Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:07, 2 January 2012

Wehwalt is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon.

Archives

1 (2005-September 2008) 2 (September 2008-April 2009) 3 (April 2009-December 2009) 4 (December 2009-May 2010) 5 (May 2010-August 2010) 6 (August 2010-December 2010) 7 (December 2010-February 2011) 8 (February 2011-April 2011) 9 (April 2011–July 2011) 10 (July 2011–present)

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Wikimania 2012 bid, DC chapter & next meetup!

1. At WikiXDC in January, User:Harej proposed that DC submit a bid to host Wikimania 2012. A bid and organizing committee is being formed and seeks additional volunteers to help. Please look at our bid page and sign up if you want to help out. You can also signup for the bid team's email list.
2. To support the Wikimania bid, more events like WikiXDC, and outreach activities like collaborations with the Smithsonian (ongoing) and National Archives, there also has been discussion of forming Wikimedia DC, as an official Wikimedia chapter. You can express interest and contribute to chapter discussions on the Wikimedia DC Meta-Wiki pages.
3. To discuss all this and meet up with special guest, Dutch Wikipedian User:Kim Bruning, there will be a meetup, Misplaced Pages:Meetup/DC 16 this Tuesday at 7pm, at Capitol City Brewery, Metro Center. There will be a pre-meetup Wikimania team meeting at 6pm at the same location.

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 Misplaced Pages:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

DC Meetup: May 7 @ Tenleytown Library

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 Misplaced Pages:Meetup/DC page.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Featured Article promotion

	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

Citing non-English-language sources

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 would put the quote in Polish, and then the English in parentheses following. I would also use the language field to indicate Polish. I don't think there is any policy on this, simply my personal preference.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

OK! Thanks for taking the time to reply. :D Iloveandrea (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Cross of Gold speech

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)

I second that. The reference used is not shown fully in the bibliography. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas greetings

	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)

Did you never see the picture of "We Three"? A good season to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Cross of Gold speech

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)

Nice work on this one. Hope to see it at FA eventually. A while back, I think you said something about working on McKinley next year. If that's still the plan, I'd love to collaborate. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the speech still needs a little work, on the ending for the most part. Happy to work with you. I was thinking of starting work on the main article in January or February. What parts particularly interest you?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've already read a bunch about his Civil War service when I wrote Rutherford B. Hayes -- they were in the same regiment -- so I'd like to take a crack at "early life" and what-not. But I'm flexible. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That will work. Certainly, Hayes was a major influence on him and got him ahead in politics.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to get United States presidential election, 1896 done first. So give me a few weeks, I am not quite ready to write yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Holiday wishes...

		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)

Mark Hanna ... Milhist?

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)

Okay: "Military service does not in and of itself place an individual within the scope of the project—particularly in the case of service in modern militaries. To qualify them, an individual's military service must have been somehow noteworthy or have contributed—directly or indirectly—to their notability." Is there another reason for the Milhist tag? I didn't see it. I'm very sorry but I'm way behind and I'll probably have to skip this one if it's not Milhist. Looks like you've got lots of support, anyway. - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow in replying. I did not add the MilHist tag, but I understood it also to be his involvement in the Spanish-American War. When I had The Ed look over the article, I asked him to concentrate on the war subsection. I am content to leave in your judgment whether the tag should stay or go.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Not slow at all. I'm perfectly happy with a Milhist tag on a politician if they had a significant role in peace or war, but I'm not seeing that here, in any of his roles. The article was tagged almost 3 years ago ... maybe there was more then, but in its current state, I'm not feeling the Milhist tag, and I've removed it. I would copyedit the article anyway if I weren't so far behind ... sorry, I'll get another one for you soon. - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I will catch you on the next one then. Thanks for your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Jivesh Here

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)

I can try. Let me look at it. It will be a few days.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I cannot even count how many No I got. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you doing it? Sorry for my impatience but I needed to ask. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It will be two or three days, I have two other reviews I must complete.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

	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)

Thank you, hope you are having a pleasant Yuletide.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

'Tis that season again

	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  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)

Many thanks to both of you, and you are too kind, Ed. Doing a big ticket well, well, I'd look at you guys to start. Others, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Wehwalt, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 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.

Thank you. Got your email, will be back to you after the holiday.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, no rush. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Many thanks, you too.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Peace dollar

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Misplaced Pages: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)

My intent was to draw the reader into the article by showing him something which would attract his interest. If you are firm in your position, however, I will reverse myself. I assumed you simply didn't see what I was doing and would go along once it was explained, if that is not the case, just let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Or would you accept my adding sentence from the article lede which deals with the 1964-D? I will shorten elsewhere to fit--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Say, something like ...

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...)

It would give more complete info to the reader to mention the 1965 striking, and giving info is what we are about. Saying "minted from 1921 to 1928, and again in 1934 and 1935" when the truth is that it was "minted from 1921 to 1928, and again in 1934 and 1935, and in 1965" is misleading. I still think that the more interesting image to show would be that described in the extract, the reverse with the word Peace and the eagle on the olive branch. Kevin McE (talk) 2:10 pm, Today (UTC+0)

Beginning sentences with "but."

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)

If you like, I can ask a couple of our local prose experts to check. User:Tony1 might be good. This article was checked by a number of them as it advanced to Featured Article status, but its possible things get overlooked. I was taught the old fashioned way; don't start with "and" or "but".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 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)

The Constitution would never pass FAC. All those oddball capital letters. And the Second Amendment! Anyhoo, let me look at rephrasing it around the issue, that is usually a good way to solve these issues. And I'm not a professional writer. I make Misplaced Pages my recreation.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 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)

(ec) Hi guys, you'd have gathered my opinion on this little issue from the NK edit history. If I remember correctly, Wehwalt is Canadian, and I'm Australian. Commonwealth English convention is to never start a sentence with a conjunction. In the big scheme of things there may be no right or wrong answer, especially since the subject is Russian. However, in such a case, WP convention is to respect the main editor's take on it and/or community consensus. Consensus was reached on Wehwalt's prose at FAC, no 'buts' about it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:57, 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. God knows mine has shifted as I've learned Misplaced Pages's house style, but I know that if I put a "But" in there, I would stare at it gloomily. And eventually I'd change it. And if I didn't, someone else would. I actually think the new sentence is quite smooth. Let's teach me to kick But another day. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 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)

That's fine. Yes, I would say it is a matter of preference. The ghosts of my English teachers would haunt me if I did! However, I concede it is correct to begin a sentence as you said, but this scrivener prefers not to. Is there anything I can assist you with on the project? And I should have welcomed you. You might want to notice how we indent to indicate a reply. House style :)--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Rookie error!Rule 56 (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Heh, "convention", the expression I used, doesn't mean "rule". If you want to try, I'm sure you can come up with plenty of exceptions, particularly with writers of the past (but they probably never went to my school)... ;-) You might even find featured articles in WP that use it too; in such a case, I suspect it would be because the guideline I mentioned earlier was followed, i.e. that the original or main editor's usage was respected by the community, and confirmed at FAC. Happy Chrismas, and welcome to the wonderful world of Misplaced Pages...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Ian - I was taught that And and But are acceptable when a (native speaker) writer wants to accentuate a break in a sentence or phrase. That is, they are acceptable exceptions. And Churchill is well known for propagating grammar exceptions. Materialscientist (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think I have used "And" for that purpose. I would really have to search to prove that one way or the other. I tend to write to minimize difficulties at FAC. I want to give the reader a friendly, thorough, and well-informed tour of the subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ian, I neglected to mention current writers. Try The Economist. It's the best-written, best-edited periodical on the market. Open to any page and see how many sentences begin with conjunctions. The "convention" turns out to be more of a hobgoblin than anything else. Really, no authority on the language supports it. We just have a hard time turning our backs on what our second-grade teachers told us. Thanks for the holiday wishes. Best, Rule 56 (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen this?

Article at peer review, with a Hobart connection. Maybe you'd like to look it over? Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Yes I will have a go. I've seen that image of Hobart before, if the licensing's OK I will import it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Shield obverse.png

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

File source problem with File:Shieldwithrays.jpg

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

As the last man standing in the coin department, I'll look into these and also Bobby's and RHM22's if there are any (I saw one for Bobby). Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Politics Barnstar

	The Politics Barnstar
	For your work on political articles, I hereby award you this barnstar! :) ♫GoP♫TN 16:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you sir! I've looked over the church article it just hasn't hit the top of the list yet!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Flower Drum Song

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)

And a good season to you. It must have dropped off my watchlist. No, we should probably go with the WP:MUSICALS format unless there is a good reason not to.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 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)

I'm inclined to avoid those awards but let me sleep on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I made some changes. Feel free to revert if you disagree with them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

but draining

• But RFCs involve head-butting and are draining, and FAC may not be able to tolerate much drain. Does anyone still care about the TCO kerfluffle? –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 08:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. And could you let Sandy do the answering, please? We really need clarification from her. Maybe it would be a good idea to put this off until the Malleus matter is more clearly resolved, but the answer is not to sweep it under the rug and when discovered, say "Oh, that's old news". No offense.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not answering for Sandy; you see I'm off the FAC page. And who is taking that silly crap seriously, and where? Thanks. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 08:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe there is an ongoing discussion. However, I am interested in why you think the leadership issue is "crap". The leadership issue was, for the most part not mentioned by Sandy and her (I'll borrow her word) "adherents" during their rather broad based assault on TCO. The only response she made, really, was to concede the RfC.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Recapping the issues that I recall: 1) Someone's rather lame list of "Really Important Articles" should be better represented in FA, 2) too many "trivial" articles are FA, and 3) favoritism charges... 1) and 2) are silly crap, and do not deserve to be taken seriously for even the requisite 15 minutes; 3) should be taken seriously whenever it is charged, but there is no evidence of it –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall any favoritism claims. Of whom by whom? Sandy took the report seriously enough to concede an RfC. If her views have changed, we need to know that. If she is withdrawing her statement, she needs to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps I'm wrong; thought it was said that certain repeat nominators who are also reviewers get preferential treatment. RFC is destructive and utterly pointless, since the points that were made by TCO are non-points. But whatever. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry if I spoke too bluntly. I'm just being frank. You can't see my relaxed, unaccusing, friendly face. I honestly think what I said about the vital/non-vital article kerfluffle being silly crap and all. FAC should not be held responsible for what is or isn't nominated. FAC should not be held responsible for even so much as to expend any genuine effort encouraging nomination of vital articles. FAC does reviews. Only reviews. No articles should get preferential treatment at FAC, because FAC is purely an equal opportunity resource. If folks want vital articles to become FAs, they need a supply-side solution: a wikiproject that focuses on improving them up to FA standards. FAC cannot stand any additional work, stress or strain. It is supremely unfair to even consider asking FAC to do anything more than it is doing now. FAC has always (almost always) been an overworked, overstrained process. The FAC process spends every single moment of its time washing other peoples' dishes. What gives anyone the right to say, "My pile of dishes merits special attention, more than other peoples' dishes, but rather than organizing interested editors to focus on washing them, I'm gonna scold you for not working harder to ensure that my Very Special Dishes get washed"? Vital articles... if they could even be defined... are unrelated to the FAC process. That's all. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you read TCO's report or are you relying on what was said? You might do well to read it, if you haven't.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Read it once, would be happy to spend a couple days reading it again. Link? –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• There is a link at User:TCO. But if you engage in discussion on his talk, he may be able to clear up any misconceptions on your part. As I said, I am not his lawyer.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if I have bothered you. I seldom waste time using pretty words; I say things like "bullshit" etc. In real life this never gets me in trouble, because I have an innocent-looking face, and because I really am innocent (usually). But online I can come across as too sharp. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• You have not bothered me in the least. I would suggest you discuss your concerns with TCO and see whether he addresses them. He knows his work better than I do.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• done, thanks. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither I nor he bites. I have been known to get irritated, but I don't get personal and I cool down fast. I know there are places on Misplaced Pages where you have to stroll through minefields, this is not such a place.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Good on you. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

HMS New Zealand FAC

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)

I have three reviews promised, I will try to get to it but it may be a week.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be fine; I'm in no hurry.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Nikita

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 . Help appreciated. Alarbus (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What was wrong with what was there before? You should not tag a FA lightly. Generally, you should ask for consensus before changing an article's citation system. I did not greatly complain, as it did not change the "look" of the article, but if you are stuck, the remedy is to return to what was there before. If I goofed and named two references the same thing, simply change the second "struggle" reference to "struggle1".--Wehwalt (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It's in WP:CITATION:"Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, or without first seeking consensus for the change." I don't want to discourage you from your hard work, but can you tell me how the article is improved by changing the citation style? I am sincerely asking. I know many FA contributors are touchy, and I'm not immune, but I'm more concerned about the citation not found tags than anything else. I have the books still, someplace, although my books from older projects tend to gravitate towards storage.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Good, this resolves the incorrect collating so that "Taubman 2003, p. 259" now appears. I didn't want to assume. I thought it might be that straightforward, but that would have been an assumption, one I didn't feel safe making.

The cite-not-found problem is that the sources "Khrushchev 2001" and "Tompson 2005" are not defined in the article. I don't know if they are typos for works that are present or if they're sources that are omitted from the article. The link here leads to here, which is nowhere. Similarly, this goes nowhere. They should connect to something down in the References section like all the others. You know about importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');? (User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js/User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.) It highlights these issues.

The other thing I did that you're asking about would be simplifying with {{sfn}}? That's just a shorter, more flexible form of {{harvnb}}. As you said, it doesn't change the look a whit. It offers several excellent advantages, though. It's simply less clutter in the prose for one; it also performs the collating of footnotes automatically, so there's no need for the named references at all. If used with the same page number(s) more than once, you get the a b c bunching without having to do anything. If, say, a sentence is expanded and the supporting material is now on pages 123–125 (when before is was 123–124), just change it. But if it's all a part of a named-ref, you'd have to manually revisit the naming of the <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.

See here, down a ways after Line 271 in the diff. See that it was named "kelly" but the author is named "Perrie"? "kelly" is (was) another ref and they were interfering with each other; "Perrie" was not appearing in the footnotes at all due to the duplicate name, it was being cited to "Kelly". This one I could fix because there were not ambiguous "/" refs around. This edit is where I unnamed the actual "Kelly" and allowed "Perrie" to generate a footnote (and the earlier diff is where I unnamed it to not have the misleading name "kelly"). If you look in the version before I worked on it, you'll find no "Perrie" footnote even though it was being called for in whatever paragraph. "Perrie" was in the References section, so it was just a matter of getting it connected-up.

You've looked at the other things I did, right? There were a bunch of whole references duplicated in the footnotes section that didn't connect to the references section. There are still some more to do.

I'm gonna save this; I"ve not re-checked all the diffs, so something may not quite work, but close enough.

It's a good article, I don't mean to be critical. I'm just trying to sort out issue I see and make things better. Alarbus (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I made two more edits; minor fix, and example of optimisation: I really see no reason to use: <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)

I would suggest going back to the version that it passed FA on and check it against that. If there are still difficulties, I will get down into the trenches with you.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll look further back; I really didn't do much of that. I know you mostly worked on it two years ago, so lord knows what's happened to it. It won't be today; maybe tonight. Best, Alarbus (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no hurry. I am editing early because I won't be on much today. There is no deadline on this. Yes, this article attracts a fair number of good faith edits, not all of which are terribly helpful, and I really don't have time to check for more than the obvious..--Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've not looked further than what I've edited, so I'm unclear what's next. You might care to look at the footnotes "Vast Riddle, The New York Times, 1953-03-10." and "Speech on Stalin by Khrushchev, The New York Times, 1956-05-06." These 'name' the footnote, a name that is shown to the reader not just editors; how would you name these? They're kind of not-short, which they should be. Could omit the title fragment easily enough... Alarbus (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I am reasonably certain that the look of that was somewhat different after the FAC. For one thing, I am certain I mentioned "subscription required". Did your changes take that out, or was it already gone?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking, anyway. The NYT links are marked "fee for article" — and were then, too; I didn't change that, but {{subscription required}} is one of the usual terms. What I did to the NYT cites and others is cut the inline duplication of the full citation that appeared in the footnotes section and make a named link to the references section. For most this is the author|year|page, but for the the NYT, no author given, so I went longish with a title fragment, NYT-long-form, full-date. Would you care to see that shortened?

Most of what I've been looking at are the other issues I've commented about, further above. They have all been present in the article since that version (and a *lot* more that were fixed somewhere in the meantime). Please install Ucucha's script; you'll be amazed at how often things are actually broken. Using these templates along with tools like the script, like citation bot are simply the best way to get things organised and working properly. Alarbus (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you wrote in your last edit summary that you see no reason for the existing (Harvard) templates. The point is, they are there, and you are supposed to ask for consensus before changing them. WP:CITEVAR (more specific cite to what I gave you above) rules that out as a reason. I'm somewhat torn, to be honest. Policy is clear, but I don't want to discourage you. What do you propose to do?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

{sfn} and {harvnb} are siblings. They're producing the exact same output and are the 'same style'. I can see an issue if someone cut the templates for plain-text or wandered over to the odd Vancouver stuff.

If you want, I'll walk away; leave it to you. That seems an incredibly bite-y guideline that only serves to hold back articles. Most articles will warrant revision of the techniques employed as new techniques emerge and as articles evolve. What works when an article is developing is probably not going to be what's most apt as it matures.

I've wandered into some of the large discussions that occur on this site; even commented on the huge arbitration case I see you're posting more to. That's what wrong with this place; way too much arguing, hostility (I don't mean this talk), and endless discussion (here I include this talk). I've read a lot of the WMF's doc, understand their criticism of this community. It has become a place to argue and those who do well here 'politically' are those that argue the most. It's not about civility, it's about hostility and argumentativeness. Gardner said that wp need to start moving at greater than the speed of consensus. The core reason is that at this scale there is no consensus, only gridlock. One despairs. Alarbus (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I generally don't get involved in such drama. No, I am content that you clean it up either way. Right now, however, it is half fish half fowl. As I said, I will get down there in the trenches with you, but I've got several commitments, and would be grateful if you could do it with as little inconvenience to me as possible. Please don't consider my responses uncivil or hostile, it is hard to use proper tone of voice in a written discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd missed this due to the {{od}} (and I've cut the extra indents). My having missed it is apparent in my reply just following the {od}... FWIW, I'm not intending to call you uncivil or hostile; there is a lot of that about, though. I was getting exasperated at the great wall of discussion over what I see as minor tweaks. This thread is 20kb! Alarbus (talk) 09:02, 31 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)

Your {od} was driven by double-indenting. Are we arguing? You seem to have seen some value in what I'm doing. How is going to the article talk page for a week of slow-motion discussion not gridlock? I saw issues, fixed much of what I could, and came here when I didn't want to just 'guess' as to how to untangle a few things. There are other things needing fixing. There's too much talk and not enough work going on here. "Khrushchev 2001" and "Tompson 2005" are still undefined; no title, no first name, publisher, isbn... and they're not tagged for fixing anymore, either. I so-don't-care about this article at this point. Alarbus (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I looked into it and they are typos for Sergei Khrushchev's 2000 book and William Tompson's 1995 book. If you like, I will fix them. Are there other errors you have found?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No, we are not arguing. Change the formatting in the way you want if you like and feel free to refer questions here and I will respond without padding it with a lot of discussion. I see some deterioration I want to fix but will put it off so as not to interfere with you.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I certainly thought of those possibilities, but for all I know they have other books or editions. I stopped when I felt the need to ask and have not looked much at would come next. There are at least three citation sitting inline while the intent would seem to be to have them all in the reference section... The 'other things needing fixing' above, meant other articles.

That 'civility enforcement' case you're wading into showed up on my watchlist yesterday when the request was removed due to it being accepted. The request was a quarter megabyte! Of text; 'discussion' (and 'argument'). And it's not about civility, it's about power politics. People are going to type ten megabytes of text into that rathole. Whoever argues the most will 'win'. Alarbus (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably. I waded into it against my better judgment, and am hopeful ArbCom can do something constructive. I will probably pay for it with heat from angry partisans. OK, back to Nikita The reason individual newspaper articles, etc are in the reference section is that there was a request during the FAC that I add those. I am by no means wedded to it and would cheerfully see the newspaper articles and other stuff deleted from the reference section. Verifiablility would still be assured. The reason they are not in the reference section, I bet, is because no one realized that this request was made during the FAC. I would suggest deleting them because I don't like stuff around here that disadvantages editors who are not privy to "institutional memory". Who's going to know to look at the FAC?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've read the old FAC page. And I see the same Fifelfoo you were having trouble with in the present 'civility' discussions. Some WP:BATTLEs never end. My take away was that the academic level of sources sought was unreasonable. The sources you've in there look plenty serious and reliable to me (but have not looked at the USA Today link... a newspaper for those who find television news too complex).

I'm looking to avoid duplication of the details of citations; that's why I'm linking to the copies in the references section and cutting the inline ones. For high traffic junk articles, inline is fine as those articles churn and when something is cut, an inline citation just gets cut along with it. But an article that purports to be among our best should be well organised under the hood. Mostly this is the case here, but I saw ways to nudge things along.

I've also read the whole article, now. It is very good, deserving of status, and I feel it is worth working on. I'm sorry if I was getting a tad exasperated. I'll continue with my intentions and will ask you about any further issues I encounter. If you see issues, let me know. You may see things in an intermediate state, but I'll try and not leave anything in an unreasonable state for more than a few moments. And it might be best to copy/move all this to the article talk page, as it will be disassociated with the article if left here. Alarbus (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I know there is a lot of that around, but I am determined that not all FA writers be tarred with the same brush. Let me express my gratitude for you for taking on the improvement (all articles can be improved) of a difficult article without any even virtual reward. And forgive my stress level, it is always higher away from home (I am, thankfully, back home now after an awful cross-country trip). You will not find me prickly again, I hope.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm done for now, so have a look. I just noticed that a few NYtimes cites should be in the 'media' section. There's an embedded comment in there about maybe renaming that. And some of the ordering will be dodgy as authors are missing. Give me a nod and I'll do the same to Cross of Gold speech. Travel can be rough, I know. Rest-up, no worries. Alarbus (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I was watching and saw nothing objectionable. Thank you. Please feel free to work on the Cross of Gold. I rarely get referencing completely right. Is there any article work I can do for you?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 31 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)

Another obscure British composer

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)

I have a few to do first that are promised. Is there any special reason I'd care to sit this one out?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No rush at all, and it's only the subject's obscurity even in the UK that gave me pause. Tim riley (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why that should be a problem for me to review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you so much. And as I say, no hurry at all. With the new year looming I send my greetings. Tim riley (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 WikiCup

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

W. R. van Hoëvell

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)

Sorry, thought you were going to do some work on it. No problem, Dana is a great reviewer. I'll make it up to you another time.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I followed the copyedit suggestions you had and did some more work yesterday. As you know, a GA reviewer's job is to copyedit. ;) Seriously, in articles with a lot of translations it's difficult to get it right and sometimes it takes three or more passes. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I was on a ship for eight days anyway with next to no internet access, so it totally dropped off my radar anyway. You might want to look at my post on WT:FAC as I mention your name in another connection (nothing bad)  :) Let me do another one for you.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

On a ship? What are you, an Antarctic researcher? Nice... I'll have a look and I'll keep you in mind. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No, he's next door. I go on cruise ships every now and then as a way of visiting places while taking my hotel with me. If only they had decent internet, I could be content. I buy internet plans, log on, download the pages I want to see, quickly log off, and then review them offline. At up to $.75 a minute, can you blame me?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

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)

It will improve, over time. A few years ago, I came across some papers from high school. I am pained at how stiff the writing was.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Only 100 articles on your watchlist???

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)

It is at 211 right now, I just checked. I also watchlist every FA or GA and a handful of others that I care about but haven't had time to develop. And I have McKinley watchlisted in preparation for that. Plus there is a bunch of closed peer reviews and so forth I really need to get rid of. About a dozen people's talk pages. Raul's, Jimbo's, TCO's, Brianboulton's, Dabomb's, a few others. Not AN/I! But you start a lot more articles than me, I think. And if I'm no longer "running" (loose term, we both know what we mean) an article, I take it off the watchlist. Like I happened to start Jason Day (golfer) because I saw there wasn't one, but I don't maintain it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Our article

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)

It will probably be a week, I have reviews promised I must do first.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

OK.--Psychiatrick (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I added after you endorsed

• I added text "More importantly, banning does not seem appropriate..." See if you endorse that too. if so, no need to change your comments. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You sighed as you removed your own comment?

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)

No, I simply did not want to initiate that discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, no worries. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Cross o' Gold speech

continued from #Nikita above

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)

Rudolf Wolters

I worked on this a bit, too. The key diff is this one; CaseMatters in footnote links, and the '1' was obvious enough. Sereny 1997 is probably 1995, but I'll leave it to you; cut the book stub if so. The Das Erste link I've not looked for an archive of; maybe Wayback Machine. You ok with this article going the next step? Speer, too? I was also looking at a few others such as Diefenbaker, both Chamberlains, the theatre pieces. Let me know. Alarbus (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if you want to modify the references, I've decided I have no objection. I will have to dig up my copy of Sereny and doublecheck before I decide on that point. Either I goofed or someone put in another edition, I will have to doublecheck. I sometimes make mistakes in referencing, as I am far more interested in text than formatting! I am hopeful that another generation of Speer biographers will step forward during this decade, btw. The Speer article is my baby, it was my first solo article I'm really proud, so be careful.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm about done for today but will revisit tomorrow. Some ISBNs need dashes in Wolters. I just did a first pass on John Diefenbaker; fn #39 (Diefenbaker 1995) isn't linking to anything. Really, install: importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');. Speer will be interesting; I read his main book years ago. I'll go carefully. Bryan's ready to close the FAC at this point. Thanks, Alarbus (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably a conflation of Dief's books and Smith 1995. I'll doublecheck. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I just converted Wolters. There's one I though I should float your way. Current footnote #44 was:

• <ref name="Sereney 1995 p=41">{{harvnb|Sereny|1995|p=645}}.</ref>

and is now:

• {{sfn|Sereny|1995|p=645}}

But the p=41 in the old ref-name is odd. Maybe it was once p41, or is was p41 of another work... Anyway, it's what it was only upgraded and the name is on the cutting room floor... but you may want to think on this one (too). All for now. Alarbus (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I shall dig up my copy of Sereny and research the matter. Thank you for your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool; I did the isbns, too. You're welcome, Alarbus (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

tb: Nyon Conference