User talk:Wehwalt

Note:

If you are sending me an email, please do not leave a note here. If you are emailing me, you want it confidential, and by leaving a note here, you're letting people know that we've communicated on a confidential matter. Note also that I carry my iPhone much of the time and will notice the email probably before I notice the "you have new messages" banner. Many thanks.

Talkback

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

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

WikiCup 2010 June newsletter

We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were Ian Rose (submissions) (A), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) Casliber (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17

WP:GLAM/SI invite

Hello, Wehwalt! We are looking for editors to join the Smithsonian Institution collaboration, an outreach effort which aims to support collaboration such as Wiki-Academies, article writing, and other activities to engage the Smithsonian Institution in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!

Another Talkback

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

Tosca

Moved to Talk:Tosca

Flower Drum Song

Uh, whatever happened with Ruddigore? I'm happy to proofread anything you do on Flower Drum Song, though. I'm an R&H fan, but I don't have much of a library for it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I do have the books for Ruddigore but I just have gotten so caught up in other things. There is a long spell next month when I am hoping to catch up on a few things, and I will do my best then. I even have a book on Victorian melodrama as you recommended.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the melodrama article is so bad, that fixing that one first would be helpful to the whole field of musical theatre (and theatre/drama), and it might be a fairly discreet project. Speaking of theatre and drama, there are two bad, overlapping articles on these subjects, and I see no distinction between them. Although I can conceive of how they might be two actually different articles, they are currently confused in scope. So much Wikipedia, so little time.... All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I tend to avoid such broad articles, no one is ever satisfied with them. But I will get to Ruddigore. I agree, so many articles, so little time, and I find it hard to edit sometimes.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Linking

Hi, Wehwalt, Ginsburg is mentioned (and linked) for the first time in the Judicial performance section of the Scalia article. She is not mentioned again until the Assessment section (the reference you unlinked). That's several sections later in the article. Within the policy (WP:LINK) you cite, there is a section called Repeated links (WP:REPEATLINK), which says: "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. There are exceptions to this guideline, including these: where the later occurrence is a long way from the first." Based on that, it makes sense to wikilink Ginsburg in the Assessment section. Do you still disagree?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Anyone who gets that far in the article isn't going to be unfamiliar with who Ginsburg is, and the single link should be fine. If you put it back, I won't take it out again, but i just don't feel it's needed. Not all links are the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

My only quibble is your assumption that everyone reads the article from top to bottom. Some readers might skip to this section and not see the earlier section where Ginsburg is first mentioned. Either way, it's a small point. I'll leave it the way it is for the present. If it bothers me enough so it's still annoying me after some time has elapsed, I'll change it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

They don't, of course, but by that logic, we'd be linking everything, which would be a bad idea IMHO. Feel free. I am assertive about keeping standards up on articles I've helped out on, because it is too easy for an article to die the death of a thousand minor edits and wind up no longer meeting FA standards. I'll give it some thought too.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been accused of being rule-oriented. My rule of thumb is to wikilink the first instance of a subject in each section of an article. That way I don't have to interpret what the phrase "long way" means. Unfortunately - or fortunately depending on your viewpoint - Wikipedia's policies, which I'm stuck with, are not quite so black and white.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback (October 18)

Hello, Wehwalt. You have new messages at Talk:Stephens City, Virginia.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

...double post this time. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

...another reply. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia DC Meetup, October 23

You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #12 on Saturday, October 23, 6pm at Bertucci's in Foggy Bottom. Special guests at this meetup will include Wikimedia CTO Danese Cooper, other Wikimedia technical staff and volunteer developers who will be in DC for Hack-A-Ton DC. Please RSVP on the meetup page.

You can remove your name from the Washington DC Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian WikiElves

Perhaps you can help on this. User:VegaDark deleted Category:Wikipedian WikiElves per G4 as "recreation of previously deleted content" (see here), even though it currently has 78 persons listed in the category. The conversation has turned into a pissing match with VegaDark saying in not so many words "you're wrong, I'm right" and "I have been here longer". I have, I will admit, called him a "WP:DICK" and "cocky" and his behavior "egotistic". I really don't appreciate his attitude and his way of discussing things like I am a completely idiot who doesn't know what I am talking about. Could you have a look at the discussion and step in and cool things down? Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Just lighting this up again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you perhaps take the deletion to DRV? It is unlikely, given that I've worked with you, that I would be seen as a neutral admin ...--Wehwalt (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You have a point there, so I will consult a neutral admin. I didn't take it to DRV as I was working on other things off-Wiki, talking to a friend and working on the Stephens City talk page last night and have been pretty well zonked all day today. I am really trying to work it out with VegaDark before going to DRV. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No need to justify your pace; you are after all giving the wiki readership a gift by improving articles. Working things out is a Good Thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

GA/PR/FA recommendations

Thank you for keeping up with the Joran van der Sloot nomination. I see the wisdom in waiting for more pieces to fall into place before proceeding further, though I am surprised by your comment that the stability requirement for FA articles would be different from GA. Based on the feedback from the review, I would interpret that FA criterion #1e would present a similar barrier as GA criterion #5 until the trial is resolved. KimChee (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You might want to post at WP:FAC with that question, but I read 1e stability as meaning no edit wars, the article is not constantly in flux. In practice I see it as saying that it has an editor or group of editors keeping it stable. I know you have ambitions for the article, and I'm content to kibitz from the sidelines and keep an eye on things. I advise the PR.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

GAN

I completed my review. The article looks great. The GAN is on hold for a few prose and wording issues that are outlined at the review. :) --JonRidinger (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wladimir Klitschko's negative reception of the film Borat, this edit was deleted by you

Hi. "from what I can read, is not important enough to include" - I disagree, it fits this section and he's a pretty much notable person and given an interesting incident which took place with a prominent boxer who was born in this country, the main actor of this film and a wife of his, makes it slightly relevant. So I take it, you probably confused me for your daily ignorant editors, no I'm not, before adding this edit I had make it sure it can be added without a violation of WP rules. Here, I may assume coming out from your side WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Reconsider this edit. 95.59.87.73 (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you begin by putting it in correct, idiomatic English. Put it on the Borat talk page, and let's discuss. Thank you for what appeared to be appropriate citations. I welcome all contributors who have something worthwhile to add.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on November 2, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 04:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The United States Senate election in California, 1950 followed a campaign characterized by accusations and name-calling. Republican Richard Nixon defeated Democrat Helen Gahagan Douglas, after Democratic incumbent Sheridan Downey withdrew during the primary election campaign. Nixon won the Republican primary and Douglas the Democratic contest, with each also finishing third in the other party's contest. A contentious Democratic primary race left the party divided, and Democrats were slow to rally to Douglas—some even endorsed Nixon. The Korean War broke out only days after the primaries, and both Nixon and Douglas contended that the other had often voted with leftist New York Congressman Vito Marcantonio to the detriment of national security. Nixon's attacks were far more effective, and he won the election by almost 20 percentage points, carrying 53 of California's 58 counties and all metropolitan areas. The campaign gave rise to two memorable political nicknames: "the Pink Lady" for Douglas and "Tricky Dick" for Nixon. (more...)

• Congrats on your TFA! Nicely done! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been working on that article for a LONG time!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen. Even took a trip to CA for information, now that's dedication! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Image reviews

Hi Wehwalt! You are correct to worry about the copyright of the photograph; if the photograph was used in those flyers without permission of the copyright owner, then it is not considered "published" in those flyers. (<< corrected 13:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)) I doubt it unlikely. Nixon was a Congressman at that point and was seeking to be Senator. It would be very unlikely the photographer would not expect his subject to use a formal studio shot for a campaign. However, that is my personal opinion. It would be best to determine if the original photograph had a copyright notice on it; the front seems to have only a number and the photographer's logo at the bottom left, but such a notice could be on the back of the developed copy Nixon was given. If there was a copyright notice on the back, and if the photographer had renewed the registration, then the photograph is copyrighted to the photographer ("first publishing" is the sale of that developed film to Nixon). If the original photograph had no copyright notice, then it would be public domain by virtue of no copyright notices on first publishing. Nixon's flyers are not the "first publication" of the photograph unless the work was specifically taken for those flyers.

In summary, was the photograph "published" for some other purpose before those flyers? If yes, then the copyright status of that developed photograph should be investigated. If no, then it is quite likely the flyers are the work's "first publication" (unless the photographer had no knowledge his work would be distributed as such, or had specifically forbade such an act). Jappalang (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing about the original photographs. I will be at the Nixon Library again on Tuesday, I will consult with the archivists there, but I've looked through all the 1950 campaign materials and didn't see that. I think we can safely assume that the photograph was taken for the campaign's use. I saw no original photographs in the files. I do not think that number has to do with the the photographer, I think it is to show it was union-printed. --Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that I missed out a word above... (ack!) Anyway, if the photograph is confirmed to be first published in those flyers, then without the presence of copyright notices, the work is in the public domain per US copyright law (failure to comply with the law). Jappalang (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Why the rollback. Secret ^account 19:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

purely by mistake. Large fingers small screen. Sorry--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I too have big thumbs and a tiny touch screen. I went and created a second account lacking rollback. Not that I've used it yet. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Flower Drum Song

Good work. I gave it a copy edit and deleted some non-notable stuff, like the names of the ensemble and orchestra members, which we do not include in musicals, per WP:MUSICALS guidelines. I increased the assessment to C-class. This musical certainly needed and deserved the additional background info that you added. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Updating

I'm back in harness. Just to recap on immediate progress, I will probably nominate Talbot Baines Reed tomorrow, and have started work on Evelyn Waugh which, at the moment, I am aiming to have in peer review by about 15 November. It's a large undertaking, involving masses of reading; if I get too bogged down I will abandon it temporarily and go for Gianni Schicchi first. You presumably have a follower for the Liberty Nickel which looks ready to pop. Suggest we review our timetables round about 10 November? Brianboulton (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I have no follower, spending too much time on research (I am in the reading room of the Nixon Library as we speak). Around Nov 10 sounds good, I will be back from California by then. My next "wave" of articles (John A. Macdonald, History of the New York Jets, Flower Drum Song, Grand Coulee Dam) are all about halfway done or less. And schedules are always flexible, especially with a conom. I am comfortable that between us, we have enough on Gianni to make it through. I'm actually very pleased with my research here, I found Vicki Cole of "Bring Us Together" fame on a PD video taken by Haldeman of all people, he liked to use a Super 8 camera. Now I have to get a copy, clip it, etc. Busy busy.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Some time, tell me the secret of being able to work on a "wave" of articles – I'm strictly one at a time, myself. Anything else makes my head spin (what was it that LBJ said about Gerald Ford?) Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That he played too much football with his helmet off?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Something involving chewing gum, I think. Never mind. Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments on the Admin Noticeboard. It's amazing how this blew up the way it did. Your rational comments on the matter were very much appreciated. Cheers! 23skidoo (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Just remember, next time, get another admin to look at the situation.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Commendation

As one who watched with bewilderment as a minor scuffle on the Juan Williams article elevated into WW III, I just want to express my own appreciation for your words of sanity in the maelstrom on the Admin noticeboard. I went there out of curiosity to see what was happening and was astonished by the quantity and sheer velocity of the responses. And most seemed to be seething with rage rather than expressing the calm reason I expected to read among what I had fondly imagined to be a panel of sage elders calmly deliberating with no artificial deadlines. Another illusion dashed! On the other hand I didn't expect to see references to the Sword of Damocles - so that was a pleasant surprise. In any event, peace appears to have broken out on the Juan Williams article. Long may that reign. Kudos to you for your impressive calming manner. I hope that others emulate you. It would help Wikipedia to have a touch more civility. Davidpatrick (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not much of an admin, most of my time is spent creating content. You do what you can, though, and perhaps I caught the right moment when everyone was ready to calm down. All's well that doesn't end in a mushroom cloud, say I. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Bring Us Together, again

That dress (and jacket)... it is so kitsch! Does the promised video feature Cole in that dress (and shows her hopping around in it, heh)? Jappalang (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not, I found an image too. I'm still working on a good arrangement for them, but she appears to be dressed appropriately for the winter cold. Unlike everyone else. Hit refresh on the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I also have a copy of the statement the Nixon people issued at Deshler (they spelled it Deschler). Not a verbatim transcript, but it says that Nixon will cover the points mentioned in the statement in the speech. It's about how in the 45 minutes it took to travel from the last stop to Deshler, x murders, y rapes, yada yada were committed. Hopefully Vicki was too busy to listen.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Eh... about File:Forward Together.jpg, she is not exactly "holding her 'BRING US TOGETHER AGAIN' sign", is she? More like leaning against it (the sign is holding her up, ha!). Jappalang (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Modified, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The Nixon library is sending me the DVD but they say they don't have the facilities to do a twenty-second clip for me of Vicki and the float. I will have to figure out how to do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Flower Drum Song redux

Hi. This sentence under Genesis is confusing: "In interviews, however, he noted that he had written several songs for South Pacific while in rehearsal, and for The King and I during previews." Would you please expand the text to clarify what the relationship of this is to FDS? Do you mean "in rehearsal for Flower Drum Song"? ... and "previews" for FDS? Or what? Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That even though he was behind schedule on FDS, he saw no difficulty in making things up in rehearsal. In fact, there were difficulties with that, which I haven't yet gotten to. The equivalent of "she said she'll be all right at night" or however Ernest puts it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, but did he really say that he wrote songs for the film of SP while in rehearsal for the B'way production of The King and I? Or do you mean something else? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No, songs for South Pacific while in rehearsal for that play and for The King and I during previews for TKaI. If you think it is problematical, we can take it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a plan for this article, and I think it is going to be good (NOT fishing for a complement). Sometimes you can just see it in your head, and there is enough material there to work with. Only problem is images, there are not going to be any directly related free use images that I see (I doubt the R & H organization is going to release any, from what I have read, money is king there).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you please do me a favor and not use the 10-07-2010 format, or whatever you're doing and use real dates: October 7, 2010? I think it's terribly confusing to use these formats, as you never know whether they mean October 7 or July 10. Remember, most readers can't guess what our formats mean. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, October 7. Feel free to reformat, I'll pick up on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Another suggestion: Usually we have a separate section on Critical reaction instead of sprinkling it among the "productions". Perhaps each production could say something like "the critics gave mostly positive reviews to the production", and then put all the details with some quotes in the "Critical reaction" section? Looking forward to your continued expansion. Images are a terrible problem at the Musicals project, since everything is post-1923 and is a valuable copyrighted property. If there are free images of any of the actors, we could use those. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will work on that. I really haven't looked much at the actors's articles, except to check on disambig. I'm pretty much done for the day, going to a hockey game in a bit. There's a PD image of Rodgers in his article, and we could nab one from the St. James's article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I am hopeful of completing this article, at least in rough form, on Sunday or Monday, depending on time constraints from RL.--Wehwalt (talk)

OK. I'll keep an eye out. It's certainly coming along! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of my references to the construction company in the section on Construction in France

By the logic of your comment "Already mentioned in the plaque discussions" all references to Bartholdi should also be disallowed anywhere above the section on 'Inscriptions, plaques, and dedications'. The work of the construction company was unquestioningly as important as the work of Bartholdi. They actually transformed all the ideas into reality. They unquestionably merit a mention in the section on 'Construction in France'. I will now replace my edit about the construction company. No doubt you will undo it once again. But it will make you look ridiculous. Cricobr (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

you might get a warmer reception if you limited it to a sentence and used the article's citation format.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You win. Wikipedia looses.

Editors like you will kill Wikipedia. One look at you user page tells all. Tchao. I've better things to do. Cricobr (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)