User talk:Wehwalt

Albert Levitt

Before you sink lots of effort into creating an article, can I ask: what is Levitt's notability beyond his involvement in the eponymous case? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Here. As a Federal District Court judge in the Virgin Islands, he ruled that the 19th Amendment applied there and that women had the right to vote. He later became somewhat of a religious nut job and ran against Nixon for the Republican Senate nomination in 1950, and finished sixth out of six, behind Nixon, three Democrats, and a bigamist.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Do either of those things make him notable? Certainly not his candidacy for the GOP nomination. Candidacy for a national legislature does not supply sufficient notability for a standalone article, see WP:OUTCOMES, so a fortiori one who is merely a candidate for candidacy for national legislative office! The 19th amendment decision, I suppose, could be argued to be an interesting footnote to the Insular Cases -- but not necessarily. At the time, the Supreme Court's leading case was Balzac v. People of Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922), which held that the Sixth Amendment's jury trial was inapplicable to Puerto Rico (like the Virgin Islands, an unincorporated territory). Skimming the case, though, it's not clear that its prohibition applies to all civil rights, let alone to political rights (the distinction was still alive and well in those days). It may well have been within the ballpark to conclude that the Nineteenth Amendment applied to the Virgin Islands, although I'd have to study the issue more closely to decide it. Even if it was a truly novel reading, however, it would be the decision that is notable, not the judge. Our article on Roe v. Wade, for instance, doesn't even name the judges who sat on the district court panel in that case, and although we do have an article on one of them (Judge Sarah T. Hughes), her notability is premised on other matters, not simply participation in one important case. Is there more, or is that it? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There's more coming. He helped draft the Equal Rights Amendment in association with Alice Paul[1].--Wehwalt (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's face it. The man was a federal judge (he seems to have resigned over the governor pardoning someone he convicted). I think that's pretty much per se notable. I'm looking at a NY Times article about his swearing in. He was a minor public figure for much of the 1930s, before he seems to have gotten religious mania. He also ran for Senate in 1960 in New Hampshire and sent a telegram to the Pope asking about Kennedy's loyalties. It all adds up to notability, and it doesn't expire.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where that link supports the claim that he helped write the ERA. A google search isn't promising. I don't assume that involvement in such foolishness creates notability, either. Nor do I agree that federal judges are per se notable, but let us assume that they are. Levitt wasn't one. The first cue that something is wrong is that FJC, which has bios for every federal judge since 1789, doesn't have one for him. The reason is simple: when one thinks of federal judges, one has in mind judges of article III courts, but Levitt was the judge of the District Court of the Virgin Islands, an Article I court. Although such people could, in the strictest sense, be thought federal judges, we shouldn't think of them as such for purposes of your proposed per se notability test. Think of the consequences. Are we to think that every person who has ever held a commission for the Merit System Protection, Patent Appeals, or Immigration Appeals boards -- who are just as much vel non "federal judges" as was Levitt -- is notable simply by the fact of their nomination and confirmation? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

He wrote over 75 drafts of the ERA for Paul. We can duck the question of the article III vs article I courts because he was the highest level judge for a top level US political subdivision. Apparently the VI had 2 judges at the time, the other was the Police Court judge ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So what? He was a lawyer who wrote drafts of failed legislation. He was a judge on a minor article I court for a few years. He unsuccessfully sought a party's nomination for office on a few occasions. And he was a party to a case so minor that it is omitted from free source of Supreme Court caselaw, relegated to a status below even dissents from denial of cert. This is notability?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

On balance, yes, I think he is notable, or I would not be writing the article. If you want to nom it for AfD, that's fine. But yes, by the rules we have, I think he's notable. A number of news articles about him, mostly from the 30s.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disapprove of nominating articles for deletion while they're still wet behind the ears. An article that I created was once nominated within three minutes of my creating it, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leftosphere, and I've lamented nominations for articles that were barely a month old, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juliet Davis; Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blue_Sun. You think Levitt is notable; I don't see it, but I could be wrong. If we let the article stay, you (or another editor) could add material supporting notability, and the encyclopædia will have grown and benefited. If we delete it, and the same material later emerges, WP:RECREATE might allow the article to be recreated, depending on the material, but time and effort by the community will have been wasted on the intervening processes, to no benefit to the encyclopædia. Strangling the article at birth at AFD is therefore counterproductive and inefficientt.

I'm a deletionist and (at least in some contexts) and immediatist, but articles plainly need a reasonable amount of breathing room. Policy recognizes as much, see WP:FAILN, encouraging less terminal steps than deletion, and the notability tag seems a good fit for the situation. If notability still seems problematic in a few months, AFD will still be there.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) That's fine. I think that the default in this case is with Levitt being notable, since I have a fair number of articles specifically about Levitt. I probably won't get much done in the article tonight, but will finish the remainder of his career over the next several days. However, I certainly do see your point. Any one thing that he did can be attacked, we are merely arguing about the totality.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

White Elephants in the Caribbean By Henry Albert Phillips (shenanigans and corruption)

Do you have this one? —Mattisse (Talk) 12:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I do now! Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest talking with Ruslik0 (talk · contribs) about him.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you enlighten me a bit more?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

My head is at its most comfortable on the line

The English language includes these words precisely to avoid phrasings like "he resented the Democratic candidate for governor James Roosevelt". If you want to switch it back, I won't object, but it might be worth noting that I'm from outside the States, and seem to manage fine with it (I'd never heard of a "franked envelope" before today, though). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a philatelist, or used to be. Franked envelope is perfectly proper English. So is gubernatorial. Let's use both and hope no one has a problem with them!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't get this either: "According to Tipton in an interview given just before the election, Nixon fell for the ploy." What was the ploy that Nixon fell for? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

They knew communism would be an issue, and after Boddy, they knew Nixon would exploit it. They figured if they got him to attack her as a communist early, the issue would be worn out by Election Day. So they baited Nixon by trying to link him to Marcantonio, which has got to be the most stupid election ploy I've ever seen. They found that the communism issue just would not die, and it stayed alive all the way through.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, this is confusing: "Truman vetoed it; Congress enacted it over his veto by wide margins in late September. Douglas was one of forty-seven representatives (including Marcantonio) to vote to sustain the veto.[61] Nevertheless, she pledged to stand with the President, ..." She voted to sustain Truman's veto. So why the "Nevertheless, she pledged to stand with the President"? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Hmm. Let me play with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

But it doesn't make sense that it was a "ploy", as Nixon had already determined to make her political leanings an issue, having been to Florida and visited George Smathers. It doesn't seem like Nixon fell for a ploy, but rather that he seized on the opportunity. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

But the Douglas camp didn't know that. They suckered him into what he was going to do anyway. At best, they got him to do it a bit early, because it was Chotiner's view that voters only really concentrate on a campaign for two months.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Has your opponent fallen for a ploy if you offer your head on a platter and your opponent takes it? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

They thought voters would tire of the issue, so they tried to start it in July. Bad mistake.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The only other thing I can think of is that with Douglas dead in the polls (the NY Times article is from Nov 1), Tipton was putting up a brave face.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what I think. Tipton was trying to make his horrible error look good. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure; I hope it's promoted. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 06:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, knock wood. And my experience with FAC is that the unexpected always happens.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Laura Ling speech

Hi. Do you mind if we keep the entire speech up for at least for a a few more weeks? I am the one who added it in the first place. See, not one mainstream source has the entire speech. Yes, there are sources which carry parts of the speech but not the whole thing. So I spent about 30 minutes watching the tape, typing out what I heard, getting all of the names exactly right, etc. I figured that since no other outlet has a transcript of the speech, people will come to Wikipedia for it. Also, these are the only words we've heard from the two journalists, so this speech is highly valuable. I know about Wikisource, but I feel the Wikipedia article would benefit from having the full speech. --Tocino 20:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic, but is that the purpose of Wikipedia? Can't you put it on Wikisource and have a link from the article to there?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never used Wikisource before. I will upload the speech on there eventually. Mind I ask what is the policy about having speeches on Wikipedia? --Tocino 20:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Although it is not specifically addressed, I think it is covered by WP:NOT especially WP:INFO. Carrying part of it, for example, the part about meeting Clinton, is entirely appropriate. The whole thing, with the list of thank you's, converts it into an indiscriminate collection of information. Check out the primary source discussion here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL

Did you read the interview of Gates? It was added to provide balance per WP:EL by giving Gates version vis-a-vis the police arrest report and dispatch radio transcript.

Hmmm. That's interesting. I guess that is OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thx ↜Just M E here , now 12:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #8

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #8. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know.

--User:Nbahn 04:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification Requested

When you wrote, "at least 3P.M.," did you mean no later than 3P.M. or no earlier than 3P.M.?
--NBahn (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No earlier than.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

info

Do you know about WebCite? I've just starting using it for new articles where my references are web links that may rot. In reviewing GAs I found articles that used them. Very nice. —mattisse (Talk) 21:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that sounds good. Some of the links from my early FA's, Natalee Holloway and Jena Six are doing that. I'll have to look into it. Sitting at Albany airport, where there is free wifi. Latest upload [2]--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Humm. From Sacramento to Albany. Suspicious. —mattisse (Talk) 21:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, capitals of disfunctional states.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

the guy thinks it WAS on probation

As do I and bugs. Please indicate your perception his comment doesn't apply rather than remove it. ↜Just M E here , now 15:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This is why I suggested that you start a new topic, rather than amending this one. But you have them replying to a question athat wasn't there then. That's rewriting, and we don't do that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

{sighs} If someone thinks it already WAS on probation, their reasoning is rather likely to also apply to the idea that the article should be, don't you think? Hiding his input is out of order since I've indicated that I in good faith think it pertains to the discussion. Again, should you think it does not pertain, you should've simply amended the discussion to indicate your perception of this and allow the reader to make up hi/r own mind as to whether it does or not. ↜Just M E here , now 15:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be canvassing if you asked him to restate his comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

a new series?

Quite a story. Does this mean there will be a "series" on New York politics? A question: Do you use any of those bookmarking services, such are listed at the bottom of that article, such as Digg, el.icio.us etc.? Wondering they are useful, or just another way of building up a big useless collection. —mattisse (Talk) 21:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I wouldn't mind doing it, but I have too many projects waiting, so maybe at some point, but not right away. Interesting character, although I think there's a misprint on that quote from Congress.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't use Digg.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

July 12?

Any idea what happened to cause this spike?—Kww(talk) 22:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

They reran the movie on the evening of July 11, which translates into July 12 Wikitime.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Second Inaugural

Saw your note here. Just FYI on the Noll book, the only real discussion of Lincoln (from what I can recall) comes at the very end in chapter 21, and the material about the second inaugural is fairly brief (maybe 10 pages or so), but Noll is a major scholar (of American evangelicalism, not Lincoln) so it could well be worth including, and there probably are not many works out there that consider the theological context and ramifications of the speech as effectively as Noll does (at least that was my thinking on reading it). I actually thought I had added a bit to the article about Noll's claim that the speech was one of the few "sacred texts" in American history, but apparently I decided not to do that for some reason.

The rest of Noll's tome is fairly rough sledding if you're not all that interested in the minutiae of 18th and 19th century American Protestantism. I personally liked it and got quite a lot of it (particularly in the early chapters relating the so-called "collapse of the Puritan canopy"), but it was not one of the more popular texts among my fellow grad students in our first year course on historiography.  :-)

Anyhow like I said I'd be happy to pull that book off the shelf and lend a hand if and when you get deep into article revisions, but no worries if you dig into it yourself and find worthwhile stuff to include. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I also have a book "Lincoln's Greatest Speech" on it. It will be a bit of time until I really get into it, I'm behind on the Khrushchev article, which is a real pain, and the down to the wire drama on my current FAC United States Senate election in California, 1950 is distracting me and keeping me from any serious work.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I don't think the speech is going anywhere anytime soon. Good luck with the tricky guy and the (not actually) pink lady. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No heroes in that story, I'm afraid.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Albert Levitt

Hello! Your submission of Albert Levitt at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 14:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I was actually just about to post my reply when the orange "new messages" bar popped up on my screen. I must have missed that when reviewing the article; it now checks out, and I've approved it for DYK. Excellent work! Cheers, Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 14:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Old school vandalism hunting 2 award

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your keen eye on removing vandalism which was over one year old in the article, Kennel, I award you this barnstar for meeting the challenge set on WP:reward Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

well done  :) Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

RfA !vote (Headbomb)

Thank you for hoping that I would be able to convince you to switch to neutral (and that you are willing to let DGG have his say). I still hope to do so (and even switch to support if possible). Me and DGG just had a great productive conversation (we spent over an hour over emails) as a result of this me contacting him. I'll let him clarify first, and then hopefully I'll be able to address your concerns. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since time is relatively short, and I do not know when DGG will be able to clarify (or if he has a follow up to my last email), could we proceed based on good faith, as if DGG did not feel badgered or anything like that, and work on addressing your concerns? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it some thought. But it would really help if you could get DGG in here. Don't worry, I'll be around, hopefully building articles constructively. I have the RfA watchlisted.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh I know it would help! But I have absolutely no control (or knowledge) of when DGG will be able to reply. I would suggest that we accept as a working hypothesis that I'm right about DGG for now, so we can tackle the rest of your concerns. If I turn out to be wrong about DGG, then that will just be more reasons to oppose (hence why it makes no sense for my to lie about this). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've withdrawn my !vote, giving you the benefit of the doubt. For now.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Now the crux of your concerns at the time were that I lacked a nomination statement, and that you couldn't tell what I learned since the last RfA. Since then I've made one, and answered several new questions. Did the statement/answers I answered made a general good impression/is there something unclear / something that made a bad impresssion? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a dialogue over this. Let me think about things for a bit. I'll let you know if I have questions, or post them on the page.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, good enough for me.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I decided to concentrate on emailing between us off-wiki, & then planned to comment on wiki, as I have just done at the RfA. If something happens which anyone thinks I ought to notice, the best way is to ask me to look, not try to help me out more directly. I do not exactly think of myself as a shy newcomer whom others need to defend. I think Headbomb and I are determined to remain friends whatever happens about this. The appropriate thing to do now at the RfAdmin is to let others have their say. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Albert Levitt

On August 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Albert Levitt, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

08:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Khrushchev 2

I'm becoming overwhelmed by this Khrushchev book. Too much awful detail. What was the source of Stalin's power over all these people surrounding him? How could a nation function at all, never mind at war, with Stalin sleeping late and forcing everyone to get drunk at night? And there is the story of Khrushchev's daughter-in-law, Liuba (Lyonia's widow) who was arrested in 1943 and sent to various labor camps, released in 1948, then exiled in Kazakhstan for five years. And the strange tale of her son, Tolya, sent to multiple orphanages where he was starved, and at one point '"lived" in a railroad station ventilation shaft'.

The horrors of collectivization and the peasants—I always hate reading about that. There are various articles on WIkipedia about this people or that people, now numbering only 1,000, and their horrible stories about being moved from living mountain rural life to becoming corn plantations field hands on the flat lands, stripped of their personal possessions and denied their own language.

Khrushchev? He was a Ukrainian first. —mattisse (Talk) 18:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I know. I'm up to about the same point you are. Khrushchev seems to be another Speer, another Nixon, utterly self centered but extremely competent.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Re the death of Leonid Khrushchev. "Our" book does give the reminiscences of Leonid's fellow pilot who said that Leonid's plane disintegrated. —mattisse (Talk) 22:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll add it in. I'm afraid that when we get down to FAC, the account of the daughter in law and her son are going to be challenged as not germane.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know. You might want to try Tompson's book, it is much shorter and goes less afield.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you add it. I think you have stop at some level of detail. As it is, with the book my head is spinning as I try to keep track of it all. —mattisse (Talk) 22:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know. You might want to try Tompson's book, it is much shorter and goes less afield.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've gotten The Ed 17 to agree to look over the military sections of the article, since battles make my head spin.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

And I'm being very careful what words I use to describe the Ukraine. The last thing I need is to be caught in a nationalist battle between Ukrainians and Russians.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The book does a fair job of explaining the Ukraine. I had been unaware of that business about the western Ukraine and the Poles, etc. etc. The history of that whole area is intense. —mattisse (Talk) 00:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's why the Ukraine is still politically divided today, with the Westerners leaning (er) West, with the East of the country pro-Moscow. Orange Revolution and all that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Admining by proxy

Could you take a quick look at the deleted contributions of Kiel friendly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I've noticed a couple, and I get the impression that he is contributing a number of things that wind up deleted as reposts of previously deleted material. If he's a newbie, forgiving one or two is easy. If there's a pile, it's a sign that he probably isn't really a newbie.—Kww(talk) 13:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

California's 12th congressional district election, 1946 is now a GA

Congratulations, California's 12th congressional district election, 1946 is now a Good Article. I'll just echo Happyme22's sentiments in that it's a great read. Let me know if I need to tweak any related pages or templates. I've removed it from WP:GAN, listed it at Wikipedia:Good articles#Political events, and placed a GA template on the article talk. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)