User talk:RHM22/Archive 5

Shooting thaler designers
Just picked up a book on Swiss coins, cheap because it is the 2006 edition (zwei euro) and it has all the shooting thalers including the designers and where they were struck. Can you use this in your list?
 * Is it the Münzenkatalog? Unfortunately, that one doesn't really contain anything really useful. If it is that, that's a good price! The catalog wouldn't have changed much from 2006, and the new ones sell for about sieben Euro for a new copy.-RHM22 (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. Also picked up a Michel Münzen-Katalog (1871 to date) from 2003 for drei.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway for the offer! That sounds like a good price for the Michel catalog also. I've never looked at one of those before. Let me know how it is! I'm guessing it's similar to the American Red Book.-RHM22 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, covers German states past 1871, notgeld, German colonies, occupation coins of Netherlands and Belgium, and the euro coins of all European nations through 2003 (I'm guessing to sell a few more copies). What I love is that it has the withdrawal dates of most coins, and sometimes they were different for Berlin area, and also for Austria where German coins had been circulating post-Anschluss.  Just building a reference library--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds interesting! I always buy coin books when I can find them for a good price, even if it doesn't seem like I'll have good use for them. I bought my VAM book a few years ago at a yard sale. The person had some boxes of books they were selling for three for a quarter, so I got VAM for less than ten cents! It was a 1991 edition, but you can't beat it for the price.-RHM22 (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No indeed, they are fairly pricey on the secondary market!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it really surprised me to find it there. Most flea markets and yard sales, if they have any coin books at all, just have red books and other general stuff. Finding a speciality title like that is very unusual for any price. I found a lot of Lincoln cent books at a church book sale once, but that was the only other time.-RHM22 (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I should start trolling online sites for books rather than relying on chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you know about bookfinder.com? All you have to do is put in the name of the book and/or the author and it searches all the big book websites for the cheapest price. Of course the ANA library is great too, and you can scan any good information from those books before you mail them back.-RHM22 (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(od)No, I've been doing it piecemeal. DId you get the email from the ANA about the summer sessions? They are having a class in digital photography of coins. Tempted, but I don't think I have the patience anymore to sit in a class.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw the e-mail. One of the instructors is Tom Mulvaney, who is pretty well known.-RHM22 (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Giving some thought to doing Coins of the Deutsche Mark. There is already some material at Deutsche Mark, I've got that Michel and my Krause, and there may be more stuff online.  I'm not afraid of German, even though I do not read it, I managed with German sources and google translate when I helped get Rudolf Wolters to FA.  And it is a nice limited topic, plus I can borrow sources for the endgame from History of the euro.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds interesting! I'm afraid I don't have much information to contribute other than anything I could find in Krause, but I do have some images that I could contribute to the article.-RHM22 (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be helpful. I just got home and I'm totally exhausted, my body thinks it is 4 a.m. and I will soon go and agree with its natural reaction.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Marginally refreshed. It looks like there is a set of obverse/reverse images that are acceptable with a little work on the licensing at Deutsche Mark.  Some images there are plainly getting images of PD coins off the internet thinking the images are thus PD, but there's enough to start with.  I'll start work in my sandbox once Peace dollar is well advanced.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Do you plan on discussing just the coins of the Deutschemark from the Unification on? If so, would you include coins minted for the German states after the Unification? For instance, the Prussian 3 mark that I mentioned was minted for the state of Prussia and not for the German Empire.-RHM22 (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Deutsche Mark was used from June 1948 to December 2001. Although I did see one "we accept Deutsche Marks" sign at a kiosk I think it was in Hamburg.  Probably they accept it at .50 euro per DM, which is a touch under the official rate, but it's a pain in the neck to take it to the local branch of the Bundesbank so I guess they would be justified in taking a little piece of the action.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean now! At first I thought you meant the German mark in general. The actual Deutsche Mark currency is a lot easier then.-RHM22 (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I find I have a book on postwar Germany which discusses the introduction of the DM (it immediately provoked the Soviet blockade which prompted the Berlin Airlift).  I think I have most of the info about the coins, what I am looking for is why stuff happened.  There is a nice chart here I'll probably steal.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading the sources on Peace dollars. Interesting story. Burdette gets a double forum, as his own trilogy and also he wrote the Bowers series book.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the Bowers silver dollar encyclopedia has sections written by different authors. I think Volume II might have something by Burdette too. Maybe it's even the same thing as the Bowers series. I'm going to work on Draped Bust series dollar next, followed by Seated Liberty. After that, I'm going to order the next volume, which has all the information and maybe images of the Peace dollar, from the ANA. I have this volume until May 25, but I'm going to order the second right after that, so I'll probably have it some time in early June. That'll be a while though, so feel free to start on Peace dollar before that. I do have some information from VAM that might be helpful also.-RHM22 (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Already started. I meant the softbound volumes about coin series for Bowers.  Like Tomaska wrote the half dollar one.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, I was saying that the section on Peace dollars from the Bowers book (Silver Dollars & Trade Dollars of the United States) might be the same as the softbound one.-RHM22 (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. It could be.  We could compare quotes.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, have you looked through the pre-1923 editions of The Numismatist on Google Books? Oodles of images.  Just a quick note.  I'm plugging away at Peace dollar.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've seen a few of those, and they're interesting. I'll go through Peace dollar and add a few things if I can after you're finished. When I get the second volume of the Bowers book, I'll scan some images from it if there is any useful PD stuff, which there usually is.-RHM22 (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm all done but the '64-D affair, then I should probably rewrite the lede and see what else needs doing. I saw your edits of last night, looks good.  Feel free to deal with my hidden notes, if not, I will.  Unhappily I don't think the models are in the public domain as de Francisci lived until 1964.  I saw your stub on his wife, nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've also created one about the model for the Morgan dollar, Anna Willess Williams. I addressed and removed your hidden comments, and added one of my own! Reference number 4 is broken because there is no ref by that name.-RHM22 (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've pulled out that sentence as sort of redundent.  I guess the mintages section is short enough to leave, though I think I will cut the line on the 1964, if the reader wants to know how many were struck, he can find out from the text.  I wonder whether to mention that the 64 has been privately restruck, in the text.  Certainly we will use the image.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would mention it. I've seen numerous different 1964 dollar restrikes (or maybe they were real????), so it's heavily duplicated.-RHM22 (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think about the collecting section?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(od)Also, can you play with the mintage figures table? It is crushed against the left hand column for no reason that I see, but I'm not good at coding this.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Except for the above, I think I'm just about done. Do your worst.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks good! I would probably just eliminate the collecting section, since most of what is in there is opinion anyway. Do you want the mintage table to float in the center of the page?-RHM22 (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll do that then. No need to float, just spread out the fields a bit more, there is plenty of space there.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean now. Hold on a minute.-RHM22 (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Like that?-RHM22 (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks good. Interesting subject, I really had never thought much about the Peace dollar, it just was.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've always liked the design, but I didn't know about all the controversy until recently.-RHM22 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh sure, though I think it would have looked pretty ugly on a clad coin ... what does VAM have to say that's usable?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look.-RHM22 (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, there's bound to be an image of Teresa published before 1923 with all this publicity. I think I've seen one, a profile view, but am having trouble locating it.  Do you know of one?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, right here: File:TeresadeFrancisci.JPG. I didn't notice anything useful in VAM (it covers Morgan dollars much more comprehensively), but I'll check in more detail a little later to make sure.-RHM22 (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, that by referring to it as a "1964 striking", it's not actually accurate, as the minting took place in 1965. If we call it a 1965 striking, we'll confuse the reader and may cause him to correct us. That's why I had that fancy phrasing, and the best way is to call it a 1964-D. Saying "The 1964-D" violates the rule against starting a section heading with "the". Ho hum.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see the problem. How about "Striking of 1964-D dollars" or just "1964 dollars"?-RHM22 (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm a little skeptical of the "hard money" bit in that section. That doesn't seem like the reason, since people were pretty used to using paper by 1964.-RHM22 (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I like Striking of 1964-D dollars. Well, Burdette cites a stat that the local branch of the Fed was always way up there in requesting silver dollars.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It'll probably be fine then. You don't mind if I go through and make a few fixes do you?-RHM22 (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, maybe "1964" shouldn't be in the header. When I was trying to get shooting thaler promoted to FL, one of the reviewers mentioned that he doesn't like years in headers. He said it was just an opinion, but others might agree. Maybe something like "reissue attempt" would remove any controversy.-RHM22 (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's going to break a rule regardless, so what do you think works best? Feel free, feel free.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe "those coins that aren't really coins now but were coins before they were melted unless there are still some that weren't melted that were minted in the sixty fifth year of the twentieth century even though they were dated as the sixty forth year of the twentieth century"? Even that probably would be controversial at FAC! Actually, I think it should just be left as is. If someone doesn't like it, it can be worked out at PR or FAC.-RHM22 (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Section titles should make it easy for the reader to check to see that what he thinks should be in there was actually included.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and it seems like the current title is the only way to convey that.-RHM22 (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to "pile on", and this is not a big deal, but I don't believe that Teresa actually posed as the Statue of Liberty upon entering New York Harbor. Later in life, she said that it was probably a myth that just came to be accepted as fact. I read about that when I was working on her article.-RHM22 (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll find a gentle way of conveying it without deviating from the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe just say "allegedly" or something like that. To be honest, I don't think you have to change it all if you don't want to. The direct quote does say that she posed as Liberty.-RHM22 (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, allegedly says too much. I like how I've done it.  You have to be careful about primary sources, everyone's always trying to look good.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The way you've worded it is very nicely done. It gets the point across while not stating it as fact.-RHM22 (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Stowaway song
Thanks for the tip :) I'll have to try out the song myself. Ruby2010   talk  03:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Need a new section
Anyway, I've lodged Peace dollar at PR. I was tempted to send it to GA as it is a former good article, but the wait is always so long there! I'd like to get this one to FAC as soon as Macdonald finally clears the page. I have to keep a slot open for Nixon in China. I don't think there's much wrong with this one. Obviously a heavy dependence on Burdette, but that can't be helped, he is the leading writer on Peace dollars and the rest of the numismatic world hasn't had time to generate more.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks good! I think it will be a great FAC once everything is ironed out. Also, I cannot believe that you found a photo of Farran Zerbe! I have been looking for one that I can place before 1923 for months! I checked Google Books, but I missed that one. How did you find it?-RHM22 (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I just looked. Sometimes you get lucky!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You just searched for "Farran Zerbe"? That's incredible! By the way, I'm adding a few refs from VAM so it doesn't look like you're relying to heavily on the Burdette book.-RHM22 (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I limited it to pre-1923, full view, and it was on either the first or second page.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice work! I also didn't know that Zerbe was a member of the Philatelic Society. No wonder he was such a shady character!-RHM22 (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Man seemed to have been quite the character, had his fingers in every pot.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, he was probably one of the most respected and reviled numismatists of his day.-RHM22 (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was reading the Panama-Pacific report, which discusses him and shows a framed set of the gold. Sigh.  Sigh.  Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I believe that is similar to my set, which is currently on loan to the Smithsonian. Seriously though, do you think all the participants of the coinage competition should be added? They were all fairly well known artists.-RHM22 (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, can't abide laundry lists. Those three are a representative sample, the interested reader can enquire further.  Y'know, if this clears all the hurdles, I'm thinking about it as TFA for December 28 (90th anniversary of first striking), and I'm very tempted to use the 1964 image just to freak everyone out.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They might go for that, but I'm certain that the 1964 image wouldn't be allowed. It would be neat though.-RHM22 (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(od)I certainly plan to defend it. It is a design for money, even though technically it is not money itself, with the only changes a single digit, and for that digit I'm sure they borrowed from the 1926 (the only year with a 6 in it).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dig this by the way. There are no blatant errors, which is more than you usually get with Maundy articles, but for a noted coin author and professor (or so he says), it is not THAT well written.  Although, I think he's been borrowing content from here, though he's good about rewriting it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of him, but he may be another type of author who writes coin articles sometimes.-RHM22 (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you be interested in some of the text from the legislation authorizing the Peace dollar? VAM has the important parts in it.-RHM22 (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the Vestal resolution, that failed, or the 1878 act?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean the Vestal resolution that was ignored by Congress.-RHM22 (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You should also mention that the Pittman Act was mistakenly used as justification for the design change without Congressional consent. Obviously they had the power to change the design, but it was the 1890 act that allowed them to do that, and not the Pittman Act. For some reason, they chose the latter as their authorization.-RHM22 (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, it might be worth mentioning that the winner of the design competition received $1,500 and the other seven got $100 each. De Francisci was apparently given 1,500 1921 Peace dollars for his work. There's is an interesting story that says that he was not very confident in his designs, so he made a lot of bets with people in which he bet that he wouldn't win the competition. When he did, he was forced to use all the Peace dollars he was given to pay the people he bet. I have a source for the prize money (reliable, VAM) and a source for the story (perhaps less reliable, a Time Magazine interview with Teresa). Let me know if you'd be interested in either of those two things.-RHM22 (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the bets is already in there, early 1922 in chronology. Yes, please feel free to add the prize money.  I was looking over Franklin half dollar, with an eye to possibly doing it next, and there is very little information on it.  I will have to look some more.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, I see the bet thing now. I missed that part at first! Would you be interested in the text of the failed legislation?-RHM22 (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. It wasn't enacted.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's true, and the text itself is a little boring since it doesn't really say anything different than what you already have there. It basically just says that they'll issue a silver dollar to commemorate peace to use up the silver as prescribed by the Pittman Act.-RHM22 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind then. I think there's a quota of colorful quotes in the article.  By the way, new game plan, after it being asked about in consecutive FACs, from now on, references will end with a period.  I changed all yours, don't worry.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll be sure to add them from now on. I didn't know about that. Why was it decided to do that? To me, they're not complete sentences, so it seems odd that they'd have periods. Of course I'm going to add them since it's the standard, it just seems odd that it was decided to do it like that. By the way, I've inserted a hidden comment on a sentence that might need a ref.-RHM22 (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it. Ours not to reason why.  There are things which I do because they are part of the process, almost the ritual of getting an article to FA.  Like I start each article on the full moon by sacrificing a vi—but I digress.  More to the point, if it makes the reviewer happy and doesn't hurt the article, I tend to be easy about such things.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, like I said earlier, I'm certainly going to do it anyway. I was just wondering why such an obscure rule or guideline would be created.-RHM22 (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm going for the longest ever edit summaries on Peace dollar. I'm approacing the record I think.-RHM22 (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh oh.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What happened to it? I was looking at Franklin half dollar, it seems to need the improving, so I'll take a shot at that next.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting choice. If there's any coin that's written about less than the Kennedy half dollar, it's the Frankling half dollar. Maybe they should put Greg Kinnear on the half dollar next for a crossover promotion.-RHM22 (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I believe I've added all I can to the Peace dollar article for now. Like I said, VAM has little that you don't already have, but I replaced several of the Burdette references to give it a little more diversity. It's tricky to write an article where most of the information comes from one book, even though it's the best there is on the subject.-RHM22 (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Two books actually, his book in the Bowers series and the volume in the Renaissance series. But I believe you mistyped where you said the proof Peace dollars were struck early in 1921.  Surely not possible?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, I did make a mistake in wording. It should have said "early in the production". Obviously production didn't begin until December, so it definitely wasn't early in the year!-RHM22 (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I fixed it now. Good catch on that!-RHM22 (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. I learned in high school that people self-edit badly.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Franklin's starting to come along. It's definitely going to be short, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd help with that, but I have absolutely nothing on that series that would be any help to the article other than mintage figures, which you already have. It looks good so far! It is commendable to take on such a difficult topic as the Franklin half dollar.-RHM22 (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We're going to get to these things sooner or later. Might as well be now.  It's just a question of finding enough bits and pieces.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe we will be able to get every U.S. coin to FA. I have three silver dollars to do (Draped Bust, Gobrecht and Seated Liberty), and three base metal dollars (Ike, SBA and Presidential), then all the dollars will be done with the exception of the Silver Eagle and the dollar coin article. It seems like a lot to do, but almost half of them are already done. After those and Jefferson nickel are finished, that will be two denominations covered.-RHM22 (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, though there are a few oddments to be done on obsolete denominations. Again, images are going to be a major problem.  I don't know if I will get to Chicago for the ANA, usually I only attend when it is in Baltimore or New York, but if they let you take images of exhibits ...--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I've ordered a Franklin medal designed by Sinnock on which the half dollar was based. It is still in the Mint catalog, but it shows as sold out (from what I gather, they do short runs every now and then of their medals, based on demand) so I bought it privately at half the Mint price!  There are also medals of Secretaries of the Treasury, Mint Directors, and I think also Chief engravers, so I will keep my eyes open for useful ones at a cheap price (I like medals and in fact brought home more medals than coins from Europe).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rereading what you said above, and I've seen the Bland-Allison Act as authority for the Peace Dollar, too. I think it is simply meant that it was the authority for the denomination to be struck, so Bland-Allison covered both Morgan and Peace, with the change in design administrative, after all, the B-A act does not prescribe a design!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Medals are often more interesting than coins. I like tokens as well. The thing is, the B-A act wasn't used to justify the design change, they used the Pittman Act.-RHM22 (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I like tokens as well. I really don't see what the Pittman Act had to do with designs.  Breen has a little bit on Eisenhower, and I suspect there's some things in the NY Times, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It didn't have anything to do with designs, but they used it as authorization for some reason. I have to finish Draped Bust, Gobrecht and Seated, and then I'll start work on either Eisenhower or SBA.-RHM22 (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Nixon in China (opera)
After your useful comments at this article's recent peer review, you may be interested to know that it has now been nominated at WP:FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

New source?
Have you seen this?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've looked at it before, but I wasn't able to find many useful illustrations. It is really interesting though.-RHM22 (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is very interesting but I haven't seen anything very helpful either.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the mint machinery might be useful. Unfortunately, there's no image of the Castaing machine.-RHM22 (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw, you're hankering to write an article about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right now, I have about fifteen words that I can write about it!-RHM22 (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you have to start somewhere!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I used it to start Adam Eckfeldt as a bluelink.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good article! Taxay has a lot of information on Eckfeldt.-RHM22 (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just bits in passing. But it's always nice to have blue links light up.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Mint was a very clannish place in those days. Lots of jobs seemed to get handed down.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, I believe the Eckfeldts were involved in Mint affairs for three generations.-RHM22 (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm really shocked there is no article. The man who designed some of our first coins.  There is a painting of him, it was in the Mint Cabinet, wonder where it is now.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bowers has the same painting as is pictured in your article, but that's the only one I've ever seen.-RHM22 (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not the best reproduction, I'm afraid.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can scan the one from Bowers later if you want.-RHM22 (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe there's also a reproduction in the book you've linked to above, but not in that edition.-RHM22 (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is where I got it. Wonderful book.  Entertaining.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I didn't notice that. Those paintings and photos are certainly useful!-RHM22 (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When people realize what is out there in Google books, I think Commons will get a big boost.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've found a lot of good pictures there.-RHM22 (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Your RfA
Hello RHM22. Would you consider opting in to the edit counter? 28bytes (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, I thought I already did! Could you please tell me how to do that?-RHM22 (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, just edit the page User:RHM22/EditCounterOptIn.js and save with any content. A comment &lt;!-- like this --> is fine. 28bytes (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's been created. Thanks!-RHM22 (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember, RfA is an open book test. Don't fear to doublecheck your understanding.  This should give you a hobby for the next week.  I think you're being taken seriously and so far I think it's going OK.  Going badly would be "me too" opposes on the first day.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know! I'd prefer to respond without looking up the "right" answers, though. When out in the field, you don't always have time to look stuff up and make sure. Of course I'd look it up if I was asked some obscure question that I've never thought of before.-RHM22 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I took advice on one question in my RFA, I thought it was a trick.  It turned out that the simple answer I had been thinking about all along was what was required.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your answers look fine. There was one that caused me to raise my eyebrows a bit, but I'm not going to suggest any changes.  First of all, the answers should be coming from you.  Second of all, the world reads your talk page this week (they are in for a numismatic education!) and responses perceived as coached will not get the reaction hoped for.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that some of my opinions might not be the same as everyone else's, but I'm not concerned with making myself look good. If my request is approved, it's because I understand what is necessary.-RHM22 (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, let us see what happens. I'm very optimistic.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure myself. I don't want to seem like I'm giving up, but I think that many reviewers might oppose based on how much use they believe I'll get from the tools.-RHM22 (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait and see for a bit yet. The worst they're saying about you is inexperience.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course! I don't plan to quit at all. After all, it'll only take a few more supports to turn this Ralph Nader into a Bill Clinton.-RHM22 (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me to be still very much up in the air. I think you've stopped the bleeding.  Don't rip up your tickets just yet!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi RHM22. As you see, I've opposed your RfA. This is purely objective as I  don't  know you and have never come across your work. However, should your RfA fail, you can be absolutely sure that I would offer a very  firm support when my  criteria are met - I  might  even nominate you  myself :) Do  consider taking  part in  this, and good luck! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, Kudpung. No need to worry, I don't take any !votes personally! I know that everyone who voiced their opinion did so because they are trying to improve the encyclopedia, either by giving the tools to a deserving editor or not giving them to someone whose inexperience might lead to mistakes being caused. Thanks for that interesting link. I'll be sure to look into it! That said, I have decided that should this attempt prove unsuccessful, I won't retry for adminship. I believe that my editing style is unlikely to change anytime soon, so my any opposes or supports will probably stay that way, unless they are based on my active editing time, which will, of course, increase! Anyway, thanks for the note. Your thoughtfulness is greatly appreciated.-RHM22 (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't ever completely rule out the possibility of being an admin -  we need more. Just  give it time :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's see what happens. I ran for admin two years ago with three FAs and little AfD work, but I had considerably more edits than RHM22, and times have changed on the wiki.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood question 9. I believe Erik is asking how you would close it, not whether you would. Surely you wouldn't let it sit in the WP:RM queue unclosed forever? 28bytes (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I believe I misunderstood his question. Does he want me to say how to do it (click this, type this, etc)? I would have to look that up, because I have no idea about the technical side of admin work.-RHM22 (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, as Wehwalt says, it's an open book test. :) 28bytes (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll do that then!-RHM22 (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know it's Hell Week, but try to concentrate on other things too. I spent seven days utterly convinced I would fail and never got above 81 percent after the first few opposes came in.  By the way, I just got Vermeule's book, Numismatic Art in America, I see some images of the early dollars, I'll read through and get anything I can for you out of it, Morgan as well.  I nominated Peace, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the RfA so far. None of the opposers have been belligerent or anything, and criticism only helps me to improve my editing habits. Thanks for letting me know about Vermeule. I've heard of that book, but never read it. I have the Peace FAC watchlisted so I can answer any questions about the stuff I added or anything else that I might be able to answer if you're offline. Don't worry though, because I won't answer anything important, just the small things like that photo I took from the old newspaper. FA shouldn't be a problem for that one anyway.-RHM22 (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's my best since Saint Gaudens, but no battle plan survives contact with ... I like the RfA too. I'd like it more with 20 more supports!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's my favorite dollar coin article by far.-RHM22 (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your Flowing hair dollar is better, if for no other reason that the whole subject is interesting. The Peace dollar has never been sexy, as I put it in the nom statement.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Flowing Hair is a more interesting coin, but there's not much available to write about. I also like the design of the Peace dollar better than any other dollar coin.-RHM22 (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't they know in 1794 that history would be watching? Still looking for material on Eckfeldt, but I've about exhausted what there is online.  I have found a number of interesting anecdotes about him, almost always positive, though he did pay for the gold for a congressional medal on the assurance that Congress would repay him, and it took them years and years and they denied him interest.  Then there is one where a kid was looking in the window of the Mint and Eckfeldt struck a cent and let the kid grab it fresh from the press.  It was hot, and Eckfeldt told the kid to keep the cent until he understood why it was hot, then spend it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone did that now, there would be a Congressional inquiry into whether or not the Director paid for the cent.-RHM22 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Eckfeldt did, he was evidently not a poor man, if he could afford to advance the Mint the money for the medal and buy it a Brasher doubloon.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, I don't think that Eckfeldt was want for money. That's the best sort of person to have on staff at the Mint, with all that gold and silver everywhere. I read somewhere about a guy that used to steal gold bars from the Mint by storing them in his wooden leg!-RHM22 (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(od)Eckfeldt was perfect for the Mint. A true believer, obviously, good with his hands, smart, young when he started, and he had money. What more could they ask?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to break up this numismatic conversation although I have learned a bit. RHM, I gave you support on your RFA and trust your judgment. Regarding Q10 in general, I would just like to offer some friendly advice. Although common sense and good judgment is often required, as I come across policy or guidance areas I am unfamiliar with, I try to research and become familiar with them. For example, this page offers good guidance on school faculty inclusion.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know that I can look up the "right" answers to the questions asked, but I have decided not to for most of the RfA. Though I do intend to look up the guidelines before making any "executive decisions" if approved for adminship, I prefer to answer from my memory of policy. I believe that doing so will help give voters a better idea of my editing style rather than a polished, pre-planned answer. Thanks for the note, though, and thanks for voting! I'm glad you enjoyed our numismatic discussion above. Most of my talk page comments tend to morph into that!-RHM22 (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are getting little hinties in this direction, aren't you? At this point, the RfA is moving along nicely, yes you are still in the discretionary zone but the curve seems to be with you.  On numismatics, I've made a start on Mercury dime in my sandbox but haven't done that much yet as I am busy with a collaboration with Dr Kiernan, Abdul Karim (the Munshi).--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had to look up the exact speedy codes for one of the questions.-RHM22 (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When people ask me to do a history merge, I spend some time checking the exact procedure ... one can't know everything on the wiki. The important thing is knowing where to find out.  Very similar to the law.  Lot of details it's "let me get back to you on that".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I look up any technical questions that I don't fully understand, and answer everything else without that. For instance, an editor is asking me about the blocking procedure, which I don't know about so will have to look up.-RHM22 (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I fly back to Europe tomorrow night, so forgive me if it is a few hours before I congratulate you on your successful RfA (or otherwise, though it looks good right now). Expect to see me on in the evening and morning European time.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, enjoy your trip!-RHM22 (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing numismatic related, I'm afraid, though I will be in The Netherlands for Koninginnedag and I've picked up numismatics-related items there in the past. A very nice coin counting tray from the 1930s, that fit Dutch silver coins from that era.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I like that sort of thing. It's easy to find out what the coins looked like from any era, but how people held or sorted their coins is interesting.-RHM22 (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I have US, UK, Euro, Swiss, Japanese and Brazilian counting trays as well.  I saw a DM one at a flea market once but someone bought it before I could.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This sort of thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be a nice display if you could fill one of those European trays with contemporary coins.-RHM22 (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I did buy some silver coins for the old Netherlands one, which takes pre-WWII coins btw. Now that the price of silver has skyrocketed, not as enthusiastic about adding more. However, it is not filled by any means.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That silver price is amazing. I don't think it'll last long though, and I'll bet we'll see $20-$25 prices by Summer. Still would cost a lot to fill up a tray with silver though!-RHM22 (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably be too valuable to keep around the house then and have to take it to the safe deposit box, which defeats the purpose.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's true. Might be a good idea for something like a library or museum display.-RHM22 (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I've filled the UK one with UK coins once or twice prior to taking them across the Atlantic.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a lot more affordable. If you ever get an old Swiss tray, you can fill it up with current Swiss coins, since the designs haven't changed in over a hundred years.-RHM22 (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The diameters of the silver might have changed slightly in 1968, would have to look it up, and I guess old trays would have 1 and 2 centime (rappen) coins. I have one that I bought in 2006 in Zurich which is intended for current Swiss.  I keep coins I pick up in junk boxes there until the next time I travel to Switzerland, I think I have nine francs at present!  That will get me a cup of coffee!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently some of the pattern designs for the 1916 silver coins were illustrated in the 1916 Mint Director's Report (Robert W. Woolley was the Mint Director at the time). Unhappily it is not on google books.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd love to have access to the Mint reports.-RHM22 (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA question 10 re. school/names
Thanks for answering. Your answer is mostly correct, and shows good common sense; the applicable policies are WP:BLPNAME and WP:NPF. I'd like to have seen a mention of 'presumption in favour of privacy', and something about the critical factor in assessment being consideration of if the person is, or is not, a public figure - that's the key.

Whether it is a school article, or a company article, doesn't really matter - except that school articles often have listings of teachers and staff.

If a person is well-known - a public figure, with reliable sources - then they could/should be mentioned. But if they are just shown on the orgs website - and maybe very brief passing mentions in papers - then they shouldn't.

That point is frequently misunderstood; many schools will list their head teacher with no source at all, and they're frequently subject to vandalism. OK, if the teachers' name is changed from "Mr. Smith" to "Mr. Ugly-Smith" then we'll probably notice it. But if changed to some "in joke", we can't tell. That's why we shouldn't have their names without RS. Even if the teachers *want* us to!

"Students should never be listed, especially if underaged" is incorrect. Students - even if underaged - may be well-known, widely pulicised public figures. If we've got an article about them, that is a fair indication that they might be listed on the school website. You are right to think they usually shouldn't be - but they can be. For example, Obama's children, Malia and Sasha, attend Sidwell Friends School. As that is very widely reported in the media, it would be churlish and pointless for us to not mention it.

Having said that - I'm pleased to hear you give consideration, and erring on the side of caution is entirely correct.

I wrote an article about a person who - born male, fathered two children, then had sex reassignment surgery, and became a woman - and was publicised widely because of her campaigns to be declared female (on birth certificate, etc). The names of her daughters were fairly well publicised - certainly the names are 'out there' in reliable sources; however, knowing their names doesn't help in Encyclopaedic understanding of the topic, so 'presumption in favour of privacy' applies. Initially, I'd added the names - but after some thinking, I removed them. Article is Lydia Foy.

Sorry I waffled a bit, but I hoped you might be interested. BLP is important, of course! Cheers, best of luck; I'll try to look back on the RfA itself ASAP.  Chzz  ► 15:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the informative post! I shouldn't have said that no minors should be listed, because some are obviously notable (Justin Bieber, et al). What I actually meant was that children should never be listed, unless extremely notable. To be honest, I've read very little in the field of Wikipedia's policy on schools, so I just went from what I've read about other policies. Really, nothing that's not notable should be added to Wikipedia, but I'd consider it especially unnecessary when the names of private individuals are listed. I agree that BLPs are probably the most important part of Wikipedia, but I know less than I should about them, aside from the basic set-in-stone rules (nothing libelous, referencing, etc), of course. Thanks for voting and for leaving this great note!-RHM22 (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, quite a few current admins are unaware of the intricacies of BLP policy. WP:STICKY is barely a year old (amazingly; looking back, it seems like only yesterday that the huge meta-discussions about BLP raged throughout the wiki). Anyways, good luck with your dollars and your RfA, RHM! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nikki! Despite some of the comments at the RfA, the tools won't distract me from my goal if I'm given them. United States dollar coins will be a featured topic by the end of the year!-RHM22 (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Milhist tag
I got one too, for Peace. I gave it some thought and left it. The Peace dollar has a valid connection in a way that the Flowing Hair does not.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Peace has a fairly strong connection with WWI, just like war nickels or steel cents would to WWII. My only concern would be a sort of slippery slope (It's Milhist, so why not WikiProject Art? It's art, so why not Women's History? etc.), but I don't think that will happen. Flowing Hair could possibly be U.S. history, but I would probably object, because technically, every coin would fall into that category.-RHM22 (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you see this? It's pretty funny.-RHM22 (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've either seen that or something similar. I can't remember if I showed you this or if it was someone else ...--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is hilarious!-RHM22 (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the all time wiki humor classics in my view.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking of humor, I was thinking of a few rules of American culture. So far, I have two. #1: The less money you make, the more you dress like a bum. The more money you make, the more you dress like a bum. #2: When it comes to fine dining, the amount of food you receive is inversely proportional to the amount of money you spend on it.-RHM22 (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, we'll start a webcast, *&*^#, RHM22 Said--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'll call it &*^# That CBS and William Shatner Took a Great Big &*^# On.-RHM22 (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wasn't sure if you had seen this source.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You're in a tough RFA at the moment so I'll leave you alone ... I'd like to talk about this later on, though. - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The RfA is pretty slow right now, so go ahead and let me know what you're thinking.-RHM22 (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't have a burning need to tag it for Milhist. The main function of any project tag, as I see it, is that it serves as a guess that there are knowledgeable, interested people in that project who will make a positive difference to the article ... and I don't have any proof of that in this case.  But Lady Liberty has been a warrior symbol for over 2000 years now, so I think the symbology is clear.  Our Congress, just like most governments in those days (and these days too), was trying to use the symbols at their disposal to remind the people how they got their liberty.  I've read the text of the bill (on this site ... note the sword in Lady Liberty's hand!), but it wasn't any help.  I'll have to do more digging. - Dank (push to talk) 23:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that means that any coinage type before 1909, and a few after, would be MilHist meat.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Wehwalt. Like I said in the edit summary, I appreciate your interest and help with the article, but I can't agree with adding the Milhist tag. Many coins do fall into that category, since money is invariably linked to warfare, but I do not believe that the Flowing Hair dollar is one of them. Peace dollar probably is, and something like WWII emergency issues or war commemorative coins would for sure.-RHM22 (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, your call. - Dank (push to talk) 01:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA Q16
FWIW, I think you're a little off the mark. Forgetting to log out once is not the same as having a compromised account or deliberately letting someone use it. I think that it would be best to assume good faith and unblock them, as long as you have their assurance that it won't happen again. Don't deem the account compromised unless it continues after you've given them a second chance. Just giving you my take in case you actually come across a situation like this. Otherwise I'm happy to see that your RfA's doing well.  Swarm   X 19:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but I just went by what the rules said. I don't agree with what it says either, and I suppose it would be appropriate to judge it on a case-by-case basis. Thanks for the note and for voting!-RHM22 (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In some cases, it would probably be the decent thing to do to WP:IAR and unblock their account once you're confident that they have regained control over it... but you have to know what the rule is before you can decide to ignore it, so I think your answer and follow-up comment here were both spot-on. 28bytes (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip! Your's and the other comments have all been very helpful. I've been reading for months now that RfA is full of rude people, but I've found the opposite to be true. The opposes have given me several good ideas on how to improve my editing style. I now use edit summaries on almost every edit, even talk pages. It's helpful when looking over edits.-RHM22 (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To the degree that this RfA has civil conversation and criticism that's generally constructive, I think a lot of the credit for that has to go to you for the way you've comported yourself. Stubbornness, sarcasm and hostility from a candidate almost always brings out the worst in the !voters, but a candidate who assumes opponents' good faith, promptly and calmly answers the (endless) questions, and doesn't generally go postal usually (usually) gets less of a hard time from (most) people. 28bytes (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of caveats! It's understandable how ABFers (you can just leave off the "AB" when describing some of them) can be frustrating a lot of times. For instance, the mini edit war on the Tyson Chicken page, which in hindsight seems very humorous! The person was trying to change "Tyson proccesses X number of chickens" to "Tyson kills X number of chickens". I notified the person that "kills" not only inserts a negative spin, but may not be true, since "process" can mean a lot of things besides "kill". Naturally, they thought I was an employee of Tyson, and proceeded to revert my edit and ask if I believed that Hitler "processed" 6 million Jews. I regret the whole situation, but it did teach me to be a little less hasty and little more calm in disagreements.-RHM22 (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with 28bytes, and I think RHM22 has done well to exemplify cordial candor. To the extent Q16 may seem ambiguous, that was not my intention. I did want to see a candidate who would research policy to reach a best answer. While he did not say in his answer, the block would be indefinite, I did add that as my own understanding. If I am wrong, I am the first who would appreciate a more complete answer. My rational is based on the fact that an admittedly compromised account by necessity must be indefinite because you have know way to know the full extent on the breech and whether or not it is even the rightful account owner making the statements. It would be a soft block and the could register a new account. To whatever extend a committed identity or even admin discretion can be a factor, I am all for repairing the breech and restoring the account to the rightful owner. I felt the answer was about what I expected. My76Strat (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree. An account is no longer compromised once the owner has regained control over it. I explained my position in detail on my talk page, RHM, if I'm not making sense I urge you to read it. Regards,  Swarm   X 22:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Trade dollar images
Does this help you? There are plates following page 396, I see they have a Barber (I think) pattern for the double eagle.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks! I'll add that and nominate Trade dollar. Flowing Hair was promoted this morning.-RHM22 (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw. Congrats!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!-RHM22 (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was sure to make all the references and bibliography consistent on trade dollar.-RHM22 (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are learning from those source reviews, sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not as well known, but the half cent was monetized for the first time in 1965.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wasn't it legal tender already?-RHM22 (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There was never a requirement that people take it. It was token money.  Acts were passed for limited legal tender status for the cent, but by that time the half cent was no longer being struck.  The government would not take them in payment of taxes (except possibly to make up an odd amount).  Only specie was good for that.  This was never a major issue because we didn't see situations with people trucking a wheelbarrow of copper to the tax office.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see what you mean now. Well, technically, any coin that's not silver or gold isn't legal tender. The trade dollar was actually demonetized though, which none others were.-RHM22 (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but of course it was always bullion. They used to have contracts payable "in gold" which meant just that.  Part of the New Deal legislation I believe made that ineffective.  I expect the Treasury made a nice profit off of demonitizing the ones that were not turned in.
 * You mean the trade dollar? Yeah, I would call the coin a net gain for the government. They made a lot of money from sending the coins to China, even though they lost some redeeming the ones in the U.S.-RHM22 (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is very possible they paid out with Morgan dollars, those useless things they couldn't get rid of, one for one. Then the government actually has more silver than it started with, which it can recoin into subsidiary coinage.  Doesn't work out badly, though I suspect there is a bit of opportunity cost, as the government might make more on seignorage using raw silver.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. They may have redeemed them with Morgans, but the dollars had a lot less than a dollar worth of silver in them, and so did the trade dollar.-RHM22 (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The more things change ... I don't approve of demonitization. Do you know Ireland will redeem any coin they've ever made, back to 1922, even though they've changed coins twice?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll bet those banks have more punts than an NFL season.-RHM22 (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oooh. Actually, you have to go to the Central Bank in Dublin, I've done it twice.  Any decimal coins or identical predecimal pieces you dump in a machine, all others counted by hand.  Ireland, Germany, Austria and Spain are the euro countries who have promised that the legacy currency will be exchangeable indefinitely.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm busy updating Royal Maundy, it seems they are letting people from the Isle of Man and Gibraltar be recipients this year. I hastily checked the Pobjoy Mint website to make sure they are not striking special coins themselves (to sell to us).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would buy a set if they made them available.-RHM22 (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Except for the 1996 silver mint set, which I bought, the most recent Maundy set I have is 1986. Recent ones are difficult to find.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But what I really meant was the Pobjoy Mint strikes for Gibraltar and the Isle of Man. Surely they should have some role in this?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)You'd think they'd be all over, what with the Queen getting up there in years. She'll surpass the reign of Victoria in five or six years.-RHM22 (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. I see what you mean now. I'd imagine that the Royal Mint probably does it still.-RHM22 (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they do. But I was wondering if Pobjoy was choosing to commemorate the participation of the Manx in the service by issuing coins themselves!  BTW, of the two sources I added, the one from the Anglicans has a link to the wiki article and the one from the BBC had clearly been reading the article.  The world is slowly coming to us.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, now I understand what you mean! At least I think so. Your Maundy article is the best on the web, I think.-RHM22 (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is what I aspire to. Apparently the Isle of Man thinks so, the final four paragraphs of this article are plagiarized straight from it!  I'm a true believer though, so I don't mind. --Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that's a compliment! I've never been plagiarized by a (sort of) country.-RHM22 (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It does say "The Nation's Website!" I wrote them a very nice comment saying I didn't mind them using it but they should give credit to wiki.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion for me
I am very interested in your help to make my questionnaire clearer. I will post or sent it to you after preparing the questionnaire. cooldenny (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, just send me the questions and I'll help you naturalize them and fix any grammar issues. I'm not sure if you know or not, but naturalize means that you make the questions sounds like a native English speaker wrote them.-RHM22 (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Franklin GAN
Could you keep an eye on it here? Tony is well meaning but I don't think he knows a lot about coins judging from his initial comments, and it might be wise for someone to weigh in with an outside opinion now and then.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I have watchlisted the page. Let me know if you want me to keep an eye on that and your FAC when you're in Europe.-RHM22 (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, though I expect to be on most days. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's probably odd, but I like the FAC process. A lot of people get to read something that they would probably never think of looking up.-RHM22 (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. I've learned quite a bit.  Now and then, an article will inspire me to write another.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, I have too, even though most of what I learn is about video games and Hannah Montana!-RHM22 (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I try to review articles that I think will hold my attention at least!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson nickel passed GA, so we are getting closer there to a FT. I submitted Mercury for a DYK, but it still needs a little bit of work before it can go to reviews (GAN in this case).--Wehwalt (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It can be an FT as soon as the base article (Nickel (United States coin)) is finished!-RHM22 (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations
Looks like your nomination is going to pass. Have fun with the mop. –BuickCenturyDriver 15:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but it will be up to the bureacrat to decide for sure. Reading over your RfA, I think you will have a really good chance later on with some more good work on Wikipedia.-RHM22 (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll wait until at least after the summer to try again, though.  If you don't mind, I did repost the admin icon on your userpage after WJBScribe closed your nomination (though you are free to take it off).  –BuickCenturyDriver 17:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine! I just didn't want to make anyone think I was counting my chickens before they hatched. I don't normally watch RfAs, so let me know when you decide to run again so I can take a look.-RHM22 (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I will. I know you'll have a good time trying out the tools  :)  –BuickCenturyDriver 17:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Congrats! Well done and highly deserved.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Wehwalt! I couldn't have done it without your assistance.-RHM22 (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you would have managed somehow!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You are now an administrator
Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you!-RHM22 (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Admin T-shirt.svgr 17:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)]]

Congrats, and do promise that admin duties won't suck up all your article writing time. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  18:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations from me too! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Party in the sandbox tonight!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everyone! Unfortunately, I cannot allow parties in the sandbox without getting consensus first. Anyone engaging in such will be blocked indefinitely.-RHM22 (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That turned out well :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Actually, I was very surprised that I receieved so much support.-RHM22 (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent news. I was thinking it may go the other way, and at 3 days looked a little likely to not gain consensus. Clearly your calm measured approach helped enormously. I'm also optimistic that this may help to chip away at the dreadful edicount-itis so prevelant at RFA. Take it steady and if I can be of any help let me know. Happy editing! Pedro : Chat  20:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good luck with your new job. (And be sure to move enough pages! ;) Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you! I believe my next order of business will be to run for founder. It would be easy were it not for that Jimbo fellow.-RHM22 (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He's ripe for the taking though, never been this unpopular. A little push from you, with the help of air strikes in St. Peterburg, might do wonders.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe some type of alliance with Citizendium would work. The only problem is that the evil empire might then challenge Wikipedia's authority after the defeat of Jimbo, leading to a decades long power struggle. On second thought, I think I'll stick to writing articles about coins.-RHM22 (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Evil's gotten a bad name for some reason.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Grats! Don't delete the main page! ;) In all seriousness, good luck and I hope you do the community proud! — James (Talk • Contribs) • 1:53pm • 03:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! If I do decide to delete the main page, I'll make sure to delete the page telling me not to delete the main page so I can say that there's no such page.-RHM22 (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations from me also! Feel free to raid my monobook for scripts, the one that gives you a dropdown menu for block duration and templates is really useful. On the subject of coins, we did some stuff with the British Museum as part of the Hoxne Hoard collaboration, I don't know what is planned for future events, but if you have a wish list of coins you'd like photos of, future British Museum collaborations could be a good way to get them. Even if you don't fancy popping over yourself, a few requested images would be useful targeting for us locals.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I read your article on the Hoxne hoard, and it's really good! Celtic/Anglo-Saxon coins aren't my specialty, but their hoards are amazing.-RHM22 (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't hurt to have images of a coin like the five-pound Una and the Lion ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an amazing coin. Is there one on display at the BM?-RHM22 (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure. I was inside the museum a couple of years ago (looking for the restroom, actually) but I haven't explored it since my first trip to the UK a quarter century ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How was the loo?-RHM22 (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't recall, which means it probably did not date from the early Ptolemys.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Congrats Dude! :) -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 22:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!-RHM22 (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A little late, but congrats and good luck!  Swarm   X 07:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Swarm! I'm still reading up on things before I take any real administrative actions.-RHM22 (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Flip Grater
I noticed your removal of a speedy tag here. I'm uncertain you were right, but I'm not certain you were wrong. The field of music and the notability of musicians is difficult. You might want to consult with my colleague Kww, with whom I've worked ever since the infamous Holloway article.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be right about that, but at the very least, I don't think it's a candidate for speedy. I could nominate it for AfD if you think it should be.-RHM22 (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just think you'd benefit from getting some pointers from Kww. He's the go to guy in this field.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll leave him a message. Thanks!-RHM22 (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Flip Grater
Not A7 material. Probably wouldn't survive AFD, but A7 is defined as having "no credible claim of importance", and third-party sourcing can usually be seen as a credible claim of importance. A7 is an intentionally low bar. Even if you are certain the article as it stands won't survive, if it includes anything that sounds like a claim of importance, it needs to go to a discussion. Don't forget "credible", though: "Jimmy Bob overthrown the US Government and installed himself as our new dictator" is certainly a claim of importance, but not a credible one.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: You are now a file mover
RHM, thanks for noticing and naming me a File Mover. I had been faintly aware of that feature before (but not the particulars), and think it will greatly help my image-related edits on Wikipedia. Also, congrats on your recent success at becoming an administrator! Thanks again, R uby2010   comment!  17:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

National Current Coinage template
Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numismatics.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Back on. Will be catching up over the next couple of days.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome back!-RHM22 (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Rather tired, but I am looking over what needs to be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You were right
Thanks for your comments. NewYorkBrad alerted me that the candidate's activity levels have been at normal levels, probably since 2009. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 00:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Here you go
For a userbox version go here.

You are member number: 42 For the good work you've done in your first week as an admin and for the patience you exhibit when performing these tasks, I give you this award. Keep up the good work RHM :) — James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:01pm • 08:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, James! I'm glad that I have been using the admin tools correctly!-RHM22 (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Peace dollar
If you have time on your hands, do you think you could doublecheck to see that I caught all the "second commas" objected to by Dank at Peace Dollar FAC? Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look.-RHM22 (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you are completed so I can tell the reviewer. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I looked it over, and I fixed the ones that I saw.-RHM22 (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It would have been tough to do myself.  What are you working on?  Draped Bust?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, I finished that for the most part already. Trade dollar is at FAC now, and I'm going to do Seated Liberty next.-RHM22 (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am waiting to weigh in on Trade. Mercury dime is in review and I'm thinking about wrapping up the present coins with the dime and quarter next.  Some of these may not see FAC for months because the process is not rapid right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you get Mercury dime to FAC.-RHM22 (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * RIght now, order is Jefferson, then Mercury, then we'll see what's ready.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Darn. If we did get paid by the page view, this (caused by an OTD on it) would have put a nice little bous in my paycheck.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow! The most I've had is around 5,000 for a DYK.-RHM22 (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but normally it gets a few dozen ... one of my rare forays into my professional field. People love trial by battle.  We really need to bring it back.  Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Request
Hello, a request if you may. If you go into my contribution you'll find I just requested speedy deletion under the G12 criteria. Mind deleting it for me. Thanks.  maucho  eagle   17:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which article is it?-RHM22 (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Diannaa just deleted it for you, sorry, You came on to lat. :(.  maucho  eagle   19:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. Let me know if you need anything else done.-RHM22 (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do.  maucho  eagle   19:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on May 4, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/May 4, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch * ۩ ۞ 20:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

 

The Flowing Hair dollar was the first dollar coin issued by the United States federal government. Minted in 1794 and 1795, the size and weight of the coin were based on the Spanish dollar, which was popular in trade throughout the Americas. In 1791, following a study by Alexander Hamilton, Congress passed a joint resolution calling for the establishment of a national mint. Later in 1791, in his third State of the Union address, President George Washington urged Congress to provide for a mint, and this was officially authorized by the Coinage Act of 1792. Despite the authorization, silver and gold coins were not struck until 1794. The Flowing Hair dollar, designed by Robert Scot, was initially produced in 1794, and again in 1795. In October 1795 the design was replaced by the Draped Bust dollar. In May 2010, a specimen striking from the 1794 production was sold in a private sale for $7.85 million, the highest selling price of any coin in history. (more...)

All right!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Success!-RHM22 (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)