Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wehwalt (talk | contribs) at 22:09, 22 November 2013 (→FAR: a three-point plan). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

(2005-September 2008) (September 2008-April 2009) (April 2009-December 2009) (December 2009-May 2010) (May 2010-August 2010) (August 2010-December 2010) (December 2010-February 2011) (February 2011-April 2011) (April 2011–July 2011) (July 2011–December 2011) (December 2011–February 2012) (February 2012–June 2012) (June 2012–September 2012) (September 2012–February 2013) (February 2013– October 2013) (October 2013– present)

Natalee Holloway

I have nominated Natalee Holloway for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Fuck thanks

Thank you for your helpful comments at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1.

I've responded to them there.

Minor formatting query: Did you mean: "Comments from Wehwalt", instead of "Contents from Wehwalt" ?

I'm just trying to keep everything standardized and formatted in a uniform manner for ease of progression during the FAC process.

Thanks for your interest in this freedom of speech topic,

— Cirt (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the minor formatting fix. I responded there -- basically if you had any suggestions on how to make it clearer that the Contents sect summarizes the film itself, that'd be most appreciated. — Cirt (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Minor update: I changed the subsection header from just Content to Content summary -- hopefully this is clearer now. :) — Cirt (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Update: I've responded to your 2nd set of comments at the FAC, at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1. Thank you for your helpful suggestions, — Cirt (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem and next time I'll try to do it before you have more than three supports. I will look in later today, internet permitting--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused, what do you mean by "next time I'll try to do it before you have more than three supports" ? — Cirt (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Just mean I'll try to get in there faster.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, heh, okay, no worries. Actually sounds good because I've got a few in the pipeline for the future for other FAC potentials. — Cirt (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to take another look? :) — Cirt (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course, this one up here for me is more of a priority right now above Hustler Magazine v. Falwell ... :P — Cirt (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Franklin Peale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Large cent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for History of Chincoteague, Virginia

On 6 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article History of Chincoteague, Virginia, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a major event in the history of Chincoteague, Virginia, was the 1947 publication of a children's book about a local horse? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/History of Chincoteague, Virginia. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 09:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Kinky Boots (musical)

Would you kindly comment on this Peer review? You might check the article's talk page re: the recent failed GA. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, though it may be a day or two.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent comments on the article. Feel free to stop by to make any further suggestions along the way, as (primarily Tony) aims to nominate it for GA again. In particular, on the PR page, I have responded to one of your comments asking if you could suggest some language for a point that you raise. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I'll get back over there later on today. On another note, I'm planning to start work on Oklahoma soon, getting in a few extra books and whatnot. I'd like to wrap up the two remaining and at least make a start on the two bios by the middle of next year.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

US Prezzes

Hey Wehwalt, I was recently looking over the most-popular articles list for WP Human Rights, and there's four US presidents on it: FDR, Jefferson, Madison, and Carter. I think I may make it my goal for next year to bring these four to GA status. I know you've had some experience with US prez articles--would you have any interest in collaborating on one or more of these? I'd be glad to do the bulk of the work, but would value your input.

As a side note, congrats on getting Twenty-cent piece (United States coin) to FA so quickly; I'll look forward to seeing it on the front page at some point. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Carter is the one most likely not to be incredibly huge and difficult.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like a good starting point to me, too, though ironically, he's the one of these four I know the least about. Anyway, it'll probably be at least January before I really dive in on any of these, but I'll let you know when I do... -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, that little boy Wehwalt says the king is nekkid! Hang him!

Your comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Paid editing policy proposal/2nd draft included, "Note that our most virulent POV hawks, religious and nationalistic matters, are certainly not paid." Good luck, friend. I notice some prominent people weighing in on the other side of this proposal. Trilobitealive (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell pretty please?

I'd really really like to work on Hustler Magazine v. Falwell and getting that to FA.

It's really the only U.S. Supreme Court case on my mind right now that I'd be interested in working on.

Morse v. Frederick is a fascinating case indeed, but Hustler Magazine v. Falwell dovetails with my interests in freedom of speech, combined with other topics related to free speech like comedy, parody, and satire.

Just so we can be sure there's no existing problems on the article, I'd personally want to start in a userspace draft and then paste that in, effectively gutting the current article to start from scratch.

Whaddya say? :)

— Cirt (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me look over the article and see what the state of play is on sources. It is worth doing. My internet is a bit limited right now, let me let you know next week.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, next week sounds good. If I have a chance I'll put up a workable draft in my userspace to start out some preliminary research. I have a few good sources and one that is probably the best most complete out there is the book Jerry Falwell v. Larry Flynt by Rodney Smolla. Actually I was planning to write an article on that book, first. :) — Cirt (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to help out with a legal case related to freedom of speech that itself cites Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, I'd really appreciate help with Beck v. Eiland-Hall which is currently at Peer Review at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Beck v. Eiland-Hall/archive1 and after that I'd love your take on its chances for FAC? — Cirt (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll look at it but it may be a few days. As for Falwell, it probably would be sometime in early December that I got to it, assuming.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good, Hustler v. Falwell is the more important project for me, honestly. :) But the one for Beck v. Eiland-Hall is pretty much complete as far as research, just could use help shepherding it through FAC basically. :) — Cirt (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't know much about that sort of international law but will look it over.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The case primarily relied upon prior precedent from both Hustler v. Falwell and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, even though multiple legal commentators had said the complainant filed the case with the WIPO and not in U.S. court specifically to avoid having to deal with the First Amendment... — Cirt (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll look at it after I finish the peer review you see mentioned above. I'm most likely going to agree on Hustler, I just want to look over and see how easy/difficult the sourcing will be. Bakke was a pain in the neck to find sources to cover everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sounds great, I'm still doing a bit more research on it. Have you had a chance to revisit Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1? — Cirt (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Quick Fuck query

If your comments at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1 were addressed satisfactorily, would it be alright to move the addressed comments to the FAC talk page?

I've been doing that with permission of the various editors to keep things running smoothly.

Just wanted to run it by you first.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. I am a few more days on the road and will be home Saturday and things will be a little more settled.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay no worries, sounds good. Have a safe journey! — Cirt (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You won't have to wait a few days. Once my mind is clearer with the aid of caffeine, I'll work on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright, either way, no worries. Personally I prefer a decaf mocha frappuccino. :) — Cirt (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You are younger than I and can afford such risks.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Kinky Boots (musical)

Hi, In your opinion can you see a reason that the cast album section of the article would contribute to the article failing a GA nomination. I have two opinions on it, i personally prefer to include as much as possible in the main article rather than split into sub article unless size is an issue or notability. Neither of which i see as a problem here but i would rather it be split if its a reason that it would fail a GA.Blethering Scot 19:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Also on another note, I'm wondering if in a week or so once i have continued working on it further if you would be willing to do a Peer review of From Here to Eternity the Musical.Blethering Scot 19:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been RL busy. Yes, I am happy to look at the other article. I haven't finished my review yet of KB and will make sure to keep your question in mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Its been removed without allowing the discussion to continue with neutral editors given the leading that was done, on the grounds it's more likely to pass GA without it although despite asking no one as explained how it would make the article fail other than the image which was removed prior anyway. I no longer care any more as not going to continue interacting with him as its a waste of breath as he has no interest in discussing anything to improve the article or addressing the issues I raised which are still issues but anyone else's he will. Anyway ill message you in a few weeks about Eternity as I think your style of peer review will really help me. Thanks. Blethering Scot 13:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

In addition i have removed all Kinky Boots related pages from my watchlist as rather than continually going over the same issues would rather improve some of the poor quality articles the project have rather than bicker over the small number of good ones we have. Blethering Scot 13:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, really appreciate your comments.Blethering Scot 23:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No trouble.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

SCOTUS FAC

One I've worked on just too much to be a FAC reviewer, you may be interested in reviewing: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl/archive1 Montanabw 20:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, but I'm backed up, it will be a few days.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

re Status

Sounds great. No rush or real priority on Beck, Hustler is most important imho, and also after that Cohen v. California could be interesting... — Cirt (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going through review commitments first now that I'm home, then it will take me some time to accumulate sources. Do you have Lexis/Westlaw access? I don't.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do, like I said first we should gut Hustler completely, after that there are few good secondary sources in law reviews, I searched for those that cite the case name right in the title and there are about 6 or so good ones. — Cirt (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you send me a pdf of them if I send you an email?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing, go right ahead. — Cirt (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

1. I started a draft with some basic outline formatting at User:Cirt/485 U.S. 46 (1988).
2. I modeled the section outline after reviewing prior FA articles at Category:FA-Class U.S. Supreme Court articles.
3. After there's a brief overview (for the reader as we expand it) for each section in a good cited sourced format, I'll paste that into main article space and then we can just work directly from there.
4. We can of course add more sections, but I think it'll look good with (at least) these sections in the outline, after we flesh it out with secondary sources.

— Cirt (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Understand I'm not going to get into this until I've accumulated sources. I really do better one thing at a time, and Oklahoma! has been promised for after my return from Europe. So it's going to be probably early next month until I seriously start on Hustler.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

BLP violation redacted

I have redacted your comment here as a clear BLP violation. I have also redacted Overagainst's quotation of it on WP:FAR, which is how it came to my attention. I am extremely concerned than an editor - indeed administrator - of your experience and standing does not recognise that the comment is grossly inappropriate. It is never appropriate to suggest that a person should have been murdered. Disparaging or offensive comments about a living person violate BLP, and it hard to imagine many more egregious examples of that than what you said. BLP does not contain any exemption for terrorists or people you dislike. Your sense of humour is not a defence: that you find that sort of offensive comment funny certainly doesn't make it any better. I hope you will reflect on your comment and recognise its inappropriateness. As I am sure you know, BLP violations may result in blocks, so I trust you will not make such comments again. Neljack (talk) 10:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Offensive is not BLP. When you are trusted with greater user rights than you have, you perhaps will be listened to further on this. But you do not understand policy. And I won't be lectured to about my reaction to a very shocking moment, over three years ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss the issue, but the material must stay out in the meantime. BLP#Restoringdeletedcontent states:

When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Misplaced Pages's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first...

Thus the material can only be restored with consensus. I have therefore restored the redactions. Enforcing BLP does not count as edit-warring, though reverting against it certainly does. Neljack (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I have started a thread on the BLP Noticeboard here. Neljack (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken, and are engaged in edit warring. That policy deals with deleted articles. Read the whole paragraph. It has nothing to do with talk page discussions. As a lawyer, were I to cut off a quotation with an ellipsis to exclude material that undermined my position, I would put myself in serious danger of contempt. As an editor, you do not risk such things, but you do risk the memory of the community.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

New text below old

Please don't insert comments on top of mine like you just did at the BLP discussion, it obscures who is who.Overagainst (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

If you must, please adjust the indent on mine and the ones below.Overagainst (talk)

I have always relied of the kindness of strangers to adjust my indenting. :)--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

From Here to Eternity the Musical

Hi, I'm after some help. Would you mind taking a look over the article and do an informal peer review. Also any help you might be willing to give me would be greatly appreciated as i really struggle to expand leads and do critical reception sections.Blethering Scot 18:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. By the way, I tend to do both of those sections last, they are indeed a pain.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Ive hidden a whole heap of reviews at the bottom of the article, but every time i try i Just really struggle to pick things out to use. Find it really frustrating.Blethering Scot 18:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.Blethering Scot 17:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm best to revert myself but what do you think. I added the photo of James Jones, he's deceased but his image is still under a fair use rationale and I'm thinking it's maybe too much to include it. Not very good with this kind of thing but I've probably done wrong.Blethering Scot 21:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, but I've got a cold and am not 100 percent so I may take the rest of the day off.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Freedom of speech - for peer review

• Portal:Freedom of speech

I've placed Portal:Freedom of speech up for portal peer review. Comments would be welcome, at Misplaced Pages:Portal peer review/Freedom of speech/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think I will stick to Beck, which is slightly delayed as I find my feet after my trip. I really don't "get" portals. Each to his own.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure sure, no problem. I was almost going to just nominate straight to Featured Portal candidacy, but I went to peer review instead for the extra stage of quality improvement. Beck, then Hustler, then maybe Cohen v. California, sounds just fine! :) — Cirt (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Stella Gibbons

If you have any time to spare from the multifarious claims on your time, I'd appreciate it if you could look at the Gibbons peer review, just opened. It's a pretty straightforward article, not too long, nothing too contentious. Any comment would be welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, certainly.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#RfC:_Template_links

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#RfC:_Template_links. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

Pic of Rovelstad statue

Hi - On Elgin, Illinois, Centennial half dollar I noticed you recently removed the pic of the Rovelstad statue - Was there a problem with it? I thought it was a good way to illustrate that part of the article. KConWiki (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I had no problem with it, but one of the reviewers at the FAC did. There is a problem, the statue is most likely within copyright. A broader image, that showed the group only as a part of it, I think would fly.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Kinky Boots (musical) again

Hello, Wehwalt. I think that we have now addressed all of your comments at the PR, but I would still be grateful if you could address the question of whether the table in the Awards section should be moved to its own article like was done for and , among others, or whether it should stay in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

FAR: a three-point plan

1. Put the FAR on hold for now (removing the template from article talk and the review from the main FAR page), with an agreement to re-evaluate in 3 months
2. In that period
   1. Work on addressing all valid concerns raised by the review (and I'd like to add a few points not yet addressed, if I may)
   2. Find some way of resolving the content disputes that are taking over the talk page - whether this is through noticeboard posts, RfCs, what have you - assuming these can't be resolved by normal talk-page discussion
3. At the end of the three-month period, the FAR will either be restarted or formally closed, depending on progress made.

Sandy, Wehwalt, others, thoughts? The alternatives would be to continue as we are (which so far hasn't worked very well, but hope springs eternal), or move to FARC and let the chips fall where they may. I will say that given that Sandy's points are key to the proposed solution, I don't think it would be prudent to pursue that avenue unless both agree. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It might take more than three months. But in general (and that's not a stall, I may have some refinements when I think about it), I'm in agreement. There are valid points, this article was written piecemeal as events happened and I'm a better writer now than then and there's room for improvement. But there needs to be an opportunity to work on things without having my elbow joggled. That means some space to work on it without constantly getting hostile comments. Let them leave it alone for a while and let me work it over. Then let's see what, if anything needs doing.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

They need to back off right now, including the Scrux links. This is just tag teaming. Again, if they go on this way, it's the point of a gun and it's pointless to work under those circumstances. You know there was no valid talk page discussion and that's a FAR requirement. What Overagainst was doing then wasn't really communicating.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I agree that the edit-warring is not ideal, but per WP:ELBURDEN disputed ELs are excluded until there is an explicit consensus to include, right? (And having or not having an FAR is unlikely to change what's happening at the article and its talk page, which began before the FAR was ever open). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not see, given these actions, that there is any reasonable chance of a meeting of the minds. I do not think I would be given the opportunity to make the edits to the article. So I don't know what to tell you. My thought is you should close it, and wait and see if there's good faith on all sides on the talk page. Then you would have discretion as to whether to allow a further FAR if desired. Because you know that there's no chance of this working in any reasonable way.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that there's any chance of it working in any way, period. But nevertheless: on hold for three months. Good luck - looks like it'll be needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea. Thank you. But it's going to take good faith on both sides, and I don't see a lot being extended right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is here. MastCell  21:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)