Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:45, 16 August 2012

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–December 2011) 11 (December 2011–February 2012) 12 (February 2012–June 2012) 13 (June 2012–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.

FYI

• Ched]PumpkinSky talk 22:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be closed.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Stephens City Article (Part: One Billion)

In reference to the email I sent you yesterday, this is the sentence about Virgil E. Watson I added (with source) to the Stephens City article. I am just a little concerned about it just being a two sentence paragraph (if it can even be called one). I am unsure if it can be joined into another paragraph in that section or not since they are all about different subjects. What do you think? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's probably OK where it is, I didn't see any way to add it logically to one of the other paragraphs in the section. You could add it, if you wanted, to the end of the first paragraph of the Demographics section, though in that case I would begin it "The first African American on the town council ..." rather than with the date, though still include the date. It's editor judgment, I don't see a major issue either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will leave it where it is in the "History" section. Seems better there, I was just worried about the paragraph problem. Thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Foraker

Done - I autotraced it this time to match the penstroke texture. Sorry for the wait. – Connormah (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Asking for help....

My new friend, Wehwalt, I am Tamravidhir. I recently nominated Tourism in West Bengal for FA but it was declined, I have a to-do list here and here...I request you to help me. Please help me. When replying please leave me a Tb template. Thank you so much! --Tamravidhir(২০১২) 13:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been in touch with User:Moonriddengirl and more others..and they have been really helpful. However, they are packed up with their own to-do list so Moonriddengirl asked me to come to you. --Tamravidhir(২০১২) 13:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

As I do not know anything about the subject matter, I do not think I could be of help to you. Try the next one down the list?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

) --Tamravidhir(২০১২) 15:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It's generally not a good idea to take some from B to FAC. First take it through WP:GAC and then WP:PR PumpkinSky talk 16:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

You know why today was heart-warming! PumpkinSky talk 02:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

May we share it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I'll revert the other things when I get a chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

sweet ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

When I was in Istanbul last month, they had scrumptious pastries, but none as sweet as this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I LOVE baklava. The best I ever had was, yes indeed, in Greece. PumpkinSky talk 22:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I brought home pistachios from Greece, there is a slight bitter taste that makes them great. Very had to come by in this country.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

There is a request for you at RFPP regarding an article you protected, Dick Pound. Regards, Armbrust, B.Ed. _{The Undertaker 20–0} 08:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

FACs

I see that Foraker is there, and I will get to it soon. Joseph will shortly be joined by Reginald Heber, and I shall be glad if you will keep an eye out for this, as it seems to me to have "likely to be ignored" written all over it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Foraker's going to be very popular either, though thanks for your efforts. Everyone's gone for the summer. Wish I was. It has been brutally hot here. In any event, I shall be glad to make Heber feel un-neglected, to the extent I can.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. I appreciate your sentiments, and especially in the confidence you expressed in me. Much obliged.

To return the favour... have you ever considered running for ArbCom again? I mean, don't feel pressured into it — the choice is entirely yours. But if ever you decide to stand for election once more, know that you will have my full support. Yours is a unique and reasoned perspective, one which I've found very valuable in my past encounters with you.

By the way, I just took a piece of baklava (see above). Hope you don't mind. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 23:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem (also on the baklava). I have thought about it but am waiting until the writing is too much of a chore.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, so I take it you're quite the workaholic. Way to be. Good luck. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 00:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thx, you too.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for United States Senate election in Ohio, 1898

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on United States Senate election in Ohio, 1898. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Another quality article, excellent election, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thx, forgot to nominate it over there, but Tony is efficient.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment - talk page stalkers welcome

Hi Wehwalt (and talk page stalkers of Wehwalt) - I was wondering if anyone could give me a hand - I'm planning to create an article on I. B. Thompson, (Ira Bowman Thompson), an Alabama legislator from Luverne, Crenshaw County, Alabama. Preliminary searches online turn up that someone named Ira B. Thompson from the same area was a part of the local Ku Klux Klan in the late 1920s. Though I cannot 100% link the two, I'm 95% sure they're the same person - see a bio here mentioning the rep.'s service in France - (ch. 4, pg 216) and the klansmen's - . More searches show they were both attorneys in the area at the time and so on. No biography in the state register mentions the rep's participation in the Klan. We can also see that the state rep. was a captain or served in the military of some sort from the military uniform he's wearing in this 1947 composite photo - . So the question is - are the two linked? If I make an article on the legislator, can or should I include the KKK stuff in it? Could anyone else possibly sniff around for things to link the two? I think this can be a good DYK if I can work out all the links, but this is a toughie. Thanks! – Connormah (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I will look into it as time permits. I have no plans to go anywhere near Alabama soon, so no chance for local research.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. A little online searching should suffice. I'm almost completely sure they are a match, but I'd just like to see something more concrete. Thanks again. – Connormah (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No question they are the same guy. I don't find anything that both calls him a former state representative and a klansman in the same reference, but there are a couple of NY Times articles mentioning him, one calling him the local head of the Klan and the other mentioning that when he was indicted for his Klan activities, the grand jury denounced him and mentioned his "control of the affairs of the county" (the other article mentions how the case against him collapsed, the attorney general walked out of the case). Let me know if you want screenshots of the articles, I will email them to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If you could send the articles, that'd be great, thank so much. I'll probably get to writing this tonight (need to pull up all the other articles I've skimmed). You have my email address, yes? Thanks! – Connormah (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to drop by and offer thanks. Much appreciated! – Connormah (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Jinnah

Hi,
I read the article up till Fourteen points as it is up till 1928. If you ask my overall point of view till that heading, it's commendable and superb. Now the article seems to have a professional touch and I really like the way you have changed the Early years part. Previously it was a cluster of links. Some points, which I think should be changed, did catch my eye. Like in the lead paragraph, there is a link present on the Gujrati language. It should be removed as I checked the link and there isn't any Gujrati script present there, so it's useless. In the second paragraph of lead, should (congress) be mentioned after writing Indian National Congress? Rest of the lead seems good to me. The third paragraph under the Break from Congress is about his wedding and wife. Shouldn't it be in his personal life, somewhere in Return to India? Dina Jinnah is still alive so I think it should be "continues to live in India" in the last line of Fourteen points. Rest of the article has greatly extolled my expectations. Now it seems polished. Great work.
Thanks
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 20:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Those details can be easily adjusted. I will look at those things. Thank you for your good words. I did not know Dina Jinnah was still alive. I am still going through all the sources to figure out how tell the reader what happened.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

On the wife/daughter matter, I intend to merge the content into other parts of the article. There's no reason this can't be told chronologically, Jinnah's personal life separates well into discrete mentions, marries, has daughter, wife separates and dies, Fatima comes to be with him and plays a major part in his life. All of that can be told to the reader as it happens. So far so good, but this was the easy part.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That is true. Chronologically would be quite difficult. Fatima Jinnah did become an integral part of his life and played a phenomenal role in creation of Pakistan. Other then these things, nothing came into my notice which should be changed. Rest of the article seems good to me.
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 10:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Main page blurb...

Someone's felt the need to insert an image of Gregory the Great into the blurb - but it's not an image that's even used in the Gregorian mission article and it's 1000 years past Gregory's date. Unfortunately, it implies in the blurb that this is what Gregory looked like... but the blurb page is protected. And of course, no one notified the talk page of hte article either. I'm so sick of TFAs... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

oh, what I wanted to ask was .. can someone fix this? At least put in an image that's IN the article??? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

How about File:Gregory I - Antiphonary of Hartker of Sankt Gallen.jpg? -- Dianna (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, as long as it's clear it's not a contemporary portrait (I'd say it's assumed from the type of image, but I never assume that sort of knowledge about your everyday person any more... historical and artistic knowledge seems lacking at times!) Thanks, Diannaa. It's really very aggravating to have this sort of inaccurate pictures on the front page. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I have finished the edit. -- Dianna (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

David Levy has reverted my change. Sorry. I guess I can't help you after all. :( -- Dianna (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I reverted because that image is extremely difficult to discern at thumbnail size. Note that I was unaware of the issue discussed above, which wasn't mentioned in the edit summary. —David Levy 02:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ealdgyth:

Did it occur to you leave a note on my talk page? —David Levy 02:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I've modified the text to explicitly indicate that the portrait was painted in the 1620s, as I would have gladly done if asked. —David Levy 02:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Except that Ealdgyth, the author of the article, doesn't seem to think it appropriate. I'd suggest removing it and only adding one agreed to (and some clark deals with the protection). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Ealdgyth's concern appeared to relate primarily to possibility of confusion regarding the image's provenance.

2. Please see WP:OWN. I certainly value and respect Ealdgyth's input (which is why I addressed the aforementioned concern as soon as I became aware of it), but an article's primary author has no special authority to approve its content, let alone that of the main page.

3. I don't know what "and some clark deals with the protection" means. —David Levy 03:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Street-Legal Sockpuppet
 Br'erRabbit this user is a sock puppet
03:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

1) you might ask, 2) I know about OWN; we all do. Ealdgyth would have specific knowledge here. Do you? You editing through protection just because you can? 3) see Clark; clerk, as in a mop to deal with the local upload and protection. Meanwhile, Ealdgyth is probably asleep, so this is going to have at least half the 24h in your preferred state. Congratulations. fyi, we've meet; I was Jack; also Alarbus which has a most excellent scrolling mechanism (ya, it takes over the scolling of much of the screen; that's by design).

1. I'm participating in this discussion (of which I'm aware because Diannaa informed me).

2. Indeed, Ealdgyth has specific knowledge of the article's subject, but no facts are in dispute.

As a main page regular, I have specific knowledge of its image usage and experience managing it. That doesn't give me special editorial authority, of course, but I have a good understanding of what's expected (including the knowledge that the 100px width sometimes necessitates the selection of an image not used in the featured article, where that isn't an issue).

Ealdgyth complained that the image's provenance was unclear and later stated that the use of a non-contemporary portrait was acceptable "as long as it's clear it's not a contemporary portrait"). So I edited the blub specifically to address this concern. (From your message, one would think that I told Ealdgyth to go pound sand.)

The section is protected purely to prevent vandalism. The phrase "editing through protection" usually refers to abuse of the sysop bit to edit a page protected due to a content dispute. —David Levy 03:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Above, Ealdgyth asks for an image change. I do see the thumbnail legibility issue with the images in the article. On talk:main page, Ealdgyth asked that the image you added be removed as inappropriate. You've reverted another admin over this, too. You also usurped teh authoritah of teh Featured Article Dictator who arbitrarily selected no image (you get a personal pass on this from me, though). Ealdgyth was 'fine' with the non-contemporary image that you reverted back out. This is a time-critical situation as the page is live now. The others are not editing presumably due to sleeping, while much of the world is getting your image at something like a thousand hits a minute. I'd say this was a content dispute that you insisted on having your way. nb: I barely know Ealdgyth; helped with an ISBN some months back. I only noticed this because it's on Wehwalt's page. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Above, Ealdgyth asks for an image change.

...primarily due to an issue that's been rectified. In your view, what justification remains?

I do see the thumbnail legibility issue with the images in the article.

So you understand why their use in the TFA section is unfeasible.

On talk:main page, Ealdgyth asked that the image you added be removed as inappropriate.

...primarily due to an issue that's been rectified.

The only other rationale is the fact that the image doesn't appear in the featured article (which Ealdgyth evidently didn't realize is normal in this circumstance).

You've reverted another admin over this, too.

I reverted the replacement of an image easily recognizable at 100px with one that isn't. At the time, I was unaware of the underlying reason (which wasn't noted in the edit summary). I discussed the matter (apparently to Diannaa's satisfaction) at User talk:Diannaa.

You also usurped teh authoritah of teh Featured Article Dictator who arbitrarily selected no image (you get a personal pass on this from me, though).

Raul typically checks the featured article (but not related articles) for suitable images. It's quite common for other administrators to subsequently insert images found elsewhere, and I don't recall Raul objecting. (If he did, he'd have a major argument on his hands.)

Had I not inserted an image, it's all but certain that someone else (most likely Neelix) would have. That doesn't always go well.

Ealdgyth was 'fine' with the non-contemporary image that you reverted back out.

...because it was practically unrecognizable at 100px.

And again, I've applied Ealdgyth's stipulated measure to make the use of a non-contemporary Pope Gregory I depiction acceptable. So what issue remains?

This is a time-critical situation as the page is live now. The others are not editing presumably due to sleeping,

To what "others" are you referring (whom in addition to Ealdgyth)?

while much of the world is getting your image at something like a thousand hits a minute.

And the problem is what, exactly? That Ealdgyth hasn't personally approved the inclusion of the free, highly relevant image — a notable artist's painting, used to illustrate Pope Gregory I in our article about him? For this reason, you believe that it would be better to display no image?

The view that we must display an image in the TFA section (even if it means illustrating a film with a photograph of the janitor who swept the floor of the studio in which it was shot) is held by a substantial number of users. I'm not one of them. I've frequently argued that we shouldn't throw in an image for the sake of having an image, and I've reverted such attempts on multiple occasions (including this one). The most recent discussion is only days old.

There's significant resistance to the idea of declining to use tangential images (and we've ended up with some major stretches), so there certainly is no consensus for the omission of an image that's directly relevant (and thumbnail-suitable). If a free one is available, we use it. The article's primary author doesn't have veto power. (And I reiterate my sincere belief that I've addressed Ealdgyth's concerns.) —David Levy 05:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I just sat down at keyboard with a cup of coffee. I think I'll read this later.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Late to the discussion: it's tricky to illustrate a mission, best not to try, if you ask me. - English is not my first language: can you really call a "portrait" the invention of an artist painted centuries after the person's death? I think of the famous one of Mozart, carefully labelled "posthumous painting". In that case real portraits of the person existed, I doubt that for Gregory. - I saw "imaginary portrait". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

TL, DR. But it looks like it's been resolved. If not, I will be happy to help out. Good to see you, Ealdgyth., others.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster defines "portrait" as "a pictorial representation of a person usually showing the face". It's unlikely that someone reading "1620s portrait" will be led to believe that Pope Gregory I posed for the painting more than 1,000 years after his death. —David Levy 11:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I've switched to "1620s painting". —David Levy 11:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec twice) TL? DR? - it's "portrait" on the Main page, looks wrong to me, adding "imaginary" or another qualifier would help. - after ec 1: the innocent reader gets the 1620 image FIRST, before even reading, only then is s/he told that it's about 6th century, misleading, no? - I would be happy without any pic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, I've switched to "painting" (not that "portrait" was incorrect). And I'd be happy without a picture too, but the community at large disagrees. I intervened to ensure that we didn't end up with something absurd. —David Levy 11:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If the "community" prefers a misleading pic to no pic, that's what it gets, misleading by 1000 years, impressive. Thanks for the change to "painting"! Any chance - if we have to have that picture - to mention the mission date first, the painting date later? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that no image is necessary, I disagree that the display of a notable artist's posthumous depiction of a person (clearly labeled as such) is "misleading".

I don't see an obvious way to reverse the date order, but I welcome any wording suggestions. —David Levy 12:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

My POV: I see the picture and think it's about something Baroque, I turn away without reading further. - "The Gregorian mission was a missionary endeavour in Anglo-Saxony in 596 AD, initiated by Pope Gregory I (1620s painting pictured)." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The reordered sentence is much better with the relevant date early. David can you please make that change? --Mirokado (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. I tweaked the suggested wording (because the mission continued beyond 596 and I'm not sure that "Anglo-Saxony" is correct). —David Levy 13:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

ps: I read "a pictorial representation of a person usually showing the face" and can't help thinking that the painter has to see (not imagine) said face to produce a "portrait", no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. —David Levy 12:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't get how that relates to my personal "I can't help thinking ..." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You were asking whether you can't help thinking that? Okay, that's for you decide. —David Levy 13:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

In my biased view, in doubtful cases, we should defer to the wishes of the principal writer, as it is by his (or in this case, her) grace that we are able to feature it on the main page at all.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) good freaking gods. I left a message on the main page and pinged an admin I know before I went to sleep. I note that the painting currently in the blurb is cropped, why was it impossible to crop the manuscript illustration likewise? Instead, it was more important to reinsert the 1000 year past image, rather than doing the crop on the manuscript. As far as the community disagreeing - I've had a number of articles run on the main page without images without anyone feeling that there MUST be one - Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/December 29, 2010, Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/January 12, 2011, Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/April 24, 2011, Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/June 30, 2011, Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/February 4, 2012, Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/July 5, 2012 - so that argument that the community demands an image is sort of moot here. But whatever, it's not like I have any knowledge of what goes on the main page - I've only shepherded 51 or so featured articles, of which Gregorian mission is the 21st to appear on the main page. Yep, I know nothing. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me take a look at cropping the manuscript illustration.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ealdgyth: I've cropped and uploaded the image and replaced it on the main page. It was automatically cascading-protected, it looks like, so I think that should be OK if the crop is satisfactory (not my talent).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

THanks. I hate being a pain in the butt about this, and thanks everyone for their help. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. Given the present last-minute schedulings, we all have to pitch in together.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried to help because I share your view, no pain at all ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Our cascading protection doesn't extend to Commons, so the image was unprotected (and subject to replacement by a vandal) until a Commons bot cascade-protected it there. Fortunately, that fallback occurred after approximately two minutes. (It usually takes much longer.) In the future, please upload the crop to Misplaced Pages and tag it {{m-cropped}}. Thanks. —David Levy 14:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I was going to upload a local copy, but by the time I did, the bot had take care of matters. Thanks for the reminder though.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

In the future, please perform the local upload before transcluding the image. A few minutes might not seem like much, but there are vandals who will exploit the window it the timing works out for them. Thank you. —David Levy 15:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, when I reinserted the image, I had no knowledge of this issue (which wasn't mentioned in Diannaa's edit summary or conveyed to me via my talk page). When I learned of this discussion, I sincerely attempted to address your concerns (by explicitly noting the painting's provenance). At no point have I questioned your contributions to the encyclopedia, and I sincerely apologize if something that I wrote came across in that light.

My goal was to intervene before Neelix could insert a photograph of a car with "Gregorian mission" painted on the side. I'm truly sorry that my good-faith efforts offended you and grateful that my egregious blunder has been corrected via the use of a different non-contemporary depiction of Pope Gregory I. —David Levy 14:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That point did not escape me either ... but as it is what Ealdgyth requested, I assume that given her knowledge of such things, she deems it better, and as I have little knowledge of events prior to "free silver", I'm inclined to take her recommendation.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I would prefer the map image ... it gives a good indication of what the subject is covering without any issues of contemporariness. But since Diannaa worked with the manuscript image, my point was that instead of reverting back the painting because the manuscript was "too small" - the same process of cropping (that had already been applied to the painting) could have been applied to the manuscript rather than a blind revert ... as to the contemporariness - at least the manuscript is recognizably medieval art - and is about 600-700 years closer. It also has the advantage of looking more "cartoonish" and thus people are less likely to think it's a direct likeness. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you like me to switch it?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Nah, not worth the bother. Only 8 or 9 more hours to go... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Detailed maps are the worst possible images to display as 100px thumbnails. —David Levy 15:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

My reversion was "blind" because the reason behind the image replacement wasn't conveyed to me (including the edit summary, "different image"). I knew only that Diannaa had switched to an unprotected image that was practically unrecognizable at 100px.

Is there a particular reason why you didn't leave a note on my talk page? I'd have gladly discussed your concerns, which weren't fully clear to me from the messages that you posted last night. (I sincerely believed that I addressed them.) —David Levy 15:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't object to the current image's use. (I don't think that it works as well as a crop, but it's more than adequate.)

I take issue with the manner in which my actions have been assailed. I set out only to improve the section. I sought a suitable image, which I then cropped, resized (via two scaling methods, manually blending the outputs for optimal results), cleaned up, sharpened, and compressed via a separate program.

Ealdgyth had genuine concerns, and rather than expressing them on my talk page, she came here to complain. When Diannaa informed me of this discussion, I sincerely attempted to address the aforementioned concerns (by incorporating the requested notation and explaining that the use of an image from a related article isn't unusual). In response to further criticisms, I then modified the blurb twice more. (I didn't agree that there was a problem, but I respected others' views and made every effort to satisfy them.) —David Levy 15:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec twice, again) thank you, David, twice, for a good change and for letting me decide ;) - and you running this page for reminding us that we owe thanks to the primary author first, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps this is not the right venue to discuss this =)? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 14:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a venue that works ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I am going to belabour the obvious for a minute here; none of this would have happened if Ealdgyth had had more notice as to the main page appearance; only 25 hours notice was given. There's even been some cases recently where only one hour's notice was given: Here's two examples: Manchester Ship Canal (Malleus, July 19; 59 minutes notice); Garret Hobart (Wehwalt, July 4; 59 minutes notice - While Wehwalt was on vacation with limited internet). For Gregorian mission, the pic was not added until one hour before showtime; this was at 11 pm in the UK; working people might already be in bed by that point. While David Levy's point is valid that the primary contributor does not own the article and does not have any veto over the image selected (if any), surely their input is desirable, especially with more esoteric subjects where some specialised knowledge would be helpful. Their statement here led me to believe that the clothing in the 1620s painting, for example, would not have been what was worn a thousand years prior. If the articles were selected a week ahead of time, or even a few days ahead of time, these issues could be ironed out in advance. -- Dianna (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. All of us could have done better work — individually and collaboratively — in such a scenario. —David Levy 15:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that acknowledgement, what changes in procedure are going to take place? It is indeed the case that none of this need have happened given longer TFA notice, but if Ealdgyth got 25 hours' notice she was fortunate; on several recent occasions I have received 59 minutes notice, via a bot. That's one minute after midnight BST when I am likely to be in bed, asleep or otherwise engaged. What really riles me is that these last-minute notifications still contain all the thunderous guff about consulting Raul if the date is inappropriate and about editing the blurb, etc., as though there was still all the time in the world. Why has the practice of last-minute notifications become standard.? I have raised the issue with Raul but got no explanation; can you do better? Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There have been several times when Raul has undertaken to give more timely notice. What gets me is that it is disrespectful. Seven day's notice would be plenty of time to settle any remaining matters, pull the article's socks up, and get it on the main page with a bit of polish.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears that many of the notifications are last-minute because the selections are as well. As to why that's occurring, I have no idea. Given Raul's appointment of a delegate to share the workload (Dabomb87), it should be easier to schedule articles well in advance. —David Levy 17:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I concur entirely.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be easier, but apparently it isn't. The mixture of incompetence and complacency among those running this show leaves me speechless at times. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, this train wreck is about over; new TFA shorly after I post this. The problem, as was previiosly dicscussed, is a combination of a failure of leadership and poor approaches to the whole process. The arbitrary nature of it all is bullshite. The whole FA process should be a more colaborative one, without an autocrat and without "delegates" weilding that power. TFA should be collaboratively selected at least a week in advance, as should the blurbs and images. It's past time for the dog-mangering to end; all that's left is the bell. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Another result of management in abstentia. PumpkinSky talk 21:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

My position has not changed since January. Whoever performs the job of Featured Article Director, assuming we need one, needs to be actively running things, and to be responsive to the needs of the contributors. He is the boss of a small business, and in addition to advocating for its interests, needs to be the one who sweeps up if his employees do not have time. At the present time, we are adrift. I would suggest as an interim measure, that Raul be asked to appoint a second TFA delegate, with the instruction, "keep a week ahead". And dare I suggest the community make a recommendation to Raul?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I went to leave a note for Dabomb to alert him to this, but he hasn't edited since July 21. It would make sense for someone (Wehwalt, Brian?) to propose a firm 7-days' notice on WT:TFA, and perhaps also to suggest an additional TFA delegate for when Raul and Dabomb aren't around. SlimVirgin 00:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It had better not be me because of my association with the RfC.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hail and farewell

I am sending this note to Wikipedians with whom I have most closely collaborated over the last six years or so. After pondering hard during a month's wiki-break in July I have sadly decided to withdraw fully from contributing. I have been worn down by continual carping, sniping and belittling from a wearisome few (you know the sort of people I refer to); the joy has gone out of taking part in this wonderful enterprise. I should be more resilient, but alas it's finally got to me.

Working with you has been a pleasure and a privilege: I count myself fortunate to have had such colleagues. My warmest wishes go with you for the future. I shall be happy to do any research, copy-editing, fact-checking etc you may ever feel inclined to ask me to do – but safely offline.

With my very best wishes,
Tim. (Tim riley (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC))

I respect your wishes, and often have desired to do the same but cannot face the endless boring hours. You are one of the people I write for (I cannot see, or comprehend, the people who actually read the articles for information) and I deeply regret seeing you go. Please remember the door does not lock behind you. Please continue to consider it an extended wikibreak.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A request

Perhaps you could pass along this request to Mattisse: User talk:Philcha#Free image of Philcha. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I shall, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much.

First I want to say thank you so much for respecting my ineptitude when it comes to FA/TFA things. The fact that you would take the time to privately clue me in on the process regarding my question speaks volumes about your integrity. To be quite honest, I was outright afraid to approach Raul on his talk page about this. That's why I posted on the TFA talk page. The article I am interested in is Amazing Grace. I think it could probably use a little TLC before going on the main page (a few refs in the lead could maybe be done away with) - but I absolutely LOVE the whole concept of forgiveness and acceptance. I may ask User:Br'er Rabbit to have a look at the references as he seems very astute in the current methods. (I'm wondering if the "reflist" thing is a bit "2008".) Anyway - question: How much should the "blurb" follow the way the lead is written? Or is it better to say it in "my own" words? — Ched :  ?  22:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome. You are probably suspect through association with me, though! I use the lede as a basis, but fill in to give context and make things read better, as long as it accurately reflects the article, of course. Feel free to nominate it, of course. Br'er sounds like a good person to call on to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)