper's retirement, and the general atmosphere of WTF? that has me staying away because I think all of you are crazy. If anyone thinks one person is at fault for this...whoever thinks it is simple-minded. I'm doing my best not to make it worse, by staying the hell away from as much as I can. It's still not enough for some. All I can think of here is the reason for the title of the film Do the Right Thing: no one in the film did. No one here is either. But srs...stop blaming it on one person. -- Moni3 ( talk) 21:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I see you said above that "you're tired of this", with more or less a plea to "just all get along", but then I see that you seem to continue the whole matter here (on your talk) and elsewhere, with what appears to be a reference to this. If you really want to "approach courtesy" and "try not to diminish each other", I join in the requests for you to start right here on your talk page with that, right now, but also to extend your wish to try not to diminish each other to your posts elsewhere. I know you can do it :) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Anyone able to see what got borked in William the Conqueror? The list of interwiki links is broken - and I know I didn't do anything to it... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought you would like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3X25sFcSBxU#! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Because you recently contacted the Wikimedia Foundation about funding resources, I wanted to invite you to help us create a list of the kinds of resources Wikimedians might need. This is to help generate ideas towards the development of guiding principles for funds allocation in the Movement. More explanation is given here. Your participation there, and that of any others you may know who have sought or considered seeking resource funding, would be much appreciated. -- Maggie Dennis (WMF) ( talk) 12:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
re: this post. I exchanged a couple emails with him both last night, and again this morning. He's feeling very unwanted and quite down; although he's an adult - and dealing with it well. I have no idea if he'd be interested in returning, but hopefully he'll stay in touch. If he is still reading through things, then I'd hope he'd feel somewhat encouraged by the AN thread though. — Ched : ? 18:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I've just finished up James G. Blaine, so I'm ready to press on right away. I wasn't sure if the brouhaha at FAC was putting you behind schedule, but if not, let's go. I was thinking of an "Early life and family" section, followed by a "Civil War" section, both of which I'd like to work on. Where we go from there and what sections you'd like, I don't know.
I finished the Phillips book (very good as analysis [better than most in that series], weak as chronological biography) and started Major McKinley by William H. Armstrong, which details his Civil War years. Armstrong's not a professional historian (he's a minister who has published several history books), but two other McKinley biographers (Morgan and Gould) praised his work. I have the Leech book here and would like to lay my hands on Morgan's revised 2004 edition when I can, but it's not cheap and my local library doesn't have it. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 19:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
At ANI, my talk, Maryana's talk (where I quoted you). Alarbus ( talk) 00:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC) watching
I just left this on the talks of Salvio and Manning, neither of whom seem to be editing at the moment. I really don't see why Ceoil's not been indef'd; if there's a reason, this isn't it. Alarbus ( talk) 05:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC) NB: Failed cough → Failed coup d'état.
Hey. I got a lot done on Lecen's articles on Brazilian topics. His block is up in a few days and I'm going to talk that banner off his page. Next would be to help him take another article to FAC and maybe talk of a Brazilian Featured Topic for the ones already done. Given that some involved in FA have now serious interaction issues with Lecen, I believe it needful to establish a mechanism for recusal. There has been much talk of needing more reviewers, so possibly some of “them”. I also think you would be appropriate, and hope Brianboulton would offer a review and assistance. The goal, of course, being to develop more content about a topic area that has relatively little coverage on the project.
I'm going to peek at Landis, next, but if you'd like me to focus on another coin, I'm game. The train crash looked interesting; still reading. Alarbus ( talk) 04:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I expect the notion of week-long-blocks for WP:BATTLE is what's emerging from the WP:CIV enforcement case. I expect to see more of them, with bumps of the unit for the chronic cases. Alarbus ( talk) 04:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt and Alarbus!
You may open up an RfC or ArbCom case if you wish to continue discussing other editors. Your talk page is not an appropriate place for carrying on these negative comments about other editors.
Sincerely, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 19:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt, thanks for your answer to my prose question on the reference desk tonight/this morning. The article that I was asking about has just been nominated at FAC. I'd love if you could give it a review if you have time/interest. Understandable if you're busy though. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 10:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Per the recent peer review, I have now nominated at FAC. With regard to that Italian line you asked about, Nikkimaria has kindly provided a rough translation on my talkpage, but I won't adopt it into the article until it has some formal authority; I don't think it's a particularly significant point. Brianboulton ( talk) 12:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
For your thorough review and comments at the FAC of Nyon Conference, which has now been promoted. Thanks! Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 19:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC) |
Hi there, just to let you know that I'm putting together a proposal at User:SalopianJames/Sandbox/FAC-B proposal that I thought you might find interesting, and I'd appreciate your feedback on it. Thanks, SalopianJames ( talk) 13:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Reaper Eternal ( talk) 13:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Given the above, the eight citations of this journal should now be focused-in on more specific pages than pp=501–503, 541–542. Assuming one has the source. All for the moment… Alarbus ( talk) 09:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Replied. Good luck working with that uncivil so-and-so. - Sitush ( talk) 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm most of the way through the old cites. I happened to notice this:
See the dates. Isn't the idea that more eyes will help spot such things? None of it is really about articles; it's about power and exercising it. I've looked at the link; it's still there, so I'll update the access date in a bit. Alarbus ( talk) 08:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you want to use that feature where the note has a hyperlink to the citation? The article's set up that way now, but I've found it's more trouble than it's worth, especially when a new editor tries to add something later and has trouble figuring out the coding. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 17:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Wehwalt--I spoke to you on live chat help the other day about my article under review: Jim McKelvey. Good news! It was approved. However, the photo I had uploaded isn't appearing. If I "edit" to add another, will I need to resubmit the article for review or is that just considered a minor edit and can be done at any time without disrupting the ability to search for it? Thanks for your time! Osumggrad ( talk) 10:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I guess you haven't noticed, but I've started the review at Talk:Cross of Gold speech/GA1-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I have created something of a proposal here that has to do with revitalizing WP History. I am wondering if you have any ideas about this. DCI talk 23:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Template:Editnotices/Page/John Diefenbaker has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. LikeLakers2 ( talk | Sign my guestbook!) 18:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I have reviewed and approved your Cross of Gold speech DYK nomination however you might like to respond to the point I raise there about citations in the article. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Seasonal greetings and much happiness for 2012! | |
(This historic image shows Brian, on the right, requesting a peer review from Malleus Fatuorum, on the left. The spirit of SandyGeorgia hovers between them.) Brianboulton ( talk) 15:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC) |
(I hope this won't get me blocked)
Hey! Sorry to bother you with another silly question, but if I wanted to cite a Polish source for an article, and wanted to provide a |quote= in the {{
citation}}
: Empty citation (
help), am I permitted to make the translate into English myself, or must I put the quote in the original Polish for people to put into Google Translate themselves if they want to? Do I put both, with a warning that it's my own translation? Google Translate is OK sometimes, but my Polish is rather better. Of course, one then has to trust that my translation is accurate—hence the question.
Iloveandrea (
talk)
17:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I have reviewed and approved your Cross of Gold speech DYK nomination however you might like to respond to the point I raise there about citations in the article. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Seasonal greetings and much happiness for 2012! | |
(This historic image shows Brian, on the right, requesting a peer review from Malleus Fatuorum, on the left. The spirit of SandyGeorgia hovers between them.) Brianboulton ( talk) 15:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC) |
(I hope this won't get me blocked)
Happy Holidays | ||
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 17:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC) |
Is the Milhist tag for his (nearly nonexistent) Civil War service or something else? I think we don't tag for that, but I'll ask to make sure. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for the short notice for this meetup, but let's discuss when, where & what for DC Meetup #17. Also, if you haven't yet, please join wikimedia-dc mailing list to stay informed. Cheers, User:Aude ( talk)
Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude
The next DC Wikimedia meetup is scheduled for Saturday, May 7, 3:30-5:30 pm at the Tenleytown Library (adjacent to the Tenleytown Metro Station, Red Line), followed by dinner & socializing at some nearby place.
This is the first official meeting of our proposed Wikimedia DC chapter, with discussion of bylaws and next steps. Other agenda items include, update everyone on our successful Wikimania bid and next steps in the planning process, discuss upcoming activities that we want to do over the summer and fall, and more.
Please RSVP here and see a list of additional tentatively planned meetups & activities for late May & June on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC page.
Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude
You did it again! | |
Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making Canoe River train crash a Featured Article! Thank you; your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) |
Notice I didn't say Director. You have my support all the way. What I'm seeing at WT:FAC is downright scary. PumpkinSky talk 02:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I've been through Cross of Gold speech and in the process have noticed two (or three) missing citations. I've started stubs for them in the bibliography, but more details need to be added.
Lange and Taxay are used as refs and are in the footnotes, but they are not fully defined. Hardine is also undefined, but most likely is just a typo for Harpine. "Hardine" is in the prose twice, too; I stubbed "Hardine", but the stub should be cut if this is in fact just a typo. I almost assumed on this, but since I was going to alert you to the others, I figure it best to just ask re all. Oh, you may want to bookmark this, which I used. Nice article; good read. Alarbus ( talk) 10:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
<ref name="Sereney 1995 p=41">{{harvnb|Sereny|1995|p=645}}.</ref>
{{sfn|Sereny|1995|p=645}}
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 • 00:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
On 20 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cross of Gold speech, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that although William Jennings Bryan delivered the Cross of Gold speech at the 1896 Democratic National Convention, he was not even a delegate when the convention started? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cross of Gold speech.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 14:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC) 16:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Season's greetings! | |
I hope the holiday season is relaxing and fulfilling, and that 2012 will be fruitful for you. -- John ( talk) 00:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC) |
Happy Holidays! | |
Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season! Keep up the great work you are doing here – you are one of the few who can take on a big-picture topic and turn it into a legitimate and interesting FA. Your friend, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC) |
Season's greetings and best wishes for 2012! | |
Thanks for all you do here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC) |
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 13:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
As a professional writer myself, I couldn't help noticing that none of the sentences on the Kruschev page began with "and," "but," or "so" unless they were part of a direct quote. First-rate writers, and the professional editors who edit their work, use them as sentence starters between 10-20% of the time. But when I added one to the page, it was removed. In the first instance because of a desire to "minimize" the use of "but" as a sentence starter, and the second because it "sounded better" to stick with "however." If there's an unspoken rule to avoid them, let me know. But I gather from the MoS that we're to use reputable grammar guides in making changes, and I can't find one that endorses "however" over "but" (except for my daughter's second-grade teacher). Rule 56 ( talk) 19:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually it's quite common, and not at all new-fangled. Take this section from the U.S. Constitution:
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
Three sentences; two of them begin with "and" and "but." Rule 56 ( talk) 20:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
"(rephrase "but". Do I get Summary Judgment or should I file an affidavit?)" Well, I appreciate your flexibility. But that rephrasing was an awful lot of gymnastics just to avoid beginning a sentence with "but." Be bold. It really is okay. And it'll make your writing much more lucid, concise, and readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rule 56 ( talk • contribs) 23:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Ian, three of the best commonwealth writers of all time began sentences with conjunctions: Chaucer, Churchill, and Shakespeare. And they did so frequently. My suspicion is that if you looked for authority to support your position, you'd come up empty. The idea that you can't is superstition--no matter what side of the pond you live on. Best, Rule 56 ( talk) 00:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
"Everyone has their own style of writing." True enough. So if it's a matter of preference, that's fine. I'll take my ball and go home. But if it's this hobgoblin that conjunctions just don't serve as sentence starters, I'd like to clear that up. But we can do it another day. Best, Rule 56 ( talk) 00:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Article at peer review, with a Hobart connection. Maybe you'd like to look it over? Brianboulton ( talk) 23:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Shield obverse.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 11:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Shieldwithrays.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 11:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a note to let the main editors of Peace dollar know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 28, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 28, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 ( talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:
The Peace dollar is a United States dollar coin minted from 1921 to 1928, and again in 1934 and 1935. Designed by Anthony de Francisci, the coin resulted from a competition seeking designs emblematic of peace, and its reverse depicts an eagle at rest clutching an olive branch, with the legend "PEACE". It was the last United States silver dollar to be struck for circulation. With the passage of the Pittman Act in 1918, the United States Mint was required to strike millions of silver dollars, and began doing so in 1921 using the Morgan dollar design. Numismatists began urging the Mint to issue a coin evoking peace; although they failed to get Congress to pass a bill requiring the redesign, they were able to persuade government officials to take action. The Peace dollar was approved in December 1921, completing the redesign of United States coinage which had begun in 1907. The public believed the announced design, which included a broken sword, was illustrative of defeat, and the Mint hastily acted to remove the sword from the design. The Peace dollar was first struck on December 28, 1921; just over a million were coined bearing a 1921 date. When the Pittman Act requirements were met in 1928, the Mint ceased to strike the dollars. ( more...)
UcuchaBot ( talk) 23:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I cannot accept that it is correct to contradict the MP TFA extract by using an image that, according to the extract, should not exist. Either use an image of the coin from within the dates described, or edit the blurb to mention the 1964 issue. The current state of affairs is simply misleading the reader, which is not how a reliable encyclopaedic project attracts readers to its article.
Kevin McE (
talk)
13:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The Peace dollar is a United States dollar coin minted from 1921 to 1928, and again in 1934 and 1935. Designed by Anthony de Francisci, the coin resulted from a competition seeking designs emblematic of peace, and its reverse depicts an eagle at rest clutching an olive branch, with the legend "PEACE". It was the last United States silver dollar to be struck for circulation. With the passage of the Pittman Act in 1918, the United States Mint was required to strike millions of silver dollars, and began doing so in 1921 using the Morgan dollar design. Numismatists began urging the Mint to issue a coin evoking peace; although they failed to get Congress to pass a bill requiring the redesign, they were able to persuade government officials to take action. The Peace dollar was approved in December 1921. The public believed the announced design, which included a broken sword, was illustrative of defeat, and the Mint hastily acted to remove the sword from the design. The Peace dollar was first struck on December 28, 1921; just over a million were coined bearing a 1921 date. When the Pittman Act requirements were met in 1928, the Mint ceased to strike the dollars. In 1965, the Mint struck over 300,000 Peace dollars bearing a 1964 date; these were never issued and are believed to have been melted.( more...)
The Politics Barnstar | |
For your work on political articles, I hereby award you this barnstar! :) ♫GoP♫ T C N 16:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hi. My name is Jivesh. One month ago, I contacted Sandy to ask her for some very good copy-editors. Some of her friends suggested you to me. I would be very grateful if you could copy-edit " Best Thing I Never Had" before I take it to FAC? A random question, Are you good at paraphrasing big quotes (four lines or less)? Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 12:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Happy holidays, and happy new year!
Just checking on FDS: Are all of the new changes ok with you? She has, for example, put the names of the songs in the list of songs into quotes, which is not standard musicals project format. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, done. What do you think about the Ovation Awards (including nominations). Are they helpful, or really too trivial? I can see using them for a show that never when to Broadway, but once the show was up for the Tonys, it seems to me that the Ovations are superseded. What do you think? Also, what do you think about Theatreworld Award? I'm not sure about that either way. Finally, I think the Tonys should go first for each production rather than alphabetically. Do you agree? Can you think about that and ping me on my talk page when you come to a conclusion? Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
If you can spare time and find the inclination, I have Charles Villiers Stanford up for peer review. His music won't have come your way, I imagine, but he was an interesting character, and I found him fun to write about. Any comments will be gratefully received, as always, though I'd quite understand if you preferred to sit this one out. Tim riley ( talk) 15:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
My FAC for HMS New Zealand needs non-Ships/MilHist reviewers. Your comments would be most welcome if you have time to spare.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 05:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. EdwardsBot ( talk) 01:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt, I haven't seen any action on the review in a while. I asked Dana boomer to have a look at it. I hope that's OK with you. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 04:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for suggesting someone who I can seek help from. I don't really need help with the material as I'm well versed on the subject of venomous snakes. It's the prose. My writing style is off. I was never good at English composition classes, not in high school or college. Bastian ( talk) 17:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, I want you to take a look at Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. A difficulty is that the article is based on Russian-language sources and concepts, many of which are used only in Russian psychiatry, and can easily cause conflicts between editors. I’am afraid of the conflicts, but I have a lot of Russian-language books on the psychiatry, and I’ll be able to explain some questions if you will ask me to help you. On the other hand, you can format the article in every way you want to. Happy New Year. -- Psychiatrick ( talk) 02:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
At this diff you sighed as you removed your own comment. This worried me as it seemed to indicate you could have felt that discussion couldn't be productive in any way? Fifelfoo ( talk) 13:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Wehwalt. I've noticed an issue with Nikita Khrushchev that I'm stuck on. In this version (and for some time) there are duplicate named refs and this is causing incorrect footnoting. Specifically, there is (in #Kaganovich protégé) this:
<ref name="struggle">{{Harvnb|Tompson|1995|pp=31–32}}.</ref>
which is soon followed by
<ref name="struggle" />
which would seem fairly typical. However somewhat later in the article there is (in #Struggle for control) this:
<ref name="struggle">{{Harvnb|Taubman|2003|p=259}}.</ref>
and that too is followed by a
<ref name="struggle" />
The footnotes generated are incorrect and I really don't know which way to fix this. They are all being collated together as "Tompson 1995, pp. 31–32." ( here) and none appear as "Taubman 2003, p. 259." For the third this is assuredly not what is intended. It seems likely that the two "/" are intended to refer to the explicit ones immediately proceeding them, but that would be guessing... This is certainly some sort of inadvertent copy-paste and general name issue. This is inevitable with any manual collating system which is why I favour leaving it to automatic methods. I'm asking you because I see that you've edited it quite a lot and may-well have the sources. Also, there are several missing/typo sources that I've tagged with [citation not found]. Help appreciated. Alarbus ( talk) 07:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
<ref name="Alarbus2011p123-124">
/{{
harvnb}}s. I've seen worse cases where <ref name"sample" />
just gets copied around resulting in refs that may refer to the right work, but some completely wrong page. Not saying in Nikta K., but the named-ref system is very error prone.<ref>{{Harvnb|Khrushchev|2001|p=334}}.</ref>
when {{sfn|Khrushchev|2001|p=334}}
is available; same thing, more succinct and more flexible.
Alarbus (
talk)
11:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)And I agree with you on the gridlock of this place; I see the citevar restriction as more stopping arguments than anything else. That being said, it might be wise to move this discussion to the NK talk page in case other editors who take an interest in the article, such as User:BorisG are unaware of it. As this is more a working user talk page than a social one, it is not widely watchlisted. It's the part of the backstage where people are pushing amps and other heavy objects around, the dressing room is someplace else. :) -- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
"Howdy". What I zoo I'm glossing over. As I said, it's about hostility; incivility is just one means to that end.
Anyway, hope you hade a happy new year; I did. I appreciate that you saw nothing objectionable in Nikita; more articles need this sort of attention and I'll do Bryan next. I nosed about some of the other pages you've worked on and see a few links that I can make work properly. I'll do light work on those over this week and touch base if I get stuck on anything.
I work on a pretty wide range of articles. I've focused one navboxes a lot and this gets me looking at many things. I've built a lot of websites, so I've a pragmatic view of 'content'. It's a client responsibility, an input to be output in proper form.
Alarbus is a character from Titus Andronicus. Because I edited some stuff related to Shakespeare, I ran into the whole authorship “question”. I see it mostly as real-world idiots out to sell mass market books. And it has become damaging to articles here. I walked away form that mess, but it does need people with more weight involved. I'd appreciate it if you could keep an eye on some of that; there's a prior arbitration case about it and I believe the gist of it is that disruptive editors may be ejected with ease (which I see as needful). Alarbus ( talk) 08:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Yikes. I have 1500+ pages watchlisted (mostly articles, but some user pages). I'm of the opinion that every article I start - I'm responsible for and should watchlist. Doesn't always mean I catch all vandalism but it does catch the majority. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I have Samuel Colt at FAC and you seem to have a better knack at historical bios than I do. Does it seem like I am missing anything? Too many of the "gun inventor" articles get hung up on all the models while leaving out other parts of their lives. Thanks in advance.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, where did that proposal get to? Johnbod ( talk) 22:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Following up that comment at WT:FAC, I thought you might be the right person to ask about the best way to source a photograph of a medal if I fail to get permission to photograph any existing ones in London. The medal is the Honorary Gold Medal of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, and it has been awarded about 40 or so times since 1802 (actually, the first award was in 1822). One of the awards went to a surgeon called Robert Fletcher and his medal ended up in the US National Library of Medicine (others got melted down!). I can't find a picture of it online, but was wondering if it being in the USA and all that means it might be easier to get a freely licensed picture, or what the best way is to approach museums and archives about photographing items in their collections? Carcharoth ( talk) 03:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
hello,
User:Jimfbleak copedited the article, the article is now in the article namespace. He himself stated he is not a very good copeditor. In case you are not busy, can you re-check the prose and copyedit parts if needed? Thanks. ♫GoP♫ T C N 17:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for starting your peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Wilson desk/archive1 I have sent an e-mail to the curator of the Senate to find more information the beginnings of the desk, and one of the assistants will be getting back to me next week. I'm just wondering when you might be finishing your review? In just the few comments you have posted you have brought up alot of good points and I look forward to hearing the rest of your comments and ideas.-- Found5dollar ( talk) 19:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not following too closely, but I saw your wikibreak tag ... I hope everything's going okay with you. I'd love for us to put a bit more effort together into Time, Inc. v. Hill at some point soon, when you've got a chance, could be a fun project to polish up a bit more? — Cirt ( talk) 23:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
This edit summary really makes me not want to do anything but stay out of things. And it makes me think you're running some sort of coy 19th century " front porch campaign". If you really want serious discussion - suggest everyone start discussing and not making snippy remarks. I actually favor some sort of confirmation vote - but the actions of folks agitating for it are making me rethink my opinion. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I've moved a portion of our discussion to the talk, as is recommended if the page is getting long and the points have been dealt with. If they are not are dealt with, feel free to undo the edits, but I noted that you didn't refer to them so I thought this would be OK. In the mean time, I'll respond to the new points. Thanks, Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 17:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Wehwalt. It's Camryn, again. I still haven't responded to that post that was probably a year ago, but better late than never. It probably won't go to the top of the list of your priorities, but i was just hoping that we could close down the CamrynRocks! account so that I can ge in line with Wikipedia rules. Thank you so much! Mountain Girl 77 ( talk) 03:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=Wehwalt&year=2012&month=1 – Why? The trial ended. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 15:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
This is not a game. Recuse yourself, please. Publicly. So FAC can get on with what it does. -- Moni3 ( talk) 16:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
... for having started the work on BTINH. Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 17:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Your attention is requested here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Reshoot_of_Yogo_sapphires. PumpkinSky talk 23:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar much appreciated, especially since the rest of the team that brought Elvis to FAC has stepped away.
And speaking of FAC... I don't understand everything that's going on (e.g., what is this months-long "attack on FAC" Sandy keeps talking about?), but I do believe strongly in democracy, however messy, and I support your efforts to change the process, and the culture. DocKino ( talk) 00:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if you saw it (I just did), but in August someone at the Resource Center offered to go to the Diefenbaker center in Saskatoon for you. Not sure if you still need any info. TCO ( Reviews needed) 20:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I read this in The Independent today:-
A one-cent coin from the earliest days of the US mint has sold for a record $1.38 million at a Florida auction. The coin was minted in 1793, the first year the US made its own coins. The price is believed to be the highest ever for a US copper coin sold at auction. The unnamed buyer was said to be a "major collector".
Hmmmm. Brianboulton ( talk) 00:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Wehwalt, do you know what the email address for OTRS is? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
...what with the gallimaufry on the FAC talkpage, and your current reviewing output, and your impending involvement in debaucheries, but could you spare a few minutes to look at Martha Layne Collins, by User:Acdixon, now at FAC? It was archived a few weeks back having received no substantive comments; it's back again now, with the much same indifference. I've left a few comments by way of encouragement, but it would be good if the heavyweight politicos showed an interest. Yes, I know Collins is a Democrat, but I have reviewed Nixon, Hobart, Hanna etc and I'm an unreconstructed leftie. The article has a target TFA date of 8 March. Dixon is dedicated to fighting the idea that all Kentuckians are barefoot, toothless, and pregnant, which is surely an endeavour worth endorsing unless of course it happens to be true. Brianboulton ( talk) 17:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hiya. Just two quick ones; is Freudenberg 2008 a typo for Freudenberg 2009? (#44 & #56) and is Kelly 1975 really Kelly 1995? (#99) (in oldid). I fixed some other busted links; Oates was funny. Alarbus ( talk) 06:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Round_2_of_reshoot for new ones. These are much better if I can say so myself. Input appreciated. PumpkinSky talk 01:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
This look interesting. First fix. Alarbus ( talk) 02:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't know what happened here, but it appears to be a "midnight" move when no one was watching. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 06:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
Hi. Can you p[ease explain this to me? Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 04:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I reviewed an article ( 2011 Virginia earthquake) for GA status, made my recommendations known on the review page, no changes were made in the 48 hour window (actually it was more like 96 cause I forgot), so I failed the review and removed it from the GAN page. Unfortunately, the bot added it right back to the GAN page just two minutes later. Well, over the course of the past couple days, a user made all the changes for that I recommended and I told him to put it back through at GAN. Problem is, it has been there (again) since the bot readded it back on January 7. What do I do? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that the post is here if you want to comment. Take Care... Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I have put Stanford up for FAC. If you are disposed to look in and comment I shall be most grateful. – Tim riley ( talk) 17:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I saw the Holloway stuff. I'm in the midst of another Arbcom case, and its doing nothing but reinforcing my opinion that Arbcom misses the fundamental points of most cases that come before it.— Kww( talk) 20:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if you noticed the quote marks I added to the lead. I am not so sure what I did was right given the Gettysburg Address, but the edit summary is clear as to why I did what I did.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Please strike Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Workshop#John_continues_to_adhere_to_his_position per John's statement [5] Nobody Ent 22:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I've pretty much finished with the cites on Speer. Thanks for catching the loose "<". I mis-selected text, I expect. I've a couple of notes: The Museen der Stadt Nürnberg link redirects to a generic page and a search on Zeppelinfeld yielded nothing. And the three cites to Durth & Gutschow 1988 should have page numbers. I didn't tag them. I touched Nikita and a few others; you'll have seen them. DrKiernan reverted but he also called me uncivil for asking Gadget to chime it. I was rather surprised at all that. Alarbus ( talk) 23:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
First they came… for Fegelein … and I've mentioned Speer as an example of a trivia-free article. Alarbus ( talk) 04:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Not doubting it. fn#4 says Self 2010, pp. 2–3. This may be an omitted source but is more likely either Self 2006 or Smart 2010. Meanwhile, other bits... Alarbus ( talk) 04:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Yes I have seen this. Do you think that this should have implication on the Hermann Fegelein article? I don't think so. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 08:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
On John Diefenbaker there are still about a dozen footnotes that should be taken further. About half are {cite web}s and I'll move them to the end of the bibliography (which possibly should be Sources or have an Online label). This is ordinary stuff. The others are the explanatory notes that are still in the Citations block. I see these as out of place. See Adolph Hitler, here and here. As you must know, refs can not much be nested. I see explanatory notes and footnotes as much the same thing. In a robustly developed and structured article there will likely be a bunch of both (more footnotes in most cases). There will also be a bibliography/sources list. I think that the explanatory notes and footnotes should follow the same look and both link to the bib/src further down. Some articles are intent on using footnotes in the explanatory notes instead of the same method as the footnotes use [Author Year, p. 123.]; this effectively precludes segregating the explanatory notes in their own block as the footnotes require that the note be inline to not be nested. But the prose is clearer if the notes are off in a lower section (much more important with hundreds of citation that make prose unreadable). I see the inline clutter as a huge deterrent to editing as you have a sentence and then a big discontinuity in the text for a citation. lather rinse repeat. Further, I think this results in an incentive to limit the detail and structure of citations; most evident as a clinging to plaintext refs that are terse and short on detail.
On Dief, citations/notes #28, #75 and #133 are awkward as they have more than one link to a source. I can restructure them, but the resulting notes may need tweaks to read easily and to clarify just what parts of the note are associated with which source.
Thanks for the Trusted user, Alarbus ( talk) 05:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I gave you a response, not sure what you want me to do, cause I don't want to divulge the emails online. WP:FAC#New York State Route 319. Mitch32( Never support those who think in the box) 23:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
See Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Latest_pear_and_purple_photos. Hope you think they're better, and just in time for the Great Wiki Blackout of jan 2012! PumpkinSky talk 01:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
SarahStierch ( talk) 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I've finished making initial responses on your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Martha Layne Collins/archive2. Some will require further discussion, but I think most can be struck now. Thanks for a very thorough review. Hopefully, we can wrap up the loose ends soon. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 16:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
-- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 00:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Wehwaklt, the Pope John Paul II article is currently on peer review, if you are interested in participating -- Marek. 69 talk 02:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Because out of 10 million users, you are in the top 5. You are huge. You are undersung. You are the model of what a Wikipedian should be. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 12:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC) |
I noticed this. Great book, isn't it? -- John ( talk) 23:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like to add a photo to an existing article. The photo is from a music website. I e-mailed the owners of the website to ask permission to use one of their photos for Wikipedia and they said that I could but just be sure to give them credit for the photo. My question is how do you get the photo from their website onto Wikipedia? Aesopposea ( talk) 01:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Someone has attempted to reformat all of the references. I have seen this type of formatting before, and I think it's a bad idea. It makes it impossible for anyone except a very experienced editor to work with the text and refs, and even for many experienced editors, I think it is very difficult to work with; certainly it would make it harder for me to help maintain the article. I have reverted and opened a discussion on the talk page. Would you kindly weigh in either way? All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Now at peer review if you are in reviewing mode (when you're ready) Brianboulton ( talk) 21:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Wehwalt. Hope you still remember me. :) How are have you been lately? Do you know someone who does spotchecks? Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 10:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey! I'm new to Wikipedia and need a LOT of help with my editing. i LOVE writing and am working on publishing books now. i would like it a lot if u would respond and adopt me :)
Thanks, Sorceress150 ( talk) 15:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh my gosh!!! I"m not having a good day because of you. I accidentally fell down the stairs because you stressed me out. IMDB doesn't have answers for any of my questions involving the movie called Dead At 17. If you never saw Dead At 17, then why did you reply to my article on Entertainment Reference Desk? Have you seen Dead At 17? Have you seen Monk Season 3 Episode 1? The plot summary for Monk Season 3 Episode 1 doesn't give enough details.( 76.20.90.53 ( talk) 07:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)).
My email address's ralphaelturtle@yahoo.com If we use email to contact each other, then it'll be easier for me to communicate with you. What's your email address?( 76.20.90.53 ( talk) 04:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)).
See here. In that old version of the page, that source is referred to three times. In the next version, it's used only twice and the other footnote leads to this. This is about multiple definitions of a named reference. The source Commission votes for U.S. flag on 2010 1¢ was present in the wiki-text all along but was not being displayed to readers due to MediaWiki taking only the first definition of the named-ref. I fixed this by renaming them (<ref name="ccac">, do check; I'm quite sure the date on issue 2565 should be June 8, 2009, not May 18, 2009; more copy-paste-oops). *This* is the sort of thing that a process the purports to review for 'best' status should catch, but quite obviously does not. Anyway, I'm going further, so please don't jump right in and edit conflict me. Alarbus ( talk) 11:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Me again, importuning as usual. I have Barbirolli up for FAC if you have time and disposition to look in. Tim riley ( talk) 17:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a note to let the main editors of Liberty Head nickel know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 31, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 31, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 ( talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:
The Liberty Head nickel was an American five-cent piece. It was struck for circulation from 1883 until 1912, with at least five pieces being surreptitiously struck dated 1913. The original copper–nickel five-cent piece, the Shield nickel, had longstanding production problems, and in the early 1880s, the United States Mint was looking to replace it. Mint Chief Engraver Charles Barber was instructed to prepare designs for proposed one-, three-, and five-cent pieces, which were to bear similar designs. Only the new five-cent piece was approved, and went into production in 1883. For almost thirty years large quantities of coin of this design were produced to meet commercial demand, especially as coin-operated machines became increasingly popular. Beginning in 1911, the Mint began work to replace the Liberty head design, and a new design, which became known as the Buffalo nickel, went into production in February 1913. Although no 1913 Liberty head nickels were officially struck, five are known to exist. While it is uncertain how these pieces originated, they have come to be among the most expensive coins in the world, with one selling in 2010 for $3,737,500. ( more...)
UcuchaBot ( talk) 23:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt, I appreciated your comments at this Help Desk thread. I have followed up with a tmbox on my user talk page and I wonder if you have any thoughts about its appropriateness for a template. Thanks, EdChem ( talk) 04:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
1. Have you seen the movie called Accused At 17?
2. Did you also see Monk Season 3 Episode 1?
3. Why are you refusing to answer my questions about particular movies & tv shows?( 76.20.90.53 ( talk) 18:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)).
*****************The Beyoncé Knowles WikiProject Thanks You***************** | ||
I, Jivesh, thank you wholeheartedly for your much appreciated help and copy-edits on " Halo", which is now an FA. Your kind and encouraging words helped me even more (morally). May God bless both you and the day I came across a kind and helpful person like you on Wikipedia. |
Good grief. It's the freaking Sanchez legacy text fiasco all over again. I'll let you know once I get things straightened out which likely won't be for a while. Thanks for getting things started though. By the way, the story you mentioned at PR was about Jim Ringo. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
This may not bother you, but: "At least TCO has the excuse of stupidity, Wehawat is a darker horse, willing to used the mentally unstable to get his end." ( [6]) The guy can't spell, particularly user names, if his life depended on it, but I'm assuming he means you. The sentence is part of a broader, almost surreal conversation.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 05:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Wehwalt, thanks so much for your interest, but please see my comments at the "Jewish adage" section you've been helping me with. I'm starting to get a bad feeling I've led you on a wild goose chase, and it may be a more contemporary secular quote that was used in part of a discussion about a Jewish prayer, rather than part of the prayer itself. I've been continuing to play with googling various word combinations, and I might have a bit of a lead (possibly Durkheim? Although I haven't yet found the quote, the name sounds kind of right, and from reading our article on him, it seems to be something he might have said.) Please don't go to any more trouble (unless, of course, you're enjoying the chase), I'd hate to think I'm causing you needless work. I'll let you know if I find anything. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 14:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt, if you have some free time during the next few days, could you have a look at List of Ohio class submarines? I'm in no big rush at the moment. Any contributions to the article's ACR will be greatly welcomed and appreciated; if not, well thanks anyway for taking your time to read this request :) -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 03:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Wehwalt, can you explain how you can overlook clearly sexist remarks such as these Lecen made on Alarbus' page, [7], and yet feel the need to chastise Ceoil over a different set of comments. This shows a serious pattern of impartiality and moreover that as an admin, you don't see that the comments against Sandy were very problematic, makes me wonder. You do realize don't you, that Alarbus, who I did not know in his previous wiki incarnation, started all of this with me, drew you and Lecen in b/c of some dispute somebody had a long time ago and that no one even cares about, and now it's just all over the place. I think you should disengage. Seriously. Truthkeeper ( talk) 13:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Let me jump in here, because I like being unpopular, just to say that Wehwalt is not the reason for the upheaval of all this: Lecen's block, Ceoil's block, Truthkeeper's retirement, and the general atmosphere of WTF? that has me staying away because I think all of you are crazy. If anyone thinks one person is at fault for this...whoever thinks it is simple-minded. I'm doing my best not to make it worse, by staying the hell away from as much as I can. It's still not enough for some. All I can think of here is the reason for the title of the film Do the Right Thing: no one in the film did. No one here is either. But srs...stop blaming it on one person. -- Moni3 ( talk) 21:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I see you said above that "you're tired of this", with more or less a plea to "just all get along", but then I see that you seem to continue the whole matter here (on your talk) and elsewhere, with what appears to be a reference to this. If you really want to "approach courtesy" and "try not to diminish each other", I join in the requests for you to start right here on your talk page with that, right now, but also to extend your wish to try not to diminish each other to your posts elsewhere. I know you can do it :) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Anyone able to see what got borked in William the Conqueror? The list of interwiki links is broken - and I know I didn't do anything to it... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought you would like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3X25sFcSBxU#! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Because you recently contacted the Wikimedia Foundation about funding resources, I wanted to invite you to help us create a list of the kinds of resources Wikimedians might need. This is to help generate ideas towards the development of guiding principles for funds allocation in the Movement. More explanation is given here. Your participation there, and that of any others you may know who have sought or considered seeking resource funding, would be much appreciated. -- Maggie Dennis (WMF) ( talk) 12:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
re: this post. I exchanged a couple emails with him both last night, and again this morning. He's feeling very unwanted and quite down; although he's an adult - and dealing with it well. I have no idea if he'd be interested in returning, but hopefully he'll stay in touch. If he is still reading through things, then I'd hope he'd feel somewhat encouraged by the AN thread though. — Ched : ? 18:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I've just finished up James G. Blaine, so I'm ready to press on right away. I wasn't sure if the brouhaha at FAC was putting you behind schedule, but if not, let's go. I was thinking of an "Early life and family" section, followed by a "Civil War" section, both of which I'd like to work on. Where we go from there and what sections you'd like, I don't know.
I finished the Phillips book (very good as analysis [better than most in that series], weak as chronological biography) and started Major McKinley by William H. Armstrong, which details his Civil War years. Armstrong's not a professional historian (he's a minister who has published several history books), but two other McKinley biographers (Morgan and Gould) praised his work. I have the Leech book here and would like to lay my hands on Morgan's revised 2004 edition when I can, but it's not cheap and my local library doesn't have it. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 19:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
At ANI, my talk, Maryana's talk (where I quoted you). Alarbus ( talk) 00:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC) watching
I just left this on the talks of Salvio and Manning, neither of whom seem to be editing at the moment. I really don't see why Ceoil's not been indef'd; if there's a reason, this isn't it. Alarbus ( talk) 05:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC) NB: Failed cough → Failed coup d'état.
Hey. I got a lot done on Lecen's articles on Brazilian topics. His block is up in a few days and I'm going to talk that banner off his page. Next would be to help him take another article to FAC and maybe talk of a Brazilian Featured Topic for the ones already done. Given that some involved in FA have now serious interaction issues with Lecen, I believe it needful to establish a mechanism for recusal. There has been much talk of needing more reviewers, so possibly some of “them”. I also think you would be appropriate, and hope Brianboulton would offer a review and assistance. The goal, of course, being to develop more content about a topic area that has relatively little coverage on the project.
I'm going to peek at Landis, next, but if you'd like me to focus on another coin, I'm game. The train crash looked interesting; still reading. Alarbus ( talk) 04:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I expect the notion of week-long-blocks for WP:BATTLE is what's emerging from the WP:CIV enforcement case. I expect to see more of them, with bumps of the unit for the chronic cases. Alarbus ( talk) 04:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt and Alarbus!
You may open up an RfC or ArbCom case if you wish to continue discussing other editors. Your talk page is not an appropriate place for carrying on these negative comments about other editors.
Sincerely, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 19:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt, thanks for your answer to my prose question on the reference desk tonight/this morning. The article that I was asking about has just been nominated at FAC. I'd love if you could give it a review if you have time/interest. Understandable if you're busy though. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 10:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Per the recent peer review, I have now nominated at FAC. With regard to that Italian line you asked about, Nikkimaria has kindly provided a rough translation on my talkpage, but I won't adopt it into the article until it has some formal authority; I don't think it's a particularly significant point. Brianboulton ( talk) 12:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
For your thorough review and comments at the FAC of Nyon Conference, which has now been promoted. Thanks! Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 19:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC) |
Hi there, just to let you know that I'm putting together a proposal at User:SalopianJames/Sandbox/FAC-B proposal that I thought you might find interesting, and I'd appreciate your feedback on it. Thanks, SalopianJames ( talk) 13:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Reaper Eternal ( talk) 13:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Given the above, the eight citations of this journal should now be focused-in on more specific pages than pp=501–503, 541–542. Assuming one has the source. All for the moment… Alarbus ( talk) 09:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Replied. Good luck working with that uncivil so-and-so. - Sitush ( talk) 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm most of the way through the old cites. I happened to notice this:
See the dates. Isn't the idea that more eyes will help spot such things? None of it is really about articles; it's about power and exercising it. I've looked at the link; it's still there, so I'll update the access date in a bit. Alarbus ( talk) 08:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you want to use that feature where the note has a hyperlink to the citation? The article's set up that way now, but I've found it's more trouble than it's worth, especially when a new editor tries to add something later and has trouble figuring out the coding. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 17:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Wehwalt--I spoke to you on live chat help the other day about my article under review: Jim McKelvey. Good news! It was approved. However, the photo I had uploaded isn't appearing. If I "edit" to add another, will I need to resubmit the article for review or is that just considered a minor edit and can be done at any time without disrupting the ability to search for it? Thanks for your time! Osumggrad ( talk) 10:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)