Welcome to my talk page.
- Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
- If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will watch your talk page and will note when you have replied.
- Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
-
- Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
- Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
- To initiate a new conversation on this page .
- You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Archives: 2005 | 2006 | 2007 (1) | 2007 (2) | 2007 (3) | 2008 (1) | 2008 (2) | 2008 (3) | 2008 (4) | 2009 (1) | 2009 (2) | 2010 (1) | 2010 (2) | 2011 (1) | 2011 (2) | 2012 (1) | 2012 (2) | 2012 (3) | 2013 (1) | 2013 (2) | 2014 (1) | 2014 (2) | 2015 (1)
Contents
- 1 James B. Weaver
- 2 Ulysses S. Grant
- 3 Tillman
- 4 WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
- 5 Garfield
- 6 Ulysses S. Grant source review
- 7 DYK for Stephen D. Dillaye
- 8 BJP
- 9 Special thanks
- 10 DYK for Charles F. Warwick
- 11 Happy Easter!
- 12 A question about one of your edits
- 13 A Dobos torte for you!
- 14 DYK for Josephine Witt
- 15 DYK for Henry Grier Bryant
- 16 Coinage Act of 1873
- 17 Newspapers
- 18 Hello from the team at Featured article review!
- 19 WikiCup 2015 May newsletter
- 20 New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
- 21 Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup
James B. Weaver
Congratulations on getting the subject article promoted to FA! Very well done! Sarnold17 (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! And thank you for your help with getting it there. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Ulysses S. Grant
Hello. I've left some commentary here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Tillman
Thanks for the review. A subsequent reviewer has expressed concerns, that I'd be grateful if you'd look over.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Will do. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.
In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
- Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
- AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
- Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
- And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.
You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)
Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.
(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Garfield
If you want to work on it together, I certainly have no objection. Perhaps we could divide work? I've done up to the Civil War, perhaps you could do the military spell, the election of 1880, and a good part of the presidency, while I focus on the congressional career? You've been there what with Blaine. I think it will take both of us to do the assassination part. That's what people are most interested in. That's just offhand, we can work on it however suits.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sure! That seems like a good division of labor. I've written about the 1880 election so many times now, I could basically do it from memory. And I have the sources to cover the presidency well enough. I'll be glad to take a crack at it. As to congressional career, I don't know what you've got planned, but I thought organizing it by topic, rather than by election, makes more sense, especially with the elections never really being close in Garfield's district. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree,I was planning to reorganize them. The only close election was 1874, when Garfield was hurt by Credit Mobilier and it was a very bad year for Republicans, and he still got 57 percent. I guess the Democrats never got the chance to mess with his district like they did with McKinley. [later note: they did mess with his district in 1878, he responded with the move to Mentor]I have a couple of books on the assassination. Legacy, we'll muddle through. This article isn't as heavy on trivia and pop culture as some, but what there is should be exported to a sub article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's bloated, but not in bad shape. The editor who took it to GA, if I remember, is a good guy, but has been less active of late. Legacy is always tough for Gilded Age guys. It mostly ends with "... and nobody talks about him anymore." The assassination alone makes Garfield prominent to the modern citizen.--Coemgenus (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree,I was planning to reorganize them. The only close election was 1874, when Garfield was hurt by Credit Mobilier and it was a very bad year for Republicans, and he still got 57 percent. I guess the Democrats never got the chance to mess with his district like they did with McKinley. [later note: they did mess with his district in 1878, he responded with the move to Mentor]I have a couple of books on the assassination. Legacy, we'll muddle through. This article isn't as heavy on trivia and pop culture as some, but what there is should be exported to a sub article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you aware of anything that says definitely that Garfield supported the Coinage Act (Crime) of 1873? The biographers choose to focus on the Salary Grab and Credit Mobilier, and they really pick up the silver question later on.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- If it's not in Peskin, then no. He seemed unusually devoted to gold, for a westerner, so I just assumed he had voted for it. But I'll try to find a better answer than that. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- I suspect that he couldn't both have voted against and won the nomination in 1880. I know he voted against Bland-Allison, the refs, both on him and McKinley (who voted for) are clear on that. I'll keep looking too. I'm hoping to wrap up the Congressional stuff in the next few days, and I'll move to the assassination after that. We will have to mention his proof of the Pythagorean theorem somewhere or other.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- This book of legislative history has the bill passing 110 to 13, presumably with many abstentions, but doesn't say who voted which way. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Of course, there's some doubt that many congressmen understood exactly what effect the act would have ... at least everyone denied afterwards (who had a vote) that they were trying to impose a gold standard.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- The Coinage Act of 1873 could probably be a featured article itself, someday. There's a lot there to write about. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Good point, and I have numismatic books on it too.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm up to 1880. Tomorrow I'm going to start reading about the assassination. The point I left off with, his election to the Senate, seems a logical point for you to pick up.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Great. I have Caldwell now, too, as well as Doenecke, so I'm good for sources. This week looks to be busy at my real job, but I should be able to dive in to 1880 before too long. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Of course, there's some doubt that many congressmen understood exactly what effect the act would have ... at least everyone denied afterwards (who had a vote) that they were trying to impose a gold standard.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- This book of legislative history has the bill passing 110 to 13, presumably with many abstentions, but doesn't say who voted which way. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- I suspect that he couldn't both have voted against and won the nomination in 1880. I know he voted against Bland-Allison, the refs, both on him and McKinley (who voted for) are clear on that. I'll keep looking too. I'm hoping to wrap up the Congressional stuff in the next few days, and I'll move to the assassination after that. We will have to mention his proof of the Pythagorean theorem somewhere or other.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Assassination, and legacy sections done. I really chewed the scenery in the legacy section, and if you can think of anything else to add, go ahead. I think we're going to need an aftermath section. With your knowledge of Arthur, I think that's your department, focusing on the Pendleton Act of course. I'm going to take some time away from this to do my promised work on Vonnegut, but I'll be back and probably trim the memorials a bit and we can do the usual to hide the seams between what we've each done and make the lede reasonably attractive to the reader. A few more well-chosen images wouldn't hurt. I think it will be quite good when we've done all that. I was a little worried at first just because there's only so much you can say.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Also, I don't think Guiteau should be mentioned in the body until we get to the assassination section.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- OK, that sounds like a plan. I hope to finish the presidency in the next week and start making all the references look the same. And I agree about Guiteau. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Also, I don't think Guiteau should be mentioned in the body until we get to the assassination section.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: I was thinking the "State funeral, memorials and commemorations" section could be trimmed and reorganized. Do you mind if I take a whack at it this week? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: in the legacy section, you say that Caldwell said something in 1965. I know his book was written in 1931, but reprinted in 1965. Were the words you reference in a new forward to the '65 edition, or just part of the original work? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's my goof. Didn't realize it was a reprint. You might want to correct the cite book with an origyear.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I'll fiddle with it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- How are things going on this?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm still not thrilled with the lede, but the main text looks good to me. What do you think? Should we do a peer review, or go straight to FAC? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Peer review, I think, but if you want we can skip and go right in. I'll give it a read over later on, and I'll play with the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- No, I agree. PR is good for finding things we've missed. And I'll fiddle with the lede this weekend, too, when I can. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've had my shot at him (I had to get in line behind this office-seeker). As far as I'm concerned, it's ready for PR or even FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'll give it another once-over tonight, but your edits all look fine to me. If you still want to go through PR, that's cool. I have a nom at FAC still, though I think it should pass soon. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Peer review, I think, but if you want we can skip and go right in. I'll give it a read over later on, and I'll play with the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm still not thrilled with the lede, but the main text looks good to me. What do you think? Should we do a peer review, or go straight to FAC? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- There's about three left from the image review I'd be grateful if you could look at. I gather you've done some of Tim's comments, is there anything you need me to do on those?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll take care of those tomorrow morning. Sorry to have been AWOL today, work got kind of crazy. I'll let you know if I need anything from your end after I take a pass through the comments. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Ulysses S. Grant source review
Hi Coemgenus, I removed your request for a source review for Ulysses S. Grant because it's clear there is still substantive article work going on and fresh commentary coming in as recently as today. As an FAC coordinator, I'd prefer to see the source review when article work is complete as a final step before promotion. As a reviewer, I also would prefer to do a source review when I know things won't change substantively. At the same time, I don't want to see you bumped to the bottom of the waitlist, so please ping me when you feel that article work is complete and I will recuse/do the source review right away. --Laser brain (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the head's up. I hope we'll be finished with it today. I'll ping you back when the dust has settled. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
-
- @Laser brain:: I think it's all settled now. There was comparatively little pushback, so maybe that's a good sign? Thanks for helping out with the source review, I really appreciate it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm on it! --Laser brain (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
-
Just a reminder: we still need something at TFA to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the end of the Civil War. I see Crisco has already scheduled for April 9 and April 12, the two most likely dates. I'd like to ask him to swap this one in after it clears FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I hope that works out. I'm getting nervous about it passing, even though there are no explicit opposes. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Stephen D. Dillaye
— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
BJP
Greetings, friend. As you might have noticed, I renominated Bharatiya Janata Party at GAN, since the discussions begun by Calypsomusic have gone dormant despite his continued editing at Wikipedia. You had said that you would review it again; if you are still able and willing, I would be grateful. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I'll take a look soon, if no one else reviews it first. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Special thanks
The Teamwork Barnstar | ||
|
- Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
-
- Today: precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Charles F. Warwick
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Happy Easter!
A question about one of your edits
Curious about one of your edits here. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 22:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
A Dobos torte for you!
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Josephine Witt
—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Henry Grier Bryant
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Coinage Act of 1873
If you have any spare time, could you weigh in at the peer review? Your guy Sherman was behind a lot of it, looks like.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Will do! I'll have some time in a few days -- my CLE deadline is Thursday, so I'm doing last minute courses until then. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Newspapers
If there's anything you would like looked up in newspapers.com, just let me know. It's a worthwhile resource; I don't know if you know about this, but you can request access for yourself at Wikipedia:Newspapers.com. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll do that!--Coemgenus (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello from the team at Featured article review!
We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.
Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.
Thanks for your help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox#Pinging next round; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
WikiCup 2015 May newsletter
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.
Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
- Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
- Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
- LeftAire (submissions) worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.
The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.