This is a fascinating legal case, want to collaborate on improving the page with me? Or maybe switch from ''[[Time Inc. v. Hill]]'' to instead work on ''[[Hustler Magazine v. Falwell]]'' together?? Please leave a note on my user talk page, — '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 18:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a fascinating legal case, want to collaborate on improving the page with me? Or maybe switch from ''[[Time Inc. v. Hill]]'' to instead work on ''[[Hustler Magazine v. Falwell]]'' together?? Please leave a note on my user talk page, — '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 18:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
:We may as well, as i really never found that much on ''Time Inc.''. I got to finish McKinley first, but then I will. You have been very patient with me, thank you.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt#top|talk]]) 18:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
:We may as well, as i really never found that much on ''Time Inc.''. I got to finish McKinley first, but then I will. You have been very patient with me, thank you.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt#top|talk]]) 18:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
== Justice Scalia, Separation of Power ==
My apologies if this isn't how Talk is supposed to be used. The photograph you removed was from the personal collection of Clifton Coufal, the person on the right in the picture. He's given permission for it to be used for non-commercial purposes. I'm not sure how to edit the copyright tag though. Help would be appreciated.
Lecen has put up a retired tag, again; both user and talk (was unblocked for an hour to allow it). He needs to sleep on it and hopefully that will help. Meanwhile there's a project to fix. A poisoned atmosphere is not going to lead to much participation. The WMF does not seem to have provided people here with hazmat suitsor JSTOR access. Alarbus (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that when an admin, professing neutrality, asks a user to tone it down, it is only helpful to inform the admin of instances of behavior, that, taking the admin at his word, the admin might be interested in. If the admin then does not act, well, perhaps you know something about the admin then. If the admin chooses to act, something productive might be done. It might be wise, too, to have not said anything regrettable as part of the discussion, to avoid possible side issues with the admin or at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I learned that caution is necessary ;-) Even body armour has limits. Manning makes some sense, a separation of concerns approach. I wish Lecen would see that his departure leaves the other concerns adrift. Back to work. Alarbus (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the comments made in the Lecen thread were made by people who appeared to take a markedly different stance in that ArbCom thread you mention, and I'm at somewhat of a loss to explain why. After all, both involved a rather dubious comment made by a strong content contributor, and therefore I'd expect Lecen to be defended as assiduously and with the same passion that Malleus was, after all both are content contributors and people of equal human dignity. In fact, Lecen's work in non-English speaking areas will not easily be replaced, if he leaves, unhappily. Yet some people have shown their stances to be—malleable. Perhaps if I look deeper into this, these seeming incongruities will be resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the term used in Lecen's block, battleground mentality, is a widespread problem. Maryana seems to see this, and has presented some rather detailed research to the WMF on the subject. I'm seeing all sorts of factionalism, and that's simply anti-collegial. Perhaps a few new shortcuts are in order and some incorporation of the terms at their targets. I considered wading into that Arbcom case; I did present a statement that is on the case talk page, now. But the hazmat suit didn't fit over the body armour. Besides, there was work I saw that needed doing. I've heard the term "malleable stance", it's not a new approach to things. Alarbus (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a highly irregular verb. I am firm, you are a vandal fighter, he has a battlefield mentality. Seventh grade English class. Not.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot more wrong with that than what someone snipped. Off to Manning's talk with a copy of above and than I have to go. Ceoil's the one who called me dangerously stupid on ANI and a prick a dozen or more times. Alarbus (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That he does, and it seems I missed the end of the show. I'll tune in to next week's episode. See you had uninvited company ;-) Alarbus (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(again with the extra indenting.) I've nosed about and it's all rather … predictable… anyway, I still have hope that we'll have Lecen back, although I doubt he'd go with an inappropriate editor as mentor. I did like the part about the mainpage layout which is rather tired and stale. More fossilisation. Off to work. Alarbus (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I got a lot done on Lecen's articles on Brazilian topics. His block is up in a few days and I'm going to talk that banner off his page. Next would be to help him take another article to FAC and maybe talk of a Brazilian Featured Topic for the ones already done. Given that some involved in FA have now serious interaction issues with Lecen, I believe it needful to establish a mechanism for recusal. There has been much talk of needing more reviewers, so possibly some of “them”. I also think you would be appropriate, and hope Brianboulton would offer a review and assistance. The goal, of course, being to develop more content about a topic area that has relatively little coverage on the project.
I'm going to peek at Landis, next, but if you'd like me to focus on another coin, I'm game. The train crash looked interesting; still reading. Alarbus (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I expect the notion of week-long-blocks for WP:BATTLE is what's emerging from the WP:CIV enforcement case. I expect to see more of them, with bumps of the unit for the chronic cases. Alarbus (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be good to have a mechanism for recusal, but wonder if there would be a lot of drama connected. At some point I will look at the Brazilian articles but when I have looked at them in the past I have not found them my cup of tea. As for the case, we are close enough I am content not to speculate.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at WP:INVOLVED and think the same principle applies here. The last time Lecen was at FA the rancour was not as stark as it is now. The concept of recusal is not about any actual wrongdoing, it is about avoiding any appearance of impropriety and keeping outcomes from being questioned. (and halfway through writing this, I recalled that you're a lawyer. d'oh.) Better to look at it as drama avoidance.
I am finding these articles interesting; that's got to help motivate. Maybe a better role for you would be mediator (or not; depends on the future). There should be a larger pool of reviewer who have wide ranging interests and skills. And the simple fact is that the project does need more coverage on a great many topics, especially Global South. The whole ruckus over Pumpkin Sky has to slow down the progress of the CIV case; into next week at a minimum. (Landis or coin? will flip on it). Alarbus (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) There is a mechanism for recusal; it's called "politely ask people to recuse". I've seen it done several times. And.. Gawd, I know this is probably just more gas on the fire, but... gawd... I pop in and out. I confess that I seldom know much more than a snippet of the story, and so I am lacking in WP:CLUE in this particular instance... But this rambling, cancerous multi-editor argument is just... clusterfuck on steroids, with a side helping of clusterfuck. Wehwalt, I have never had a problem with you, and in fact I even like you.. but over time I am officially growing disappointed... you don't need to reply to me, for fear of gas/flame... I am not pointing fingers, nor – God help me! – do I want to get involved. But the clusterfuckedness of this is epic. I agree with what Moni said. I am disappointed that you even say anything anywhere to anyone at any time on this topic. Perhaps others are to blame, and perhaps you are caught up in it; I dunno. But at the very least, you officially have not distanced yourself from it, nor made a clear-cut, unmistakable, decisive effort to do so. Regrettably, that lack of separation is operatively the same thing as participation. This is regrettable. And disappointing. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 07:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am genuinely sorry you feel that way. I don't know what you would have me do; I think what I advocated is fairly dead so it would seem silly to formally withdraw from the "candidacy" I was regrettably said to have. As I have not posted to the RfC in at least a week, I don't know what you would have of me. I still believe that FAC has serious leadership issues which the RfC is not addressing, but I bow before the community's expressed judgment. That's how you do things around here, if you are not satisfied, you ask for an RFC--one in this case which was announced in November by Sandy, not by me--and if you are not satisfied, you sit down. Please note that the name calling against me went way beyond fair comment, yet I did not fuss over it. Yet you do not mention that to my credit. If you would have me join in throwing PumpkinSky overboard, well, forgive me if I pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) To your credit, i have seen you make several seemingly neutral "Nothing to see here" comments, and others did not seem to WP:AGF. But passive neutrality is not always enough; sometimes you have to actively distance yourself from things... There's a huge difference between advocating change, and personal attacks. There's also the matter of not distancing yourself from the personal attacks that others commit.... I have gone bananas on WT:FAC on three or four or five or maybe even six occasions advocating change, but i think i never violated WP:NPA in the "gadfly for change" context... I think I may have violated WP:NPA when I perceived people taking isolated actions which (in my opinion) damaged Wikipedia (see this for explanation; see my rant about "Popular culture" one week before my failed RfA for example). But...the clusterfuck here is a crowd of editors violating WP:NPA, and you do not distance yourself from them in the specific context of those violations. They are on "your side", but you should not have been silent when they WP:NPA. You should have said, "Hey! WP:NPA!", and upbraided your own friends publicly.Ling.Nut3 (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ling Nut, I am very tired of this discussion of "friends" and "allies" and "cliques" and all that. I don't do that. I have met personally exactly two Wikipedia editors. This whole thing of doing favors and having your wife intervene and the craziness I see at AN and AN/I right now confuse me more than anything else. Please do not expect me to rein in other editors in that way. I have tried that sort of thing in the past, found it is generally not productive, and do not do it. I gather my reticence was shared by other editors in those discussions. I find this conversation unpleasant and would like to end it. With the exception of the occasional grumble here, I have not said anything on the topic in well over a week. Please accept my assurance I do not plan to return to the topic without a very good reason. I am not a masochist.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it is true that you have no friends/allies, then... you need to be aware that some contexts create that impression automatically, and others are not to blame for that perception. Very seriously. If you are one side of a debate, and others are on that side with you, and they violate WP:NPA in an excessive manner, and you don't say (gently, at least at first, but always publicly) "No need for WP:NPA here", then there is no way that that situation will look like anything other than you are either letting others do your dirty work for you, or you are at the very least holding a double standard that favors those people. That is why people have failed to WP:AGF – you have not stood up for what is right on occasions when it is those who "are on the same side of a debate as you are" who are doing wrong. Everyone, even the most pure of heart, will perceive this as an instance of collusion or the presence of a double standard. It is patently unavoidable, so you must actively work to prevent it from happening. It is your obligation, first because you should do the right thing, and second to make it clear that you have no "allies" or whatever. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course what those who fail to AGF would say that having failed with my allies, I was seeking to politically flip. Thank you for your words of counsel, which I would urge you to continue to spread--you started with the easy one. At this point, I am declaring this topic unwelcome on this talk page, by everyone. In other words, don't poke the bear.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Separator
Hi Wehwalt and Alarbus!
You may open up an RfC or ArbCom case if you wish to continue discussing other editors. Your talk page is not an appropriate place for carrying on these negative comments about other editors.
How interesting. Where would you think that discussion about whether such a course of action would take place? IRC? Oh wait ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt--I spoke to you on live chat help the other day about my article under review: Jim McKelvey. Good news! It was approved. However, the photo I had uploaded isn't appearing. If I "edit" to add another, will I need to resubmit the article for review or is that just considered a minor edit and can be done at any time without disrupting the ability to search for it? Thanks for your time! Osumggrad (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even figure out what she needs to email them! I clicked something about copyright tags? Seriously, this is such a ridiculously confusing process. 24.182.178.208 (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is simple. You upload is with an OTRS-pending tag. Then have them send an email to OTRS saying they are willing to release the (linked) image under the Creative Commons license (link here too). That's all you will need to do, if they find it insufficient they will let you know. Make sure you're cc'd on any correspondence.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Because you recently contacted the Wikimedia Foundation about funding resources, I wanted to invite you to help us create a list of the kinds of resources Wikimedians might need. This is to help generate ideas towards the development of guiding principles for funds allocation in the Movement. More explanation is given here. Your participation there, and that of any others you may know who have sought or considered seeking resource funding, would be much appreciated. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Maggie, that's pretty chutzpadik of WMF to try to get me to spend time on surveys when I'm still waiting for my $98 for JSTOR and feel that the Foundation has filed it in the circular file.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
re: this post. I exchanged a couple emails with him both last night, and again this morning. He's feeling very unwanted and quite down; although he's an adult - and dealing with it well. I have no idea if he'd be interested in returning, but hopefully he'll stay in touch. If he is still reading through things, then I'd hope he'd feel somewhat encouraged by the AN thread though. — Ched : ? 18:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just finished up James G. Blaine, so I'm ready to press on right away. I wasn't sure if the brouhaha at FAC was putting you behind schedule, but if not, let's go. I was thinking of an "Early life and family" section, followed by a "Civil War" section, both of which I'd like to work on. Where we go from there and what sections you'd like, I don't know.
I finished the Phillips book (very good as analysis [better than most in that series], weak as chronological biography) and started Major McKinley by William H. Armstrong, which details his Civil War years. Armstrong's not a professional historian (he's a minister who has published several history books), but two other McKinley biographers (Morgan and Gould) praised his work. I have the Leech book here and would like to lay my hands on Morgan's revised 2004 edition when I can, but it's not cheap and my local library doesn't have it. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, Morgan and Gould seem like they'll be the most useful. I have that McCollough book, too, and the Brands book on TR is around here somewhere. Did you want to work on the page directly, or start it in userspace? --Coemgenus (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On Nixon, what I did was work on a section at a time in userspace, then insert it into the article when done. Avoid edit conflicts and so forth. Then polish while the article is "live". It worked fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will watchlist that. I will work out of here, ditto. I imagine you will start with the Civil War. Perhaps I should start on how he got elected to Congress, it's the first point I'm really familiar with because of a point of contact with Hanna, and we can work on pieces as we like from there. We should discuss the structure of the presidency section.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref desk answer
Hi Wehwalt, thanks for your answer to my prose question on the reference desk tonight/this morning. The article that I was asking about has just been nominated at FAC. I'd love if you could give it a review if you have time/interest. Understandable if you're busy though. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I hope you are fine. Will you please be able to spare some of your free time and have a look at the prose of "Broken-Hearted Girl"? Please. It's a much smaller article that "Halo". Don't worry. I will understand if you refuse. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The one immediately above. I don't want to take on commitments I may not complete as reviews are moving very slowly. I may need to put up an editnotice.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Wehwalt. It really does not matter. I know you are a very kind as well as helpful person, and that if it was possible, you would have definitely helped. Thank you anyway. Take care and happy editing. :) P.S Do you know someone who can help me? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I take on too many commitments, nothing, including the reviews, gets done. You know the reviewers at FAC as well as I do.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't want to be distracted from McKinley right now, so I'm not doing much reviewing. For me, a review is mentally exhausting and can take much of a day. I have a lot of work to do and don't want to derail the train.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per the recent peer review, I have now nominated at FAC. With regard to that Italian line you asked about, Nikkimaria has kindly provided a rough translation on my talkpage, but I won't adopt it into the article until it has some formal authority; I don't think it's a particularly significant point. Brianboulton (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate it but I plan to step back from the further discussion; though not absenting myself, I will not be taking a major role. It does look interesting and I could see myself supporting such a proposal.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking it over - obviously it's just the germ of an idea at the moment and will need a lot of work to be transformed into a draft proposal, any help you can offer would be much appreciated! SalopianJames (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I almost certainly will give it a closer look and make comments. I suspect it is unlikely to receive a nihil obstat, but I think it would be a very productive enterprise, and could if necessary be set up by boldness and establish itself. I suspect other advocates of FAC reform will be interested as well. I'll give you some comments down the road..--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The coincidence of initials, of course, does not mean that the group seeks annexation into the existing jurisdiction of the FAD.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, chaps - I'm looking forward to your views after you look it over in more detail; Wehwalt, who would you suggest I inform? I thought the list of editors supporting elections at the RfC would be a starting point after getting a few initial comments? Cheers, SalopianJames (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, and others whose comments indicate they might be interested; it may well be worth looking for people who have been involved in FAC in the past, but who have, for one reason or another, chosen to devote their time elsewhere. They might be interested. And remember, there are those who might be interested but who have been reluctant to involve themselves at FAC because of perceptions. Word will get around. Key will be to attract enough quality people.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, my name Tomica and on Wikipedia I edit generally Rihanna related articles. I saw you helped to my friend Jivesh for the "Halo" prose tweaks. I will be grateful If you could also do it for me. I want to nominate "Unfaithful" for FA. Several users told me that is already good written, however I know there are some prose tweaks, especially in the Reception and accolades section. I would be very happy If you could help me with the prose. Thank You— Tomica(talk)22:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I am not hurrying up you, (cause you don't need to do it If you don't want to), but I was just curious when you gonna check on the article. Thanks :) !— Tomica(talk)00:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given the above, the eight citations of this journal should now be focused-in on more specific pages than pp=501–503, 541–542. Assuming one has the source. All for the moment… Alarbus (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you working on Washington quarter; I've already watchlisted it… on the Bicentennial page, I'm mostly done. The other sources could use some ordering. If you can find more authors it will help determine the order and will drive tweaks to the linkage from the footnotes to the sources (the ones using {{sfnRef}}). Alarbus (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of the ones in the USBC have no listed author. The one in TYN was almost certainly written by David Ganz, who wrote one of the books (he edited the periodical, and he was very involved in the whole Bicentennial coins things; he's still alive I think, he was only in his twenties then.) I really don't like contacting writers, though, the last one I did was polite but not very helpful, I think he resented my giving away his excellent research for free!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NTY ? I was just wondering if more authors were available for sorting purposes. The current order (unless you've been in there) is just the order they appear in the article. I figured you might want them in some order. Alarbus (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the usual practice is to insert them as if the name of the periodical was the name of the author. But I'm open to ideas. No, no more authors available, except as I said about Ganz.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the dates. Isn't the idea that more eyes will help spot such things? None of it is really about articles; it's about power and exercising it. I've looked at the link; it's still there, so I'll update the access date in a bit. Alarbus (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone's entitled to their typos; we all make them. A process, however, should be built with a plan that will catch such things. It doesn't of course; most any FA I review has many things that slipped through their cracks. In their monomania, they miss the forest for the one tree they dance around. It's fixed ;-) Alarbus (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. It's a matter of other eyes. People often ‘read’ what they think they see when they're actually recalling what's in their head. This is another thing that's wrong with building walls around things; fewer eyes, smaller vision, articles retarded. See Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler; no one is arguing for the old way, they're arguing that the argument was skipped. They want to argue. This place has driven off anyone who won't fight over stupid stuff. Found this. Alarbus (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. When I get tired of the drahmah, I pick up the newspaper.
My theory is that the god-king regrets not having gotten a Facebook-style payoff and is dealing with it by using the website for his political purposes. Show's he's relevant. Have you seen the Timid Guy Ban Appeal ArbCom case? --Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about Brundage. I am old enough to remember Munich, barely. Also, he was responsible for Marty Glickman getting screwed in 1936; at least most stories have it that way. Marty was a gentleman, though, in many years of listening to him broadcast Jets games, I never heard him mention it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jimmy did miss-out on the billions the .com guys made. Goes with our .org, though. I saw Glickman mentioned in the Brundage article but didn't look. Continuing the Munich games was the appropriate course. I did look at the Timid Guy guy case, but only briefly; there's only so much one can do. I've not gotten to Landis, either. I think there are four more refs to re-do in Canoe River train crash — that's what this thread is about, right? Alarbus (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, judging by the other columns by that guy, the god-king is certainly not making out like a bandit. Glickman was Jewish; he and another Jew were replaced on one of the relay teams, most likely by Brundage's order. Now, the replacements were Jesse Owens and another black, so it's a bit of a mixed bag. I think I will put Brundage on the list, perhaps my local library has some of the books on the Olympics that come out every four years. Canoe River: Do you mean I need to act on these? What, the online Citizen?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The speaking fees were 50-75k, so he'll not starve. I didn't look at Glickman yet, but did read that bit in Brundage about them being dumped at the last minute for Nazi ring-kissing reasons. Seems the whole legacy of Owens as the negro that beat the Nazis could have been the Jew that beat them. I've finished the 4 cites on Canoe River; the next step would be to shift them out of the reflist and have that be just footnotes linking to details below the books. It's straightforward as I have the harv on them and the refs are named so that they can be switched to the sfn system easily. With the ref name= form, the name is only for editors, but with sfn, it shows as the footnote (or a formatted version of the params). I'm thinking I'll do Landis and/or something for Lecen before I get back to Canoe River. The Citizen links are fine, as far as I know; bother the BC and Ottawa ones. Alarbus (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine. I will delink the inapplicable newspapers. I am not in the practice of writing in sfn yet. If you see me being clumsy in working with it in modifying it, do let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm missing something about the de-linking; just edit whatever and I'll look tomorrow. Most sfns are simple: {sfn|last|year|p=} with doubles, of course. You can use up to four last names. Cites using {{sfnRef}} allow most any name to be used for the footnote and are usually for things without an author or with a lot of authors. An sfn in prose with four long names isn't a short footnote anymore. {sfn} also takes |loc= for a secondary field: "Table 2" for example.
Do you want to use that feature where the note has a hyperlink to the citation? The article's set up that way now, but I've found it's more trouble than it's worth, especially when a new editor tries to add something later and has trouble figuring out the coding. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A pity. This could have been refactored to keep the links using modern methods. @Coemgenus; it's not nonsense, it's about proper structure, maintainability and looking to the future. Alarbus (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've used it before, and it has its uses in articles where there are many works cited and it might be difficult to locate them, but for most articles it just forms a barrier to entry for new editors. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let us become sensual with other. Sensual. I admit this is a strange section to append to your talk page, but let us remain sensual. Thank you for your sensual time. Yours sensually, Iloveandrea (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okie Dokie, that's cool. Just let whoever decides to close it that I don't think it is a good idea (under COI) for a former employee to be nom'ing their former place of employment for deletion. Thanks for your help. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You were kind enough to PR this article a few months ago. I have now put it up for FAC where, I hope, you may like to add your thoughts on the candidacy. (I may add that your increasingly whimsical way of indicating that your thoughts at FAC are anticipated by your comments at PR is on its way to becoming a Wikipedia institution, and I look forward (optimistically) to seeing if another variant comes the way of this article.) Tim riley (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, another mountain to climb. You do realize that unless I can meet your challenge, I shall regretfully have to withhold my support? ;)--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it was basically a coin flip between it and the bicentennial. Assay commission was given consideration but I decided to shuffle that one down in the hope of more sources. And thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I intentionally withheld that as apparently there is some discussion about whether to use access dates on google books cites, as the books do not change.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
gBook links are capricious. They serve them or not depending on their profile of you, including if you've viewed the work before. The accessdate is about the link, not the book. Sure the book shouldn't change, but the ability to access the gBook copy can. I figure it appropriate to update the accessdate when I verify that it can be accessed. It will be for-pay down the road, although Google uses information as a currency. We're all being Crucified on a Cross of Information. If you want to set the dates back, I don't mind.
I agree with you. Few of my stands on format are out of conscience, I just try to avoid trouble at FAC. I am starting research on Brundage. There is a major collection of his stuff at the University of Illinois, but I don't really want to go to Urbana in February.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mine are. Trouble with the incorrect produces teaching moments for those who will learn, and highlights to others who's who. Can't blame you about Illinois, it's known for that. Maybe you should consider a Brazilian topic.
Hello! I have started a new article on a related person, see User:BorisG/Arcadiy Harting. Please have a look and let me know if it is sufficient for submission as a new article, and for DYK. I don't have a good idea of these processes, nor of the categories etc. Any advice would be appreciated. There is no rush. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks OK for DYK purposes, although the referencing is sort of sparse. Give some consideration to making sure the DYK hook is from a sentence that has a reference on the end of it, so there is no confusion!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saw that too, figured it was so obvious he'd catch it on his own, if not, he'll probably ask me to look at the article again and if I had to, I'd point it out then. Or I'd find an indirect way of getting him to notice it!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed'em (I think), and some other stuff, and left the fellow a note. I'm off for now. Will finish-up the coins I've gotten into. (aside: see Rwanda; all sfn). Alarbus (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's an error in Morgan, p. 43. He lists McKinley's 1876 opponent as "Leslie Sanborn" when it was actually Levi Leslie Lamborn. I'll try to find a source to back this up. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've got the McElroy book if it helps, I bought it in Canton. Lamborn, it seems to me, is notable and would make a nice DYK hook.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've started to sketch out an outline of the Presidency section in my userspace. Please feel free to add any subheadings of topics you think we should cover. I'm reading Leech now and an online version of Morgan, so I'll be adding to the outline as I discover topics. Once the outline is done, I figure we can divide up the parts and start work on them. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Gould will be the more useful book, actually. I dislike those cabinet boxes and did not include it in Nixon, nor did I include the judicial appointments. As McKinley only appointed one justice, possibly we can include it in a mention of Hobart, and how his influence with McKinley may have led to the appointment of Hobart's friend John Griggs to replace McKenna when he was appointed. We can also mention that Day got appointed to the federal bench after the war. I am working on the '96 campaign, but it is likely to take me several days as I see it as a very key piece of the article and also I have people here working on my house, which is a distraction (they've already knocked out my wifi once). I'd like to handle the civil rights one, it is a rare opportunity to be critical of McKinley. We may want a separate section on the trusts ... I played with your outline but don't take it as written in stone, just my thoughts--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good start. I may have to break down and buy the Gould book. I've tried to get away from the idea of dividing the presidency into Foreign and Domestic halves. Partly this is because most articles I've worked on were about presidents whose foreign policy would only fill one section -- unlike McKinley. But also, some things don't fit well into either. You put the tariff in foriegn policy, for example, when I think it's far more about domestic politics. But that's a small detail. I think the cabinet box is useful, but if Nixon passed FA without it, so can McKinley. The judicial appointments, though, I'd like to keep. I think people look for it, especially since that is such an important issue in our own time. The prose needs fleshing out, of course, but it would be a good place to discuss Hobart and Griggs, and also to mention McKinley's good relations with Catholics, maybe, if you don't plan to mention it in the '96 election section. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All that sounds good. Jones goes into some discussion about the Catholic matter in 1896. I can easily fill in behind you on Gould if you are not minded to get the book. We can discuss how to section the article, if not domestic/foreign. Perhaps just not divide it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summaries are surely snarky. I'm watching his contributions. As long as his edits are arguably productive, I'm not inclined to do anything. If he gets controversial again, that's different.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, he's cloaked his reversion in a "productive" edit. And I note what he said about you. I would simply revert the dash portion citing the exact MOS provision. What's this ArbCom case he's talking about?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea what ArbCom case he thinks covers this; I asked, he didn't answer. Both User:Cameltrader/Advisor.js and User:GregU/dashes.js automate fixing dash issues; they're widely used. Astynax quoted both MOS:HYPHEN and MOS:DASH at him, but Beyond My Ken never replied there, either. I think he cut it out when he saw your reply here. Astynax hasn't edited further, and I'm rather wondering what he's thinking. Alarbus (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I looked further; those are his articles]]. I know about that sandbox; you pointed me at that before. I should move it to a better title…
How about you install importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); (doc:User:Ucucha/HarvErrors) in User:Wehwalt/monobook.js (you really run that?). This script highlights problems; use it to see the grief at Joseph's Tomb. FWIW, I don't think that case is going to do much. I'll support any needful RfA ;-) More will be blocking for mere profanity. That's the wrong issue; it should be about hostility. Alarbus (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean RfC, right? Feel free to help me out with my monobook as long as you mention what you did, it is not my strong suit. I agree, the words should not be the issue, it the clearly demonstrated desire to diminish another human being which should be. I agree, the case rips a strip off everyone and punts. I do not consider the expressed rationales terribly valid.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant re-admining those guys if they lose it. I can't edit your .js. You can take most of mine: User:Alarbus/common.js; if you put it at User:Wehwalt/common.js it will work with any skin. You might skip some of it; User:Barticus88/WhatLinksHere.js is not too useful, User:Alarbus/hlist.js is for fixing navboxes, and User:Ucucha/duplinks.js I don't use much. I should go hunt down more. Best way to find the is look in the .js of others and grab… In Prefs-Gadgets-Editing I like "Adds two new dropdown boxes below the edit summary box, with some useful default summaries." "Citation expander: Automatically expand and format citations (uses "Citation bot")." "wikEdDiff, improved diff view between article versions (not needed if wikEd is used)" -Appearance: "Add page and user options to drop-down menus on the toolbar. Works in Vector, Monobook and Modern skins (documentation)"
A committee is a terrible way to do such things; there are too many people and they can't agree on much, so they produce a soggy mess and off everyone goes with mostly business as usual. Alarbus (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
>>>Thanks!! I appreciate it passing. I really took everything you said to heart and I am glad you recognized my effort & the output. Thanks again!
Dishman28 (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
>>>There is nothing else that needs to be done right? I think I saw where you stated no... but do let me know. Also what happens if in the history someone 'undos' something? Thanks.
Dishman28 (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving McKinley talk
Do you know how to set up archiving with MiszaBot? I wanted to do it for McKinley, but when I've done it in the past it always gets screwed up somehow. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
I agree, and when I am less frazzled with McKinley, I'm going to look at it. I don't think I am the only one so motivated. And yes, blocked or no, PS would be a conom.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, go cheer up Montana. She may feel low, she found people talking behind her back, I gather. And I'm gathering they didn't notify her of the discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may lose something at that small size. Can you do a full size with that in print on the "sky" part of the image? Many thanks for your efforts.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I did get a good laugh at the pooch's expense, can't think why. I saw the original Broadway production, of course it's been muchos años since then.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We may as well, as i really never found that much on Time Inc.. I got to finish McKinley first, but then I will. You have been very patient with me, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Justice Scalia, Separation of Power
My apologies if this isn't how Talk is supposed to be used. The photograph you removed was from the personal collection of Clifton Coufal, the person on the right in the picture. He's given permission for it to be used for non-commercial purposes. I'm not sure how to edit the copyright tag though. Help would be appreciated.
