User talk:Wehwalt/Archive 2

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Someone must have been lazy, as you have not been welcomed yet. Thank you for your contributions. Since you have been here for a while, we can pretty much assume you are not a troll, vandal, or clueless newbie. I hope you continue to like the place and don't get all grumpy and leave over nothing. Here are a few good links for newcomers, even though you aren't one:


 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

I hope you still enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian, and won't get mad over something stupid and leave! By the way, please be sure to continue to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome, and sorry for your not being welcomed in the past! Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 00:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Natalee Holloway
What common terms am I overlinking? It would be easier to fix the problem if you'd be more specific. Treybien 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, like murder. Also, that Tabloid TV edit was illconsidered.  We probably should have linked to tabloid television, to avoid the redirect.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Juno
Thanks for dropping the note. I've been pretty busy the last week (well, to be honest, I've been trying to finish the entire Twilight series in under a week, which I've very almost done :P) but that's drawing to an imminent end and I'd be very happy to work with you on the article. Apart from needing a thorough copyedit, I'd say one of the main issues is reliable sources - there are several citations in there which I don't think would be deemed FA-acceptable. If it's any help to you (if you were planning to add in any additional info) I compiled a list of relevant external links - mostly news articles, etc. - at the top of my sandbox. I also put together a few links for a potential marketing section which I intended to create ages ago but never got around to ... I'll see if I can get to that in the next couple of days. All the best, — 97198 (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

TFA
Royal Oak is opposed on the anniversary of its sinking with the loss of 833 lives and coincident with the gathering of survivors at its memorial ceremony, but New Jersey is supported for the day it opened as a museum? With regards, &mdash; BillC talk 13:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There's always next year. And there had been two other Royal Navy articles close in time to Royal Oak, this is at least a different navy.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Next year is the two hundredth anniversary of the War of the Fifth Coalition. &mdash; BillC talk 13:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
Hey. Your name has been mentioned at WP:COIN. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Wehwalt. See my recent edit summary on that page, which concerns one of your comments. Just wanted you to be aware. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Replacing TFAR
I have no problem with your replacement, but I wish you would have included "Tyrone Wheatley" in your edit summary so I could figure what happened without taking ten minutes to find the diff.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the 60 day window is for things just like this. If I want to nominate these three bios in good faith, I obviously am not suppose to try to slip them in later after getting the first one approved.  I notified everyone of my intent and understand clearly that Wheatley is a lower priority than the others.  I scanned the diffs quickly and saw this and assumed you did. Apologies.  I will have to take some more time with the diffs to see what happened. I saw the second oppose and have no problems with it however given my future intentions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd rather see you act above board, then some of the nominations we've seen recently which have not engaged on the template. I think you would have been better advised by waiting a couple of days until Augustus had had its day in the sun.  I think that ticked off one or two people.  I know that there were only a few days, but it would have looked better.  Look, the Holloway article (in which I played a role) could have been nominated right after Jena Six was scheduled, but it would have looked bad.  Instead, AuburnPilot, Kww, and myself are discussing the points, whether it should be run on her birthday, etc while letting other articles have that slot.  There's no need to rush onto the nominations page, it just makes you a target for longer.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Number signs
Its alright, I just assumed you were using some new program to edit or something. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple Plan
Just thought I'd let you know that the COI we were involved in is officially closed. I think we've both spent a lot of time and energy at the Simple Plan article these past couple of weeks and nothing constructive has come of it yet. I honestly feel that magazine reviews are reliable sources, and apparently you don't, which is fine. I could give a bunch of examples to support my view, and I'm sure you could too. The fact is we just don't agree on the matter, and that's cool. There's probably lots of evidence to support both our views. Since this is something we both feel pretty strongly about, I'm not sure how likely we are to reach an agreement. However, if you feel that you'd like to work toward one, then I'd be willing to try. Otherwise, I'll look for other projects to apply my energy to for now. Aurum ore (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First, Talk:Simple Plan. Second, you're going in circles.  Reviews aren't sources. -- Poe Joe  (talk) 07:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reviews are used as soueces on some articles. User Jac16888 said at the talk page that he thought the RS reference was worth including, however this isn't the place to discuss that. Right now I'm just asking whether you guys want to go on with the discussion. If not, that's fine, we can all focus on other projects. Aurum ore (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see little likelihood that any of us would change our positions on this. Having taken three articles to FA with the help of other editors, I might know something about reliable sources by now.  Any further discussion should be at Talk:Simple Plan, as Poe Joe notes, and I see no need for it.  Especially since you don't seem to "get" WP:UNDUE.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

TFA/R categories
In case I forget (which is likely, considering how busy I've been), the Culture and society category at WP:FA is currently at 49, there are two in the pipeline, but one (David Helvarg) is at WP:FAR and not likely to survive, so before we remove it from the points at WP:TFA/R we should see how the FAR is doing. I may forget to follow up on this. And I don't remember if the wording is 50 or more than 50, but it may bounce around 50 for a few days depending on the FAR. By the way, thank you so much again for tending to Jeff's blurb. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We'll apply a rule of reason which seems to have worked the last few weeks. No problem on the Jeff article, it needed to be done and I'll keep an eye on the article.  I am going to be travelling extensively for the next couple of months, so I can't undertake to be there for the article on its likely day of glory.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway
Hello Wehwalt. I think the lede of this could be improved by moving the second sentence to the start of the second paragraph. The phrase "later on May 30" is confusing; does it mean later in the day, or later in relation to the graduation date? If the former, how about just "late on May 30"? Regards, Kablammo (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the phrasing is needed as the relevant events took place in the wee hours, and the reader might tend to overlook that. I don't have anything I really trust on what time Holloway was scheduled to fly out; the Mountain Brook group was split up onto two flights.  But really you should take this to the article talk page for other editors to look at it, if you want to discuss it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

All is for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds
One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so.

I'm sure I'll get back to full speed editing soon, because, after all,, every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Holloway
Good edit. "Onderzoek" means "search" or "investigation", and I had a typo.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Review request
Thank you for your offer. If you can find time, could you look at Carsten Borchgrevink, currently a GAN, and perhaps do the GA review? Brianboulton (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will get to it within 48 hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lastnatalee.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lastnatalee.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Ilse@ 12:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway
Regarding your edit summary here; firstly I would like to ask you how that sentence does not make sense. Next I am wondering if you know what Vandalism even is?

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles.

Pay special attention to the italicized word. Was my edit a deliberate attempt to harm Wikipedia? Absolutely not; I was trying to fix a grammatical error on an article which you then reverted and claimed as vandalism. Also I'm not sure why you think my version of the sentence (without the word "of") doesn't make sense? Artichoker [ talk ]  02:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"The Aruban prosecutor's office reopened the case on February 1, 2008, after receiving video footage of Joran van der Sloot, under the influence of marijuana, making statements that Holloway died on the morning of May 30, 2005, and that her body was disposed." Doesn't make sense to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then can you think of another way to resolve the issue of a preposition at the end of the sentence? Artichoker [ talk ]  02:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Never mind, it seems to be fixed. Artichoker [ talk ]  02:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

MOSDATE confusion
In case I forget to follow up with Tony, you might want to watch:  I think they really goofed that page, and it makes no sense to me at all now. They fiddle those MoS pages so often, one never knows what surprises await. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, Tony answered, and so after another MoS war, the upshot is that your dates are fine. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Slept through the war! Thanks Sandy.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Speer pronunciation
I noticed that you removed the IPA pronunciation I added to the Speer article. In your edit comment you said you wanted to see proof. Is it the actual pronunciation you disagree with or just the IPA conversion. If it is the actual pronunciation, then dictionary.com shows the proper German pronunciation as "shpeyr." In IPA for English, which is Wikipedia's standard pronunciation key, is as close as you're going to get to that, and I think that's pretty close to the proper German pronunciation. If you'd rather use some other pronunciation key to try to get a more accurate pronunciation that is fine, but you should weigh the gain in accuracy of the pronunciation against the greater familiarity of the average English Wikipedia reader with Wikipedia's standard pronunciation key. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Today's_featured_article/requests
Thankyou :) Should be interesting, first time I've been involved in such a procedure.  Presumably it would be ill-conceived if I added my support, as the major contributor and 'nominator' on the talk page? Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC) No, feel free to.  Then I'll add my support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help, the article has now been scheduled for 15 Nov :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for Image:Straylightpoughkeepsie.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Straylightpoughkeepsie.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 01:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway, white slavery confession
Well, so sorry that I decided to add something without the approval of one of you "senior" people around here. There was nothing wrong with the link I used, the phrasing, positioning, or anything else, but apparently you felt you just HAD to screw around with it, because no edit is valid unless one of The Clique does it themself. From looking at the other entries on your talk page, this seems to be a pattern for you, and for this site at large. Frankly, I'm pretty tired of the oligarchical mentality of this site and the idea that no one is allowed to edit or add anything to Wikipedia except the "elite". STOP PLAYING GOD WITH WIKIPEDIA. You are not special just because you have a few Wikipedia awards on your user page. This is a PUBLIC site, and we're ALL allowed to contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.16.162 (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, aside from the fact that you linked to a video that would be inconvenient for readers to use, your grammar was for shit, and there was considerable POV in the way you put it, I had no problem with your edit at all.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break, there was nothing wrong with the grammar whatsoever, and I would love to see an example of what you saw as such. As far as POV, I said that van der Sloot gave an interview to On The Record, and then stated what Greta Van Susteren said about the interview. How that could be seen as giving a "point of view" is a mystery to me. Again, this is just a case of the edit not being "valid" until you put your stamp of approval on it. You senior people need to stow the elitist attitudes on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.16.162 (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the diff: . For one thing, "van der sloot give"?  You also imply the interview took place on 11/25, when even Greta said it took place in July.  All I did is clean up what you wrote, and made it mesh with the rest of the paragraph.  "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it."--Wehwalt (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Jogged my memory
Your post to my talk page reminded me (I don't want to put this at WT:TFAR for the WP:BEANS factor); the regulars at TFA/R need to watch User:SandyGeorgia/Glitter and in particular, Requests for checkuser/Case/DavidYork71 (I reverted and reported one yesterday). Thanks for the help on that FAC! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh heh, watched. If only people would put all that effort and imagination into constructive things ...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They all have easy to recognize topics (Mumia Abu-Jamal, Avatar Airbender, Xena stuff ...), so I've started to recognize them ... what a waste of time. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

New delete Petar_Brzica article nomination
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Petar_Brzica_(2nd_nomination)#Petar_Brzica --72.75.20.29 (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

What is that article to me, or me to that article? Because I am lead editor on the Speer article? He had nothing to do with Brzica.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk
Would you mind joining the talk page at Rachel Corrie to explain why you deleted the external links posted by another editor there? Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 15:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA
Why aren't you an admin? DrKiernan (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why should I want to be?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless you're concealing a skeleton somewhere, I see no reason why you should not be per Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. DrKiernan (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. It isn't hard to find out who I am, and I always operate out in the open.  If you want to nominate me, I will go forward with it, though I have seen fellow editors emerge with blood on their faces from the process.  So thank you.  Just let me know what I need to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've nominated you: Requests for adminship/Wehwalt. You need to follow the instructions at: Requests for adminship/nominate. Good luck! My RfA was pretty rough, but I think you may have an easier time of it. DrKiernan (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Don't worry, General Custer, there's only a few Indians out there." :)--Wehwalt (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

My RFA question
Sorry if my FRA question is a bit heavy...it's the question's first public appearance so it may be a bit rough around the edges. :) Please take your time, it's rather open-ended. It truly is optional, though, and I won't hold it against your candidacy if you decline. Also, if I've written something unclear, don't hesitate to ask me about it... &mdash; Scientizzle 01:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is cool. I was tired, just off an eight hour flight and hadn't slept well the previous two nights, and now I'm up at 2:30 a.m. which just goes to show, I guess.  It's a fair question and I hope I've answered it comprehensively.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

HC Slovan Ústí nad Labem
Hello. Can you move HC Slovan Ústí nad Labem to HC Slovan Ústečtí Lvi please. This club was renamed. I can't find a page, where I can request a similar request. --VoletyVole (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you tried using the move tab on your browser? That is probably the simplest way of doing it.  It is between "history" and "watch".  I'll do it for you if you like, but once you learn, you'll know how.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't any "move tab" between "history and watch", and I don't know what you talk about. I am new here. Please can you do it for me. Maybe, I can learn later, and then I will know how. I have read these pages about "move"/moving pages, but I still don't understand I cannot move pages. --VoletyVole (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I am sorry for bothering you (specifically), it is nothing personal. I would like to ask everyone, but there are so many pages for these requets. --VoletyVole (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like it got done. If it wasn't you who did it, and you still need to learn how, let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is fine. Now I have a "move" button on the browser. It was not on the browser previously. Strange. --VoletyVole (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lichtdom.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Lichtdom.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Full confidence in you
I hardly ever a "Support" in a RFA, however I had have full and total  confidence in you. Your Albert Speer article is the best I have seen on Wikipedia. I hope you let me know if there is a best way I can help you maintain it. (I tend to react more strongly than you do to some of the changes made to it!) Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 06:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Especially with me up for RfA, I don't dare be seen to violate 3RR, can you look at the edits made and the discussion on the talk page about them? I'm really talking about Naur's edits to the Fuhrerbunker talk with Hitler and about the final paragraph in the Spandau section. Thanks for the praise. It is really nice of you.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Tomorrow, as I am over the hill now. Also, one strategy might be to let some of them go for a while, til the article's profile decreases from the main page exposure, then, in stages revert. I looked at some of the arguments on the talk page, and it will wear you out if you try to deal rationally with all of them, as they will keep coming. Sometimes, the more reasonable you are, the less rational those editors become! (In the end, I am determined that the article's integrity with be restored.) &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 07:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, but you want to keep it as intact as possible for its day in the sun . . . still, that is sound advice. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

User name
Excuse my nosiness. What is the origin of your user name? Thanks. --John (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is what Siegmund calls himself in the opera Die Walkure. It literally means "full of woe".--Wehwalt (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Aha, I thought it sounded German. Excellent, thank you for indulging me. --John (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is pronounced "vee-vahlt".--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Vay-vahlt", surely? As in "Es tut mir weh", I would think. Not that it matters. --John (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Funny, when I've heard it sung, it is much closer to "vee". Maybe that is opera for you.  There is a part near the end of Act II where Hunding sings it twice in a row.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Priest and the Matador
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Priest and the Matador, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Non notable song, per WP:SONG

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Rwiggum (Talk /Contrib ) 18:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm no longer involved in Senses Fail articles. You might want to notify their WikiProject.  Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Pending
Hello, I am asking you to withdraw Yes Minister from the the TFAR template, as it is threatening my upcoming request. Why should Lost run instead? Because last year, its TFA got almost 100 000 views on the date of the season premiere. The editors of Yes Minister are yet to actively seek a spot as TFA and an anniversary of the last episode does not hold as much significance as the broadcast of the next episode. Thanks, – thedemonhog   talk •  edits  22:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. You are going to have enough problems getting Lost on there without a higher point TV article.  It can wait for another logical anniversary date.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks so much. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  23:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Common courtesy, really. And Raul's been good to me.  I'm content.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Adminship
Congratulations, you are now an administrator! Your request for adminship had the support of a large majority of editors who commented, but there was some opposition, which I suggest you look through and consider whether you need to deal with any of the points raised. Now is the time to visit the New admin school and, if you haven't already, to look through the Administrators' how-to guide and Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 11:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I will look through the materials before making use of the tools and consider well the points raised against me.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well deserved. Good Luck to you. ShoesssS Talk 12:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Congrats, indeed! You clearly deserve this honour! Ecoleetage (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for your support at the RfA!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!
Best of luck with the mop! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and thanks for your support. Apparently I have to bring coffee for all the admins until they elect someone new, which could be weeks!  And it's almost winter!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

We tend to forget about it but sometimes sanity does prevail around here. Have fun with all those new buttons. (btw, you might want to check out some of the useful admin scripts) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and thanks for your support and defense of me. We're having a wild party in the sandbox, you're invited!  By the way, do you have a link to take me in the direction of those scripts?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Many congratulations on your promotion. --John (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I appreciate the thoughtful edits you've made.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. While my stance was to oppose your request, I will still congratulate you on earning the tools.  Best of luck and merry Christmas. Malinaccier P. (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it and thank you. A Happy New Year as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Congrats! As for those admin scripts, check out WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts. There's also User:Voice of All/UsefulJS and a few scattered scripts from other users that I keep in my monobook.js (CSD Autoreason, protection drop down, AfD closer). If you ever have any questions, you know my talk page and email are always open. - auburn pilot  talk  14:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, AuburnPilot, you've been a rock through all of this. My delight is only tempered by all the drama of the process.  However, that's in the past.  "So if you made it/Just be glad that you did and stay there/If you ever feel loved or needed/Remember you're one of the lucky ones."  Straylight Run, "The Perfect Ending".--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was certainly happy to help where I could. As I said previously, that was one of the craziest RfAs I've had on my watchlist in quite some time. - auburn pilot  talk  15:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wonderful congratulations! Now I can contact you again without fear of derailing your admin process. I'm so sorry about that and so very glad that a misconceived interpretation did not cause fatal harm. Carry on with your wonderful articles and presence! (And Albert Speer made it TFA through, relatively intact, no?) Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 15:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That would have been the silliest part of the process if not for the allegation that I could send disease through the internet. Yeah, Speer made it fine.  And I've been repairing any problematic edits as you had suggested.  Thanks for everything.  You know you are now number 2 in edit count on the article, right?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't know. But there is nothing of which I could be more proud. I learned a lot seeing how you dealt with maintaining impartiality despite others attempt to do otherwise. And how to deal with outlandish suggestions gracefully. (Not that I am always able to accomplish that myself.) &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 15:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the praise. Check out this link. and of course select "en.wikipedia" and "Albert Speer".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Belated note
Wehwalt, congratulations on your adminship. I had every intent of posting a note to you days ago, with a suggestion before your RfA closed, but real life had other plans, I'm just now getting back online, and I must apologize for not revisiting in time. During one RfB, where I found it impossible to resolve some concerns with the nom because his co-editors and supporters were making conversation difficult, I suggested to him that we take the discussion to e-mail. I've been repeatedly put off by the aggressive tone coming from some of your co-editors, and I wonder if you and I might try to resolve old business and ongoing concerns in private? I'm a big believer in transparency, but have come to realize that there are times when it's too hard to work things out publicly. You may be aware that I rebuffed an e-mail from one of your co-editors because I didn't appreciate the tone, but if you're game, my inbox is open. Thanks for the work on Croatia; help was much needed there. Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Happy to. I'll send you a brief email.  Thank you for the congrats.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * co-editor--->. - auburn pilot  talk  15:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats
I didn't support you but I'm certain you will be a fine admin. Congratulations on passing RfA. Good luck! Yanksox (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I didn't agree with what you said in RfA, but i respected your point of view.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me add mine, a bit late. Happy to see an obviously qualified candidate persevere... IronDuke  01:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Of minor importance
But... both Tiamut and User:Tiamut are female. IronDuke 01:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie
There seems to be parts missing from this article, eg there's a book review of "My Name is Rachel Corrie" from the Weblog of Zionism-Israel Center. here. It's full of an angle that it would be difficult for even her supporters to object to including (provided it was labelled correctly, as opinion), such as:

''"Rachel Corrie is in a war zone. She cannot not know that she lives and acts among guns and gunmen, or that the children who are everywhere live and play among guns and gunmen. ... She and the other "internationals" are sent directly into the battle area to pick up the body. ... Jenny spoke over the bullhorn saying, "Do not shoot. We are unarmed civilians," naming the countries we come from and letting the IDF know our intention to retrieve this man's body. The first response from the IDF was shouting, "Go back." They continue to walk toward the body, moving deliberately into the line of fire, which, as she notes, shifts away from them. And then: "A white truck with a blue light rolled up and the person in the truck spoke over the loudspeaker. Told us to leave. Stated, 'You'll get the body later.'" All this is chilling reading. It exposes the brutal cynicism of Rachel Corrie's handlers, eager, for propaganda value, to bait bulldozers and tanks with the lives of their young recruits. But it also exposes Rachel Corrie: she is not a dupe, she is fully aware of where she is, and what she is doing there, and why. She is a dedicated believer and a shrewdly practiced marketing adviser.''

Obviously, that needs paraphrasing and condensing, but it would add useful context to the article, reminding people of how one large(?) section of opinion feels about her and her efforts. PRtalk 13:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It isn't what angle it is that, it is that this never happened. It is fiction, drama.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Simple Plan crystal singles
Two of the editors you have been having problems with, VANESSALOPEZ and MaxPerry, are listed in Requests for checkuser/Case/MaxPerry. I don't follow the Simple Plan stuff. If you are having similar problems with other editors, you might want to look at their edit histories and see if they should be added.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Simple Plan seems to draw the nutsos. I'll keep an eye on the edit histories.  So far I've seen I think five of the remaining eight songs on the CD listed as "singles".  Jeez.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wesley Lautoa
Hello. I noticed you removed the prod from this article, but I don't see any rationale for it. Would you mind explaining it so I can decide whether to send the article to AfD? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just read the Talk page. I'm stupid. Jogurney (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Keegan
Was that an incorrect target entry?  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It was the new admin school thing on blocking. Did I do something wrong?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie
As they used to say in the old Phantom comics, "For Those Who Came In Late" - could Kasaalan be a reverse troll trying to make the pro-Corrie side sound loony and keep the article de minimis, or do you think he genuinely feels that way and doesn't understand that he's being self-obstructionist? An old girlfriend told me long ago that when chatting with multiple people, she sometimes copy/pasted random bits of text from webpages to make it seem like she was still in the conversation, bringing up a new subject. For some reason I'm reminded of her. arimareiji (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the idea, a lot. Can we start billing a nickel for every line we read after the third? arimareiji (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We can bill anything we like! Of course, the fifty page letters we get in return are the problem there.  No, I think Kasaalan's for real.  It's just incredibly tedious to deal with.  I wince everytime I look at my watchlist and see a comment to T:RC with Kasaalan listed as editor.  But I haven't worked on this article for over two years to give up and see it become one sided.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry it took me a few days to seriously get back to this article. I've tried to make both sides' positions clearer, and added in the IDF's reasoning for house demolition (to get rid of guerrilla hideouts and weapon-smuggling tunnels). IMO, the absence of this reasoning made it seem like they were demolishing random houses for the fun of it.
 * Also, when I looked over the actual account given in the israelenews cite (which made me poke my nose in here in the first place), I don't see much difference from the account already given - except his acknowledgement that the treads didn't run her over. I agree that it's more than neutral enough to use if quoted fully rather than selectively... but I'm not sure it contributes enough new info to be worth a paragraph in this over-long sprawl of an article. What do you think? arimareiji (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind one sentence. The idea is to show that Carr has told different stories all over the place.  No need to mention that the guy was warned off speaking to the witnesses.  Excellent job, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you; it's really encouraging to know that someone thinks my doing this helps. Wrt the israelenews cite, I don't think it's possible to accurately characterize it in a sentence - I think that's what was being tried the first time around, but removing context dropped its probative value well below the threshhold of usability despite apparent POV. IMO, three cites is enough to illustrate the differences wrt Carr... more, and it starts risking undue weight. Plus, the differences between the witnesses (i.e. "dragged from the top" versus "started back down and lost footing") compared to the sometimes-creepy similarity in their accounts is more probative. arimareiji (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No particular relevance, but I ran across an old aphorism that seemed interesting. arimareiji (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the outside perspective on why a long parenthetical can be misleading, I was having trouble seeing that particular tree for the forest. Wrt amplifying the "other" section - I suspect it'll have to be a long-term project. But I do think it would make the article better to let both sides articulate the contradictions between themselves, rather than relying on the ISMers to provide all the contradictions. arimareiji (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) if we had more from the Israeli side, I'd disagree, but they seem to find less need to play to the media.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wrt Mt. Olympus... smartass. ^_^ But you know he doesn't mean just any admin, he means admins who agree with him ... if they can be found, that is ... "independent admins."
 * And thank you for catching that Freudian misphrase. arimareiji (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Happy holidays - here's a belated gift to spread goodwill and hopefully make up for some of the sharp debating. I hope it gives you a good stress-relieving snicker, as it did me. arimareiji (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Always happy to engage in a rational debate. Kasaalan may not qualify in that regard, which is why it is so difficult to argue with him.  Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dangerously close (since these things multiply exponentially), but only two screenfuls. We'd need at least half a dozen more, ne? And yeah... I'd speculate we were both praying it would end before time to wake up in that time zone. Glad you found a resolution before then. arimareiji (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Marvelous.
 * Gut check: Time to switch from improvement to damage control, at least for the nonce. My only previous dealing with this guy was when he came out of nowhere to indirectly call me a racist (for saying that the CAMERA article goes overboard in bashing them), then disappeared. I'm a fan of non sequiturs, but that was a little weird even for me. arimareiji (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * PR, you mean? He drops in from time to time on this article, and brings in usually unhelpful comments, read our long dispute about the legal case in the archives.  I know what you are saying, I've been playing defense in this article for two years and more.  I'd love to improve it to GA standards, but that is impossible until there's a working group of editors who trust each other.  It's not for nothing that my FAs on current events tend to be about disputes (i.e., Jena Six) that were contentious but have gone cold.  I see no hint that this will ever go cold.  People have long memories in the Middle East, and are scrapping for every last bit of advantage.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Sorry, at this rate I'm going to make this the longest-lived section on your page by a wide margin. I hope my comment on RC talk doesn't unduly offend - I had just hammered Kasaalan, and needed to balance it out a bit. arimareiji (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure no problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't think I'm trying to one-up you and thus try to one-up me in reverse, I'm not. I'm only adding comments to describe when POV isn't blindingly obvious. You notice that I didn't add anything to Dead Jews Aren't News? The "critical" comments are only necessary because while supportive articles tend to be named stuff like It's So Sad Why Did They Have To Kill St Rachel?, critical ones tend to be named neutrally. For that matter, Spare Us the Hagiography won't need it, though at this moment it needs a refactor. arimareiji (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The timing of your choosing to impose a "system" for the ELs is making me hot under the collar. You had no objection, all these weeks, to the ones on one side of the issue being the last two, and the hagiographic ones hogging one through six.  It was only when I implemented what is plainly stated in WP:EL that this becomes an issue?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The timing was based on your correct objection to the ordering being "first come first serve." I set about to change that, and ran smack into an edit conflict which made me lose my work because I was a dork and copied something to my clipboard over the previous material. arimareiji (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've explained what really happened, so all I can do now is to wait for you to calm down. But please slow down the pace of material you're adding to one-up me; I'm not going to reciprocate and never had that intent in the first place.arimareiji (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm going to take a short break from Wiki, possibly a long one based on whether I have to go in to work tonight. Maybe that can serve as a sign of good faith with respect to my above statement. arimareiji (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to one up you, I'm just feeling that this article is getting further and further out of balance, for whatever reason and it is time to at least make some attempt at NPOV. While some of your efforts have been good in that direction, others, for whatever reason, have not.  You yourself have suggested the addition of additional RS's.  At some point, you get sick of this article being dragged down by the arguments Kasaalan does win or exhaust us into letting him have his way and i'm just not willing to play defense constantly with him showing no signs of letting up.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Not ignoring you, just taking R&R for the nonce to shoot trout in a barrel instead of SEALS. I prefer a real challenge as much as the next guy, but shooting trout in a barrel is much less injurious. Especially when it's blue-on-blue. Sorry things got heated. arimareiji (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's fine. Me too.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:1610c.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:1610c.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

TFAR date
Regarding the your revision it wasn't that Wikipedia were idoits, but the #time: function was: This is a moot point now, since I've implemented an automatic system. — Dispenser 15:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * jan 2      will check Today's featured article/January 2, 2008 page for pre-scheduling
 * jan 2, 2009 will check Today's featured article/January 2, 2009 page for pre-scheduling
 * OK, thanks. I thought you were being overly pedantic.  Thank you for the explanation and the improvement to the page.--Wehwalt (talk)

Rfa/Suntag
Thanks for the info. I'll try to review everything regarding the denied rollback request. Hope I could get enough time. --Efe (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. My comments weren't directed at you but were just a general sort of rhetorical enquiry. Whenever I hear Rollback I think walmart. They're "rolling back prices!" :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advocacy.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help! I've now created an account and responded to your comment on User_talk:62.103.147.54. I'm calling it a day, very tired but at least I can understand a few things a bit better. Thanks again, Antiouk (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No trouble. Welcome, and may your edits improve the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Roux's rfa
Yeah, that was definitely me screwing up. Thanks for pointing it out. Icy // ♫ 01:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Prods

 * Hi Wehwalt, just asking why you deleted a load of expired Prods under various speedy deletion criteria? Was it a mistake? RMHED (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. i assumed we were supposed to use them if they came near the case.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The crucial difference is of course that a Prod deletion should be restored upon request but a speedy deletion doesn't have to be. RMHED (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Should I just type out a quick reason, then?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is what a deleted prod should look like: I Forget, you'll see it has the reason for the prodding in the deletion summary. RMHED (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dune Skateboards
Hi, I've restored the Prod to Dune Skateboards. You mention that it was removed by an IP editor, ; but if you examine that editor's contributions you will see that it was a short-lived (42 mins from start to end) SP vandal whose only edits were to revert a bunch of mine, all of which were themselves reverted, and the IP was blocked for "wikihoundng", I'm sure, as an admin, that you don;t need to be reminded that vandals are not to be allowed to disrupt the functioning of WP in this way. this discussion about the same edit also pertains. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 03:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, I hardly think making you do an AfD rather than a prod is disrupting the functioning of WP. I don't think you can restore a prod in that manner, but it's not worth a fight over.  I'm sure, as an editor, you don't need to be reminded about the rules relating to prods.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf Wolters
Let me compliment you as an excellent article writer. Your style is very good. This article I read with total fascination. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 03:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The two lacks this article has are a lack of photos and also a lack of info on Wolters' post WWII career.  I have a book on order about the reconstruction of postwar Germany that may help.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You have been very articulate in describing the human dynamics separating these two men, something I did not comprehend in the Albert Speer article. I have always been vastly uninterested (phobic) about knowing anything related to the ugly story of the Nazi and Germany, I guess because it seemed incomprehensible. When you render it in human terms, suddenly I am quite interested in learning how all this happened.  So, thanks!


 * And as a P.S. Some things I have been learning lately have made the story more complex (not to excuse) but that things are sometimes not as clear cut as they seem. Churchill admired Hitler, for example, as I believe Roosevelt did for a while.   &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 04:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You have probably already noted, as reported in the newest newest Singpost, Wikipedia is receiving a massive upload of historical images from the German archives. Perhaps there will be something of use to you there. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and there are still images of Speer that I know are in the Bundesarchiv that I am hoping to find to use in that article, for example, the one of Speer giving a speech to his ministry personnel in the snow the day after he took over, and one of the changing of the guard at Spandau. I'm hoping that as the Bundesarchiv images are sorted, those will turn up.  Incidently, I have my eye on the Spandau Prison article as a future project.  It's currently filled with wrong info (the bricks from Spandau were buried in a pit at Gatow Air Force Base, not dumped into the North Sea, for example).  But the problem with Wolters is that he was probably not very notable outside German architectural circles until Schmidt published his book, so who would think to take a picture of him in WWII era, or to tag a picture noting that he's in it?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Rudolf Wolters
--Dravecky (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oliver Lundquist
Bizarrely, you and seem to have written two different articles on the same person, within two hours of each other. They should probably be merged, but I'm not sure which way around - I just thought I'd alert you to it! Shimgray | talk | 20:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Ethics in small scale societies
Yo, just saw this deletion show up on my watchlist; your edit summary of "Not notable" needs a little clarification, I think. Was this a speedy/proposed deletion or a closed AfD? Thanks, Skomorokh  23:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a prod. It was unreferenced.  If you like, I can undelete and you can take the prod off.  I just don't see how it is notable.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no worries, it's just that non-admins can't see the article once it's deleted, so I didn't know it was a prod. If it's not too much trouble for you, putting "afd"/"csd"/"prod" somewhere in your edit summaries would be helpful for us proles. Sorry to bother you with this, Skomorokh  23:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * no problem, will do. I usually only close prods.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Skomorokh  00:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Seth Sabal
An article you restored, Seth Sabal, has been deleted again. Before it was deleted I read some of it and was ready to help the editor with some of the formatting issues. From what I saw, the article did not deserve to be deleted. How is this handled, as I would like to help the editor fix some problem. For example, the footnotes were not properly formatted and some of the wikilinks were messed up. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 21:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Speer
If you look here, there are copies of photos of all the mad architecture. Not in usable form of course but I thought it might interest you. Fainites barley scribs 21:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty interesting. A bit pricey, though.  Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Heres another! All that liver coloured marble. (It takes a while to download).Fainites barley scribs 22:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2
You seem to have made a slight error in the tally there ;-) - Also, could you help out with the backlog at WP:AIV? Cheers! :-) John Sloan (view / chat) 02:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Too late at night. I'll look at it.  I've never dealt with the page, but I'll see if it is something I can help out with.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The slight backlog that had developed at AIV has gone as quick as it came! I guess it must happen all the time :D - Thanks John Sloan (view / chat) 02:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And I thought my RfA was dramatic and nailbiting!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just want you to know that I think your constant eye at this page, tallying etc is particularly commendable. I just hope that in the end fairness prevails at this RFA given all the unneeded drama, bias by those in power and the general shmozzle that was made of it by the hold. Time will tell if the Bureaucrat that had such a large hand in it will step in to clean some of the tally up by fairly weighting the evidence (I am in law in real life as I note you are also) - but in your case, again thank you for your exemplary work.-- VS  talk 14:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The lemminglike opposes just appal me.  I have no problem with opposes, I oppose in RfA about as often as I support, but people don't seem to want to do any thinking for themselves.  The crat was off base putting this on hold.  Might as well wave a huge red flag in peoples' faces, prejudicially.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to thank you in particular for your comments and your tallying. I actually like to do tallies when I'm monitoring an RfA, but I've gotten the impression that it's best for the candidate to avoid fixing formatting/updating tallies.  Enigma msg  06:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Block note
Hey there. I notice you blocked User:Humanleg for screwing around on Bongwarrior's userpage; I saw the activity there, and checked the editor's contribs. They're uniformly vandalism, so I extended the block to indef - hope you don't mind. It's pretty obvious that guy's not here to help write an encyclopedia. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That vandal from the other night
I don't know if you remember blocking a vandal that I reported the other night, but he's back, having hopped IPs. I've requested semi-protection for his target, if you are in the mood to wander over to WP:RFPP.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Taken care of. No problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf Wolters
I have passed this GA easily.--Grahame (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Stale complaint
Could you explain what you mean by "Stale complaint" with regards to Forsena? (Not being argumentative, just trying to understand...) Thanks, Gerardw (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor hadn't done anything in five hours, and what he had done was already being considered by two other admins. I had misread the clock, and thought the editor was currently editing, but he wasn't.  I'm leaving it up to the other admins (see the link on the guy's talk page) who are considering a topic ban.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. Gerardw (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

indef block of IP?
Hi, I noticed that you'd indefinitely blocked. I think that might have been an error on your part, since IPs generally aren't indef. blocked except in exceptional circumstances, so I'm letting you know. Thanks for all your hard work! &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll deal with it. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Kanonkas RFA
Apologies if you thought I was been pointy or something with my "o rly" comment. I've replied at the RFA but it was a joke - until a week before the RFA Kanonkas had a sig. that was a carbon copy of mine and he changed it to the plain sig. Hence the comment and the note in my nom. Just wanted to clear it up that it was only a joke. Pedro : Chat  17:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, I understood! It is just when someone replied to you seeming a bit confused that I felt it best to weigh in.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah! Darn those bureaucrats! :) Pedro : Chat  17:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Unbais Editor
Dear Wehwalt

I noticed your wonderful and unbais contributions to Wiki. I am a student at NYU, majoring in journalism. I am writing you as a concerned student and also as a charitable financial supporter of "Wiki".

I noticed a particular editor in the wiki circuit named "Hoary". I have done my research and found that he is a "bias" editor; based on results. He has repeatedly deleted qualifying artists from the fashion photography section, based on his personal opinions about photographers, not experience in the field of fashion photography. Just last week he deleted my first contribution of a photographer that shoots for Vogue Magazine. (With Cited References)

According to the long standing section on Fashion Photography, photographers that contribute to major fashion publications should be in this section, instead of well referenced amateurs, which seems to be the case of about 25% of the section. I noticed a list on the website models.com, it lists the top photographers in the world. (Of course, my deleted artist was included in that list)

I think that the some of Hoary's deletion are unwarranted, having said that some are very warrented. His lack of current fashion knowledge has created unwarranted deletions of talent with the best possible fashion magazine contributions not to be included in the list. "Fashion Journalism", being my future profession is a reletively small industry, I have taken the liberty of queerying Conde Nast and Hearst publishing houses for a list of the photographers that regualirly contribute to the magazines. (I will gladly forward that list to you as soon as I have it) Since my deleted photographer be one that list, (which I already know he is because I have sited Vogue contributions) I ask that he be reinstated. At first, I agreed that maybe the "notoriety" was not established. Today, after reviewing the subject for more then three days- I am very confident that any deletion of Seth Sabal's new Section which I am looking to edit and repost, would be vandalism on the part of Hoary. I have also noticed that Hoary and a few other editors gang up together on this section, in particular, editor Steve Hobson shuld not be aloud to edit the section, he is a amateur photographer from Ausin, Texas. (It's like a frustrated writer telling why Hemingway is no good.) I noticed the Hoary has deleted numerous successful fashion photographer from the section, and because of his long ago deletion of Seth Sabal he feels warrented to redelete it; even though all of Sabal's references are now spoken for including Vogue Magazine. This alone warrents him in the section. Vogue Magazine is the cream of the crop, when it comes to fashion photographers.

I would really appricate your help and I look forward to contributing a new photographer weekly.

Sarah PhotobloggerNYT (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your praise, Sarah, it is high praise indeed. I would suggest posting on the conflict of interest noticeboard, if you believe these editors have a conflict of interest.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

How do I get this page reinstated. I noticed that Hoary asked to have Luke Duval another photographer deleted. (not my creation). He won the exact same award as the photographer that I nominated, a very pretigous one. Although, Duval is not a Vogue contributor; the editors did not let the page get deleted. I would apprciate your input and help, I am still very unfamilar with getting something undeleted. PhotobloggerNYT (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Go to Deletion Review here at Wikipedia, and try to have it undeleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way I could trouble you to help me, I am so confused on the process, and language and where to put the information and wiki commands to make this happen, I would greatly apprciate your support. best Sarah PhotobloggerNYT (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your praise, but it is not a process I have dealt with either. I really suggest that you approach an experienced editor from one of the deletion review debates.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Subtle barnstar of good humor
I didn't notice Dlohcierekim just gave you the same award, sort of. Limit 1 barnstar per overt act, but consider this an endorsement of his barnstar. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Woodes Rogers
--Dravecky (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Unlock, please
Can you unlock template:Infobox MLB player again? I need to change "Inducted" to "Induction".

Thank you Timneu22 (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unlocked for one more hour.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for these interruptions. I made the change. Please lock again. Timneu22 (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. It is why we have the mop and the fancy dancy gray coveralls that usually result in confusion with escaped inmates from the county jail.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Bravo, good sir! Timneu22 (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, the real reason prisoners now wear orange, so nobody asks them to unprotect a file. It's all clear now.  Thanks.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  22:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Stone-cold sobering
"... transcribing WP onto tablets of stone. That way, Wikipedia will remain the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but nothing in the rules says we have to make it easy!" ... you know, I think you've just solved 90% of our wikiproblems! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See? They were right when they said making me an admin was a net positive!  After all, I caused 85 percent of the problems to begin with ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm. WT:RFA isn't dying but isn't getting much of a response either.  Thoughts?  Should I tweak, or give a specific example of how this has affected WT:RFA in the past, or ask people to think about which rationales we want to consider avoiding? (Watchlisting.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Tweak as a first move. I think that people are very sensitive right now about feeling like things are being thrown in their faces.  Then make suggestions about what arguments are to be avoided, in a neutral way, without citing chapter and verse.  Only then, if those fail, do you get down to cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling I'm not following ... you want it to be less "thrown in their faces"? How?  I can mention a specific example from a recent RFA where such a question might possible have been less than helpful (if I can get permission). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just have the feeling that citing specific cases won't go over well.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

curious edit
? Icewedge (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Patrick McGoohan died recently. His greatest role was as "Number Six" in the TV Series "The Prisoner".  My memorial to him.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

the new Rachel Corrie
(just kidding)

Hey, wait a minute... was "bigger fish to fly" a joke about my chosen name here? (l/r mispronunciation because the Japanese r is a combination of the English l and r)

(/just kidding)

If so, I'm glad. It made me smile. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, actually, just coincidence. I've been to Japan three times but I don't speak the language other than a few polite phrases.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I envy you; my knowledge is limited to learning the language and culture (slowly). I watch waaaaaay too much anime for my own good, so I thought it would be helpful. There are numerous impolite words used nowadays to describe people like me, but I think I can trust that you won't use them against me. arimareiji (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I'm starting to see a pattern: When you see any change you don't like but can't defend not making, you get extremely combative in inserting or defending changes of questionable value. One example is the present circumstance, another is the undue "ISM is made up of g**d*** hippies" (my paraphrase), and a third is the "if you're going to call my website critical, I'll call the other side hagiographic" rampage you went on in Links. I'm not going to speculate on whether Elonka's surprise appearance represents a fourth.

All of the above three are matters that when you're calm, you don't support or even concede are unduly POV. And all of the above are matters that when you get incensed, you fight for (or against) tooth and nail. I'm not sure how to approach it, because so far when I try to talk to you about it, you get even more defensive and make even more drastic changes.

The "St. Pancake" editor is a straw man; it's intellectually dishonest to say that opposition to a vandal account means that you're neutral. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind you having a side in this. But I do mind it that when you go beyond an invisible threshhold, your edits get very pointy in "correcting" towards that side.

I don't mind because of the results; Wikipedia isn't that important. I mind because I think you're too intelligent and well-meaning to do so deliberately, and that's why I'm making this attempt to talk to you about it. I won't make another, because either you do or don't want to hear. Repeating or arguing about it would insult both our intelligences. arimareiji (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think your characterizations are accurate, and it is rather unfortunate that you feel you have to put things that way. Concentrate on the edits, not the editor, and assume good faith.  Unhappily comments like that do not contribute to the building of good relatonships at WP.  Rather than resort to comments about "extremely combative" "rampage" and the like, please look to your own tendency to insert facially neutral, but connotatively biased (and always in the same direction) edits, without any discussion whatseover on the talk page.  Then, when you are called to check, you start to talk it to death on talk page with questons that you want answered your way right now, or, god forbid, you're going to repeat them again.  Jeez.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish it were possible to resolve it peacefully. But between NPOV and peaceful POV, I'll choose the former. arimareiji (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then kindly be more insightful into your own edits, which are very often slanted, and I believe deliberately so.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

PR was flatly frickin' wrong in implying that you shouldn't edit the article, and it still cheeses me off that he tried to say I was agreeing with him. Please don't think I've changed my mind about that; that was what I thought I read in your last edit (brass tax). But I do think that the "It's neutral this way, and grossly POV the same way but reversed" shows that this issue is one that you feel very strongly about.

Not to the extent of being an "awful" editor, or "hotheaded." (I think of you as being more of a dig-in-your-heels stubborn editor, like me.) You provide a contrasting POV that's excellent for catching mistakes - you were absolutely correct in saying that "many" is a weasel word, with which I was uncomfortable but couldn't think of a good way to deal with it then. You were also absolutely correct in noting that my phrasing sounded like "Israelis come in and shoot up the place." (I promise, that was an oversight - not intentional.) To make this article better will not be possible without your input, for those kind of reasons.

But neither will it be possible for me to do my part to make this article better if I have to constantly worry whether XYZ edit is going to make you want to add random "corrections" toward the IDF side elsewhere. I need to work on being a lot less prickly... but if you disagree with an edit, please give me a little more AGF.

Sometimes I'll unintentionally slant it toward the IDF, and Kasaalan will jump all over me. When I unintentionally slant it against the IDF, jump all over me. But jump on me on Talk for being dumb and not seeing the way that other people could read a given phrasing, rather than by adding counterbalancing POV. IMO, trying to balance inflammatory POV is like a novice driving on ice... by the time you see the result of a correction, you've swung too far.

My main focus isn't to show that the IDF or Corrie were "wrong." It's to make the story more compelling within the facts. That's why I'll add material like "that morning, they stupidly decided to get more confrontational to prove their mettle." That's why I'd like to add material like "ironically, the Corries wound up on the hammer end of the IDF like their daughter," though I'll need help in keeping it from demonizing the IDF. That's why I'd like to add material like "she talked to anyone in earshot, whether or not they particularly wanted to listen."

If history is boring, then it's lost its purpose, which is to teach lessons to avoid the same mistakes. Lessons like "be careful about the results of giving anyone carte blanche." Or like "the road to hell is paved with inspiring banners." And I still cling to my disproven illusion that someday, someone will actually learn from history before they repeat it.

I'll try to learn how to make a sandbox later on, and post some possible edits for us to hash through more directly. Right now, I'm just tired, and I thought that it would be better to blather all of this as a prologue. arimareiji (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd appreciate the irony of that, but it isn't clear that the two of them marched on the wall. I'm sure we can work it out.  Incidently, didn't I add that stuff about the ISM getting more confrontational because they felt they weren't getting results?  Are we sure they didn't throw Rachel under the bus bulldozer to make their point?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake in not checking timestamps before posting; I thought from your momentary back-off (20:37]) that you might have gained something from being shown that you call XYZ phrasing blatantly POV if it's phrased in favor of Corrie, and you call ZYX phrasing neutral if it's phrased the same way in favor of the IDF (20:15). Instead, you decided to accuse me of what you - not I - just demonstrated, to "balance things out." ("be more insightful into your own edits, which are very often slanted, and I believe deliberately so." - 20:57)

I've explained the "true secret dark hidden" motives you've attributed to good-faith edits before, to no avail. Apparently I did so again; I'm not good at learning from my mistakes. arimareiji (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggested it on talk page, and now Kasaalan is back. Make a proposal to settle the items in dispute.  I think you are way off base with the comments like "gained something", it just isn't productive.  Get on with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Woodes Rogers
Just a note to express my appreciation of your efforts to expand and improve the Woodes Rogers page. Vincent pearse (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not stopping here. This is a FA in the making.  Jump on board, me hearty, and we'll assail the Spanish Main of FAC?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Why'd you dump the reference to the documents at the Rep of Pirates blog? That's quoting new archival sources and the author even has an image of a portion of the original document. Just because it's a "blog" doesn't mean it lacks scholarly credibility. I suggest restoring that, but will await your response. --Vincent pearse (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cauz I'm grooming this article for FA and it would certainly get knocked out at FAC. Can you justify it as an RS under existing policy?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. First, the author of the blog is a credible source -- the very same Woodard you've used to source most of this article. Secondly the RS Wikipedia RS policy discourages direct citation of primary sources; since Woodard is apparently the first person to dig up this document, his blog posting is the best and only secondary source to which we can footnote the information. Thirdly, we know Woodard didn't make it up -- there's a image scrap of the original document on the page. Finally the information is important: it reveals a great deal about Rogers' character and the reasons he lost the governorship..... Don't want to hurt this worthy article's FA candidacy, but if the reviewers are thoughtful, they should recognize that this addition makes the article stronger, which is the reason I'm arguing for it --Vincent pearse (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. I'll restore it.  Look for it at FAC I hope within the month.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like somebody took it out again; I'm not pedantic enough to keep fighting for it, but seems a shame to have the article exclude fresh archival evidence. Vincent pearse (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I did because it was questioned at FAC. If you want to join the debate there, feel free.  I do what the FAC reviewers say, within reason, because I want the article to pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Woodes Rogers ⋅
I will be reviewing your article Woodes Rogers ⋅for GA, as he seems like another interesting guy. I will not start before tomorrow and will be putting comments on the Talk:Woodes Rogers/GA1 when I activate it. (Its a red link now.) Thanks, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 02:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, he is. Go for it!  Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Kanonkas
Thank you Wehwalt for voting in my successfully closed RfA! I'm glad that you trust me. Ping me if you need anything! Best regards, -- Kanonkas :  Talk 18:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Itsmejudith
Hello. Please forgive the spam but since Requests for adminship/Itsmejudith is heading toward a very close decision, I'm contacting all editors who were in the "Neutral" section in the hope that they can take a second look at the RfA and make a more explicit recommendation (either way). Thank you, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- though you would have gotten a "thank you so very much" had you chosen to support. :-) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt, I'm terribly confused. I was not trying to force you into supporting the RfA. The "thanks" above was absolutely sincere and the rest of the sentence was meant as a light joke, not as sarcasm. I don't have a stake in this RfA: I do think Itsmejudith would make a fine admin but I was only trying to make the RfA more active since it's hovering around the borderline percentage. When I asked if you could "make a more explicit recommendation (either way)", I really meant either way. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the thought. But what with one thing and another, I'm going to stick to talking on the nomination page.  Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

re scan
Good idea. There's one at work. I'll give it a try next week. Fainites barley scribs 20:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Donald Gleason
Great article. I enjoyed the read very much. -- Samir 03:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wolters pic
e-mail me and I'll send it to you as an attachment. Its a bit grainy but the best we've got. Fainites barley scribs 15:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Wolters1.jpg}
Thank you for uploading File:Wolters1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Wolters1.jpg}
Thank you for uploading File:Wolters1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Wolters1.jpg}
Thank you for uploading File:Wolters1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Washington, D.C.
I've restored the indefinite move-protection for this article. It was move protected because it was a target for page-move vandalism which of course has nothing to do with being a featured article. Just thought I'd let you know. Regards, - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Wehwalt! Well, DC is done at TFA! Amazing! I was wondering if it would be possible to restore semi-protect. The indefinite protection was removed when the article went up for TFA, but I think it can be restored again. If you don't think it would be appropriate to restore PP right now, that's fine. If vandalism continues I can resubmit at WP:RPP. Thanks for your help! Best always, epicAdam(talk) 01:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad you enjoyed it; it seemed to go fairly smoothly. I've had TFA when I've looked across at fellow editors and asked "How much damage did they do?"  Anyhoo, I've restored indefinite semi protection.  Let me know if I can help with anything else.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being so quick with the request! According to article statistics, the article got 106.6k page views. Not bad in comparison to the 5k/day usual and I think a few more than most recent TFAs. All in all, no major problems. In fact, many of the edits were helpful; it's always nice to have good faith editors look over things. Anyway, thanks again. Best, epicAdam(talk) 02:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Corrie Article
Thanks for responding. I suppose that photograph must have been discussed time and again, sorry to bother you with it. Your writing is very unbiased, 'hard to say what side you're on. That's good. Good job on the Jena 6 article. I'm an attorney too, btw, in California. Maybe I could help you on one of your projects sometime. Tech408 (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the praise. Sure, always grateful for any help.  One of the articles on my short list to improve in the next few months (after I get done with my current projects of Woodes Rogers and Rudolf Wolters) is Elian Gonzalez affair, would you like to help on that?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

star
Thanks! Appreciate it!--Wehwalt (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix
I am not sure if you are following my editing, but you have not made any fresh comments on the FAC discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw that you were doing a lot of editing, but I was waiting for the flow to slow down before re reading it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A must ask question
I read your user page, I think you said you are an attorney from Virginia. What attracts you to your topics? I understand Speer and Wolters, and Rogers, but this Lane guy? Why? What makes you tick? Why all the main page interest? (Not criticizing, I am just curious.) &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 04:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I was looking through Cabinet officers looking for examples of the Saxbe fix that TonyTheTiger had missed, and I was checking Lane to be sure he hadn't been a member of Congress. And I said, gee, that is an awfully short article considering the guy was a 20th century Cabinet officer.  And years ago, I had read Albright's book on the founding of the National Park Service, and so I got interested in the guy.  I don't think this article is main page fodder, though you never know, but it still can be a featured article.  In this case, it was just totally random that I got interested and started work on improving it.  As for getting articles on the main page, it is nice and all that, but getting them to FA is what I really care about.  I think Lane can be a FA, but it may still take some work and time.  And any guy who can joke about having to have open heart surgery while conscious deserves a FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well then, you are undoubtedly a great attorney, as that is how great criminal attorneys work, although I wager you are not a criminal attorney. Whatever, I am sure you are good. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 04:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's criminal defense attorney! Also, this is more of a challenge.  In a way, Speer and Rogers were easier, because people were very interested in the subject of the article.  To get them to promote a cabinet officer no one ever heard of or has cared about the past half century is more of a challenge.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Silverstein
at http://www.ashipwreckinthesand.com/ silverstein has released the album art, title, and tracklisting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.200.252 (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA
You mention something people had brought up. I doubted whether this ever really happened. Do you know which RFA this was? Friday (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Suntag, though I think it collapsed for other reasons. But at one time, the guy was up 53-4.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm looking it over.. yeah, it seems like this is a case of us dodging a bullet here, rather than a good candidacy being derailed for bad reasons.  Friday (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If we say "Don't worry because no one has ever failed an RFA for failure to answer such-and-such a question", even if that turns out to be highly probable, that might be problematic because it gives the impression that we're saying the question has no chance of affecting the outcome, which would be going too far. So the best way to put this position is still up for grabs.  Please feel free to weigh in at RFA.  I was thinking earlier this morning that the best way to proceed was for people to chat on user talk pages and then bring the results to RFA, but now I'm thinking that's paying too much attention to the people who say "stop talking, we're tired of it".  They can take a break if they don't want to listen; everyone should feel that they can argue their point in front of everyone and be treated respectfully. (Watchlisting, and I'll copy this to Friday too.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Without a concrete proposal and a kernal of determined and respected editors willing to push for it, this will simply remain a talkfest.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with that, as long as you're not censoring yourself on the belief that no one is listening. We've worn a lot of people out, but there are plenty where they came from.  If you have a handle on anything that hasn't been said in quite the right way yet, say it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I don't have a lot ot say about it right now. Waiting for people to shake their way into their decisions.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Woodes Rogers
Congrats on your newest FA. I had to leave town unexpectedly for a few days, and I see it passed quite quickly while I was gone. Great work! - auburn pilot  talk  23:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! My latest is Franklin Knight Lane, look at this, most of which is a copyvio from the bio on the back cover of an edition of Lane's letters.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Kudos on Rogers; it's well-constructed and accurate in the details. Look forward to seeing it as an FA Vincent pearse (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw you did some work on it before I got going. It will be a privilege to see it main page tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Congrats - great to see it on the big ol' stage. Probably the most attention Woodes Rogers has received since the 1720s. Vincent pearse (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Because You Left IP.
To me, this user seem to be the same as User talk:190.66.135.205, Special:Contributions/190.69.94.50, and several others from the history of the article. This is why. And actually, now that I'm thinking of it, I'm realizing a page block may be better suited as opposed to an AIV report. --HELLØ   ŦHERE 01:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for it. I'm just not familiar enough with the movie to decide if what he is doing in the Plot section is vandalism or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold On
I'm going to explain this right now. I added the album "Badu" to the Erykah Badu page because the album has already been released. User:Ericorbit comes along and erases it because he believes it wasn't cited. I go to his talk page and gives him the links that the album is in stores like (Walmart, CD Universe, etc.). He replies on my talk page and stays that my message was a personal attack. After I try to explain to him about the album being in stores he trys to threaten to block. I erased that message off my page because I didn't believe that I have attacked on his page. He keeps saying "Stay off my page" after I try to correct. Now he is trying to say that I vandalized his page because I was correcting him! Tarysky (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the time and effort, but when I declined to take action on AIV, that is the end of my involvement with this, since I do not routinely comment at AN/I. Good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time, help, & support. Tarysky (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not supporting anyone, it is just beyond the scope of what AIV is set up to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Main page
Congrats! (for (for Woodes Rogers) on the main page. Never have I seen a Virginia attorney work harder! You deserved your rewards. I'll hire you, for whatever kind of attorney you are, as you are obviously single-minded, the principle reqirement in a good attorney!  Greatest and best regards, and furthermore, Cheers, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 05:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not always single minded, I tend to get distracted. But now and then I get into the groove.  As for Woodes, from crap on Jan 5 to maim page on Feb 1 ain't bad, if I do say so myself!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be a record for time from DYK to main page (19 days).--Wehwalt (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Mozart: thanks
Thank you for your support and help in getting Mozart in Italy to Featured status. I appreciate your help in the effort to expand the encyclopeadia's featured classical music content. My next music project, for later this year, is likely to be List of operas by Richard Wagner, including not only those we know all about, but his many aborted projects, too. Brianboulton (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats to you on the star! I'll keep an eye out for it.  But when are we going to hear what happened to Mozart next?  The cliffhanger!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert A. Heinlein‎
Glad you nominated it for FAR. I was going to do so at one point, but then it seemed like some editors were working to fix it up. Guess not enough. It did have massive problems. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I remembered SOMEONE had, but didn't want to undelete the aborted FAR to see who it was. I thought it was you though.  It's just gone too far and I can't deal with it myself, nor am I really inclined to want to.  Sure, I love Heinlein's books (up until World as Myth), but the guy himself doesn't appeal to me.  Like you and my buddy Franklin Lane.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Civil War hook
Because you commented on the civil war hook and had a concern - I wanted to tell you that someone passed it and it displayed on the main page even though two of the articles for listed under AfD. I can't seem to find out who passed it, but that seems like an utter mess. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And like I said, it is just going to encourage people to do similar things.   i'd throw a hard limit of, say, five articles per hook, just to put an end to this garbage.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The AfD seems to be split down the lines of those involved with the civil war pages and those not. It shouldn't have been surprising to see Bedford there. He wants to list a bunch of national register articles also (at least they are independent and are well known locations). Ottava Rima (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Compliments re Stephen Zetterberg, Jerry Voorhis, Cross-filing
I had seen the Zetterberg obit in the New York Times and was thinking of creating an article, but hesitated. The Zetterberg article you created, especially when combined with the expansion to Jerry Voorhis, fills a tremendous void in Richard Nixon's background. Cross-filing is only icing on the cake. Great work; keep it up! Alansohn (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Plan to expand them further, have ordered a book on Nixon's early congr career. I know you troll the obits at the NY Times, but as that was two days old, figured I'd write it myself.  LA Times obit clearly looked at our article and the NY Times one, they even got the same misspelling of Newcastle (should be New Castle).  Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A dog is an animal, not a term
I think it's usually better to write about the thing itself than about the term that refers to the thing. The latter should be done if, e.g., the term has divergent meanings, or is often misunderstood, or for some other reason the separate topic of nomenclature needs to be treated. Accordingly, I did this edit. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe oppose
I do not understand. What am I misreading? The rules say Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. At the time I made the nom on February 4 the first article, Byron Brown, had been 4 support and no oppose for a week with all images, MOS and refs signed off on.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think a week is long enough to ensure that. After all, the FAC process is rather slow.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is not a matter of your opinion on what is a long enough time. The issue is whether when I made the second nom the first nom had gained support and whether reviewers' concerns had been signed off on. Are you saying that the article had not gained support or that reviewers' concerns were not substantially addressed?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There was support; you had addressed concerns. But very often not much happens in a week at FAC.  Arguably, by that logic, you could nominate after a day, if you got one support and were up to date with concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One support could not get an FA promotion. Three unopposed frequently does.  Three supports having stood for a week is approximately the spirit of the rule.  Any higher standard would actually exclude anything but a promotion.  You are almost saying that a second nomination is permissible once the first one has passed with a higher standard than three unopposed supports for a week.  I don't truly believe you feel the rule is meant to uphold that high of a standard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony, what is the point of this discussion? Just note under my oppose that you feel you've complied with the rules and since my oppose contains nothing you can act on, it should be disregarded.  I don't desire an argument.  I don't think the article is that wonderful, but I've copyedited where I could and raised questions where I see problems, so I'm not hostile to the article or the idea of it running as TFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been withdrawn for one final push around the 20th. User:SandyGeorgia, the WP:FA delegate, says that it can be renominated with an independent copyedit.  That means you and others need to keep cleaning it up between now and then for us to have a shot at the main page.  I have appreciated your involvment in the article. Please keep up the good work. I'll be watching.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any advice for improvement given the current state of the article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would seek an independent pair of eyes. I'll clean up anything that I see, but I'm just one pair of eyes.  I know time is short but I think you should also find someone not involved in the article to give it a once over, if only to satisfy the inevitable kvetches about the article being nominated and pulled and nominated.  If you can say "Hey, I got an independent copyedit", then those complaints will not be made.  I don't find the prose terribly engaging, but I think you can get past that, it is borderline FA in my view.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

DYK for Stephen Zetterberg
--Dravecky (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hullo again
Thank you for the agreement at AN/I on wording. And for the record - you're an exemplar for admins in that regard, and really deserve kudos for it. Even if it's just from me. arimareiji (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Hope all is well at Corrie, am wikibreaking from it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm on the way out the door
so please keep an eye on for me.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Easy task, someone else blocked him. Sorry, I was working on something else and didn't see the rest of the sequence.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Saw this protection summary, checked the edits from that IP range (68.180.123.0/24), and it seems the guy took you seriously; see Special:Contributions/68.180.123.118. I placed a brief rangeblock. - <font color="#000080">auburn <font color="#CC5500">pilot  talk  22:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good thing I didn't tell him to go delete the main page, then!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your accusations
Were not only false, they derailed my legitimate concerns, insulted me, and were poster child ABF. I am not interested in the image edit war. I have made no posts there. I am uninvolved as regards that mess. I brought a legitimate concern to ANI, and you have insulted me and stated, not merely insinuated but stated outright, that I am asking "loaded questions" and "seeking advantage" in trying to gain "sympathy" and you have completely misrepresented my aims. I will take the view that you merely have grossly misunderstood me and my motives. I would appreciate you acknowledging that. Please feel free to ask any questions here. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comments here merely support what I said. Cheers,--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your logic centers are broken. You may wish to look to that. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * John having escaped as the target of your ire; I decline to take his place. Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, I can feel insulted by your insults without John's existence; and he has not "escaped" a damn thing. My reuqeust for input and assistance on ANI was highjacked to the content dispute, which I now discover John had incorrectly informed others I was involved in; that has no bearing on your rudeness. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As you like. Your question assumed that John had been editwarring.  Had you asked, "Do you think John has been editwarring?", I would have had no objection.  A question which assumes bad behavior by another is in my opinion loaded.  Apparently others agreed.  You also would have been well advised to place your concern at Deacon's talk page.  As for your diffs, notably the closing admin echoed my words when he archived the matter, so I kinda feel that I summed things up well.  You got a neutral perspective, since I have no connection to John or to you.  I regret that you're taking it personally, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your responses assumed I'd been involved in the content dispute and was trying to gain sympathy/advantage! I had the history of John making reverts, then immediately warning others of blocks if they didn't let his edit stand. That certainly bears the appearance of using the tools, or threat thereof, to gain advantage. Had you spoken to the concern whether disagreeing or questioning, rather than attacking me, you would not have insulted me. In other words, I did have (and still have) strong grounds for concern. What grounds have you for accusing me, other than that I voiced concern? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the word "possibly" somewhere in there".--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point; I also know that if I said "Wehwalt is possibly manipulative" it would still bear the color of an insult. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, and that is why I am engaging with you rather than ignoring you. I responded based on the way it came across to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) So you feel adding the modifier "possibly" to any insult negates it as an insult or accusation? What a novel approach. How does that work for you when you tell your boss "You are possibly an asshole"? Does s/he say, Oh, that "possibly" makes everything ok? I'm thinking somehow that your logic centers are still broken, and you may wish to look to that. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That was a question: you seem to be saying that adding the word "possibly" makes something not an insult. Is that what you're saying, or not? My mildly humorous examples of applying that logic to its conclusion were not intended to be taken as literal "advice", I thought that was apparent by the context. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent comments at AN/I in support of my actions. One small point; re "an article you're involved in", I wasn't involved at all in the article or its talk before I warned those four editors, but went straight there from AN/I when it was raised there; see here for a full account if you're interested. It seemed to me then like a cut and dried case of bad fair use. It still does, frankly, but I see now that there are respected editors arguing on the other side. It's an even more highly charged area than I had imagined. We may need to go to RfC or RfAr to resolve it, or else tolerate the dispute for another year or whatever. Anyway, thanks for taking the time and trouble to look into it and to speak in my defense. --John (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. Cleaning out an ants' nest sometimes means getting mud on you.  Especially when people are throwing same.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Rare Disease Day
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

r<font color="#8B0000"> ʨ ana ɢ  talk/contribs has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I'm sorry that my earlier comments came across in the wrong way; I didn't mean to suggest that you personally don't care, but just that in general editors should try to be aware of notability of articles that are things that don't really interest them. I do realize that your comments and AfD nomination are entirely in good faith and we just happen to disagree over what constitutes notability, and I was never under the impression that you don't care about this stuff; I guess I just worded it poorly. Best, r<font color="#8B0000"> ʨ ana ɢ  talk/contribs 23:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine. I have every sympathy for the cause, but we have to be evenhanded.  I'm just going to let the community weigh in.  I have nothing against it, or I wouldn't have helped out with the alternate hook.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, so are you saying that he wasn't a snake?
I'm dumb. Thanks. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a badger. Badger.  BADGER!!!  --Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

68.180.122.238
It's just Reingold evading his block. A 72-hour block should help.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix
I spent a few hours digging at the University of Chicago Law School today. Please have a look at the new content that I have added. I would like to renominate the article at WP:FAC by the end of the week, but it would be best if it is clean before it gets there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I will do it today. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Stay tuned. Today is my last effort at researching this, but I may find what we want. I am only researching the Constitutional Convention today.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good luck from Brisbane.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After another research adventure earlier today, I think this will be up at FAC with the latest changes in the next day or two. Your continued participation in its improvement would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * When and if I can. I don't expect to be on that much the next week or so.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Commentary welcome at Featured article candidates/Saxbe fix.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I had already seen it, and I've supported. I'm not going to be on for 36 hours, most likely, so I voted early.  Since you deal with Chicago, should that be often, too?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any idea what its points would have been considering recent main page appearances. Would it have gotten 10 or 11?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think 9, which would have tied the record, six centennial, two main page representation, one underrepresented topic. Can't think of any other points, but maybe I am missing something.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks, have done so!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Good Germans
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Good Germans. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Hey Wehwalt, I just wanted to say thanks for your participation in the recent AfD discussion of Rare Disease Day, for your advice both on how to improve the article and on how to deal with the AfD. I realize the result of the AfD is maybe not what you were hoping for, but in any case your efforts and scrutiny helped me improve the article and compelled others to dig up a lot more sources than what were there originally, so overall I think it's a net benefit to the encyclopedia. Best, r<font color="#8B0000"> ʨ ana ɢ  talk/contribs 05:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't care about the outcome. I did my job and brought a doubtful case to the community's attention, and it ended with what we all want, an improved encyclopedia entry.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:ChildofMidnight
What started this entire fiasco began here, in which the user began an exceedingly long circular argument, which has spilled over to Talk:Michael_Jackson, as well as Gwen Stefani and Celine Dion. In short, this user has an extremely narrow-minded interpretation of a wide variety of wikipedia policies and seems to be hellbent on WP:PEACOCKING the first sentence of every biography. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  07:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your letting me know that. But since it is not an area of Wikipedia I claim to know much about, I doubt I will be getting involved.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't expecting involvement, I just felt the need to clarify the situation, especially since this editor seems to enjoy pretending to be the pinnacle of wikipedia. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  11:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather have root canal without anesthesia. Don't let me stop you, enjoy yourselves!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

 * Oh, glad to. Thanks.  I try to help out keeping TFA/R running relatively smoothly, no big deal.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Simple Plan single
I think you've misunderstood. The reference provided is not chartspam, it's basically a a countdown chart for most requested songs per week. It's really not because it's been played a lot. You should of understood my edit summary which I stated that "it's been getting airplay". Also CHUM-FM doesn't believe that "No Love" is the fourth single, they know and it's also receiving airplay form other stations across Canada. Just because it has yet chart on any Billboard chart doesn't mean it's not the next single. Hometown Kid (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm really having trouble believing that a closely watched band like SP could have a single out there for at least three weeks, and have nothing, nothing on its web site or anyplace else except for this one airplay chart, nothing in the media, no single pressed in countries where they have physical singles, no video announced as in the works, no TV appearances. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources.  Where's yours?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that's because it could only be for a Canadian release. That airplay chart is proof that it is the new single. Why wouldn't you think it be the new single if it is getting airplay. Not all of Simple Plan's single were released in other countries except Canada. Like Save You, that was only released in Canada. It also has yet to debut on any billboard chart once it receives more airplay, that could be the reason you're assuming it's not the next single. Hometown Kid (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not enough. You are drawing inferences.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ummm, Save You was released everywhere; it just didn't receive much airplay in the States. Also, many bands such as Rascal Flatts (band) have charted songs not released as singles.  The fundamental aspect you are forgetting, though, is a source saying No Love is the fourth single.  Lastly, please argue on the talk page.  I feel left out of the clique.  *sad face* -- Poe Joe  (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Left out of the clique? Welcome to my life. Anyhoo, I agree, this needs to be on the band article talk page, let us centralize discussion there.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A point...
Hey Wehwalt. :) There's a point I'd like to make, as it would really seem to me that you are not aware of it (most certainly I am mistaken and you are in fact aware of it, but for the unlikely case you are not, it will probably be of help (and I hope you won't take offence, as there is really no offence meant)): One can edit war without violating the three-revert rule (cf. WP:Three-revert rule, 3rr, Edit war and Edit_war). The three-revert rule is only a measure of edit warring, frequently used by administrators in order to determine whether one was edit warring. As WP:WAR states: “Edit warring is a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time.” One is edit warring if they use edits to win a content dispute in a confrontational way. That means, after all, that there's absolutely no need for one to violate the 3RR to be edit warring. Best wishes, — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 05:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read my edits carefully, I made it clear I was very well aware of it. RHMED was blocked for 3RR, he defended on that basis.  Had he been blocked for edit warring, he would have said--ah, but we'll never know that now.  Thanks for your help.  Sugguest you just let things sit for a while.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Just another point regarding your comments here. In the ANI discussion you have called me “not unbiased” — if I am “not unbiased” in this issue, you are not as well, given your comments at ANI and his talk page. Thus, I kindly ask you to leave the review of a possible unblock request to an impartial admin. Thank you. — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 14:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I don't consider myself involved.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But I do. Given your comments both at AN/I and RHMED's talk page you have a clear WP:COI. — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 19:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Please lock my userpage
Some Internet acquaintances have been having at it. Thanks. -- Poe Joe (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Full lockdown, meaning admins only, or just registered users? And both your user and talk page?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Semi-protect for the user page should be fine. Thanks.  -- Poe Joe  (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That work?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. And thanks. -- Poe Joe  (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's alright, that's OK, they'll be working for you someday.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Edgar Speyer
Another main page congrats for you! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Why?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Good Germans?
I noticed that you deleted Good Germans with the reason "A5: Article that has already been transwikied to another project." Could you clarify? I'm assuming this means the article was moved to another Wiki project, but I'm not sure how to find it. Thanks! JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Voorhis.jpg}
Thank you for uploading File:Voorhis.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Voorhis.jpg}
Thank you for uploading File:Voorhis.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix
Opinion needed on talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

USMA TFA request question
I see you modified the pending TFA request point tally for USMA. I would disagree about your comment about 12-year olds doing reports about West Point. My reasoning is the direct link USMA has to American history, both through its connection to every major military conflict to being the alma mater of two presidents. Regardless, I can see how someone could feel otherwise. My question is one of guindance on how to proceed. I'm a new wikipedian and have never nominated a TFA before. I see there is a 16 Mar request already pending. How would you recommend to proceed? Even if USMA's TFA request point total drops from 4 to 3 pts, it is still tied with the current 16 Mar request and has more points than 2 of the current 5 TFA reuests on the request main page. I appreciate any feedback you could provide. Ahodges7 talk 18:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, my opinion is just my opinion, if you nominated we'd hash out the fourth point on talk page. If you really want to go for it, I don't suggest waiting very long, since the Tkach article could not displace you unless your article got a lot of opposes.  But seriously consider Memorial Day, when having USMA might be more meaningful to the average reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

NiceHotShower
The account sounded so convincing that if anyone made unpleasant changes to Wikipedia that they should be reported to NiceHotShower straight away. I thought I was helping to fight "nasty vandals and spammers" with NiceHotShower and had no idea that the account wasn't a true administrator. I am sorry for any problems my false conduct has caused and hope I can be forgiven for my costly actions. My true apologies. Is there anything I can do to help the NiceHotShower incident? --AtlanticDeep (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You might want to post what you just said on AN/I, at the end of the thread I referred you to, just so that the admins who were viewing you with suspicion know you were a victim of the situation. Thanks for your response!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wolters
I don't understand this sentence: "In 1947 and 1949, Wolters organized meetings of the former Arbeitsstab members,[27] many of whom were intensively involved in the postwar reconstruction efforts.[28] In 1950, Wolters won a competition to design the new police headquarters in Dortmund[29][30] The Hotel Königshof in Bonn, rebuilt by Wolters,[6] had been the leading hotel in the city. Wolter's work opened by hosting the President of Italy in 1956 on his state visit, and again became the leading hotel ..."

He won a competition, then "Wolter's work opened by hosting" ... Wolter's hotel opened??? Was the hotel rebuilt also? What am I not getting here? &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 02:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He rebuilt the hotel. I say Wolters' work as a way of avoiding using the word hotel too many times.  If you can find a better way of putting it please do.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wolters is an incredibly interesting story. Every time I read it, I am struck. Is there a reason you are using British spelling, as I though Germans used American? &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 04:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Fainites put in some British spelling and it was simpler to adapt to that. It is a great story though.  We've written the best bio he's ever had.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it is very important to be consistent. I believe in Speer you stuck up for American spelling. So, make up our mind which you want. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 04:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That was American style dates. I would say leave well enough alone as regards the spelling unless an issue is made of it.  FAC is not the time for optional cosmetic surgery!--Wehwalt (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidently, the next project, after Wolters and Lane, looks to be Jerry Voorhis which I've taken from a stub and recently nominated for GA.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh no! Not another California politician! &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but the whole article revolves around the campaign against Nixon, which is the stuff of legend, which I'm doing my best to keep out of the article. Another man overshadowed by a big man on the stage.  I seem to like that kinda thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wolters is such an excellent example. Can Voorhis live up to that? Nixon was his own worst enemy. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 03:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) No, but there are so few Wolterses to be found. He is as fascinating as Speer. Voorhis is actually rather dull, it is Nixon who is interesting. Still, it is a worthwhile project and I hope that when it gets to FAC (which won't be for some time yet) the Nixon connection will attract reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Paulkohler.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Paulkohler.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Lanesig.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Lanesig.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

AN/I
I'd offer an extended discussion of the impropriety of your request, but I recognize that it is made in good faith, so I'll say only that if I were particularly concerned about attributing my comments to my account, I'd have logged in. Thanks, 69.212.64.246 (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * WP greatly encourages people to log in. I'd advise it, strongly.  Nothing at all improper about suggesting, on the IP's talk page, that you do so.  Happy editing!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI article patrollers
Hiya :-) I think you misunderstood part of the thread on ANI... you said that you're unimpressed with the "victim act" from the creator of the article - the "victim act" was me, and I was the "deletion-happy patroller". I thought that all those calling me deletion-happy etc. were insulting. The guy who created the article didn't - I think you may have got us mixed up? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 20:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Could be. My bad.  I'll strike it out then.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers - it was just that you were criticising the article creator's choice of template, and actions generally and then went on to talk about "his victim act" which was mine, in response to the cries of "You just want to destroy," "You're tag-teaming," etc. Thanks for the prompt response! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 20:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, and thanks for taking responsibility. Obviously we all want civil and accurate discourse, esp at AN/I.  Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wehwalt's characterization of the victim act in regards to the article creator. But I don't think we're supposed to say that kind of thing even when it's true. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Edgar E. Clark
Shubinator (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Australia-Indonesia Prisoner Exchange Agreement
Hello there. I removed the prod notice that you placed on this article - I hope you don't mind too much. I didn't really see how prod was the best way to determine whether to keep the article - certainly article quality is not the criteria for keep or delete. Ie, notability is the main criteria. The question should go to afd for wider comment. To be honest, I'm not sure whether it's keepable, let's see what others suggest at afd. It's good to see you are still maintaining a high level of quality over at the Schapelle Corby article - there is so much scope for that to be a lot worse. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I have, let's see what happens.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits to the Washington D.C. entry
Dear Wehwalt, I see you semi-protected the entry. I would just need to add two Memorial places of the Holocaust to the "Washington landscape", can I please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gariwo (talk • contribs) 16:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could talk to epicAdam, the lead editor on the article? I'd really rather not drop the semiprotection.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wehwalt, I'll surely contact epicAdams as soon as I have time, to tell him what I'm telling you now. Which is, the current Washington D.C. entry doesn't host any information on the Righteous and the Shoah. In particular it is strange that the second biggest Holocaust museum in the world is not even mentioned. Is the semi-protection there not to talk about antiSemitism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gariwo (talk • contribs) 14:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Your block
Looks reasonable to me. Seems to have been bold, but wise. I appreciate that you made the decision as someone who can reasonably approach the situation with good judgement and impartiality. And I respect your willingness to take the heat if there is any. Maybe some others will conclude it is more retribution, but I offer my opinion as someone who thinks the Obama article is an embarassment and is fairly disgusted with the personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and ranting that's gone on in response to outside criticism. That being said I wanted to offer my support, and to note that I find your willingness to deal with this particular aspect of the situation helpful and much preferable to the dramatic and blatantly vindictive efforts of others who are themselves deeply involved with the article at issue.

I think the CU attempts for 2006-early 2007 and the AfD instigated by others, for example, were a bit much. But clearly the COI involved in writing or having written for him, an article on Wikipedia is inappropriate and not a good look for the guy. The choice of fringey birth certificate issues to try and add to the article to prove it was censored is also a bit strange. And conducting editing experiments in the name of investigative journalism can certainly be construed as disruptive. On the other hand the story did, in my opinion, expose an obvious bias in our political coverage (the Obama article is inconsistent with our standards and guidelines, and with the articles on similar subjects).

Now if you we could just reign in the ranting on the Obama talk page from fanatical partisans and get down to the business of making sure that notable criticisms and controversies aren't excluded, the world would be a perfect place. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the praise. I think all this will have run its course.  Yes, I agree, the birth certificate is certainly more fringe than Ayers and certainly much more than Wright.  Probably feared that if he put in a bit about Wright it might stick; no such fears with the birth certificate.  Perhaps under calmer conditions a more civil discourse will lead to the result you want on the Obama article.  I'm not expressing an opinion; I haven't been involved with that article and haven't read the many pages of discussion.  Good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Judson C. Clements
Shubinator (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:71.120.14.192‎
He was actually blocked for 2 weeks, three minutes before you posted the warning. I've done that many times also. It's kind of funny. "You're blocked - and if you keep vandalizing, we'll block you!" Probably not that funny to the blockee, though. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw that later, but I didn't feel like posting a "never mind". Enjoying your RfA?  I'm keeping my vote back in case it is possible to make it 96-95.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is turning into more like an RfC than an RfA. It's OK. It's been a good learning experience. I have to separate the sincere Opposes from the obviously vindictive Opposes, but even you subtract the vindictive ones, there is plenty of food for thought (and sufficient negative votes) from the Opposes. Maybe if it actually does get to 96-95, I should call a halt to the proceedings. The next such venture, if any, I would of course expect a unanymous vote. One way or the other. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * RfA is a traumatic experience, too many people say what they actually think about you. My own finished 94-24-3, and that was bad enough, I can only imagine how it is for you.  If I had been rejected, I think I would have slowed my involvement in WP.  I think you are taking it very constructively and if you implement those things, you'll have a good shot trying again this summer.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was feeling kind of badly about it a couple of nights ago, but I've gotten past that. I'm still not sure I would want the job. But I've been asked enough times that I might consider it again in a few months. I expect the more vindictive opposers will have managed to "Plaxico" themselves by then anyway. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Take ten seconds to think about how it might be perceived before dashing off a funny comment, and you'll be fine. I have the same sort of sense of humor, I just regretfully avoid expressing it sometimes.  Rejection sucks, and that is why we lose so many losing RfA candidates.  I didn't want the job myself, I had to be pushed into it, but once the RfA got going, I really cared and sat up most of the night watching the final hours, when a final flurry of opposes pushed it into crat discretion range (79.6 percent).  Just give it another shot in July and August.  You're right, the haters tend to flame out when they push the wrong button on the wrong person who has the right button!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you may find it hard to believe, but I often do that. So think how much worse it could be! (So maybe 20 instead of 10?) I'm thinking of about 3 of the opposers in particular, who are always on ANI due to some fight or another that they've got going on, and then they accuse me of being a drama queen. Maybe they're right, the difference being that I temper occasional anger with a sense of humor, and they are all anger. Well, whatever floats their boats, I guess. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll never get a unanimous vote (neither did I, but I had a little meatpuppetry against me) but a few months with no objectionable comments will satisfy most.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If those meatpuppets were actual food, we would never go hungry here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The puppetmaster found out that he/she was not nearly as influential as he/she thought he/she was! Anyhoo, got to go.  Will check in on all of this tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Question
I'm not sure what policy is on this, if there even is written policy... could you tell me whether repeatedly deleting "Rather than blame me Arima, why don't have someone else read you your responses and ask them what they think!? You might be surprised that perhaps it is you who needs to knee-jerk away." off of my user talk page is subject to 3RR? Not trying to get you involved, I just don't want to get burned for breaking 3RR if deleting the above isn't exempted. I'll take care of it myself, if I'm allowed to. arimareiji (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * He is, you're not. Check "Exceptions" under WP:3RR.  Good to hear from you. --Wehwalt (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the help; I figured it would be unwritten and didn't think to look into it. Believe it or not, things have quieted down at Rachel Corrie, btw. Just thought you'd want to hear good news. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That is good. I'm going to keep off though.  What I don't see doesn't bother me.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf Wolters
Thank you for so generously naming me in the nomination. I looked at the article statistics, and the article is overwhelmingly your work. It is a fine article, and I am glad it received another support. (I still enjoy reading it and continue to admire your wording.) Regarding the German wikipedia link that was brought up in the FAC, having repeatedly dealt with "translations" from the German and other wikipedias, I tend to think the articles on other wikipedias are not very reliable. Often they are unreferenced. I haven't found the link in the Rudolf Wolters article, so I can't speak to that one specifically. However, I certainly trust your judgment. Regards, --&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that between here and Speer, the two articles being codependent, you did enough for a nod. The three I can think of offhand that are linked to the German Wikipedia are Matthias Schmidt, Buss- und Bettag, and Ernst Wolf Mommsen.  Oh, also Werner Schütz.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidently, I expanded Murray Chotiner for DYK purposes, and am giving some thought to making it a FA project. The 100th anniversary of Chotiner's birth is coming up in October and I think it would be a gimme TFA if I could get it to FA.  I don't think there have been any biographies of Chotiner but he for sure will figure in every Nixon bio, of which there have been a slew.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Another (obscure) California politician? Are you secretly from California? (I am) Don't know if this guy has the emotional pull of a Speer or a Wolters - the intriguing psyche of those two. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 12:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, New Jersey. Nixon had an office in my hometown and lived in two adjacent towns after his presidency.  I never saw the man, though I think one of my brothers once did.  It is just a good FA/TFA opportunity here.  Given Chotiner's almost universal demonization (the "devil's lawyer" kinda thing), it would be a real challenge to make it NPOV.  I like that kinda challenge.  Hmmmm.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Murray Chotiner
I wanted to thank you for expanding the Murray Chotiner article. It had been deep on my list of possible expansion targets, and I was glad to be able to read it after your DYK nomination. In reviewing your expansion, I was reminded that Chotiner had appeared on "The Political Obituary of Richard M. Nixon", a panel discussion after Nixon's loss in 1962. This got my brain going and led me to create Nixon's Last Press Conference, yet one more article that I'm surprised never existed. Thanks for being my muse and for all of your efforts. Alansohn (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It all stems from your being slow on the gun on the Stephen Zetterberg article, which led me to expand Jerry Voorhis to the point where I now have it at GAN, and Voorhis's accusations in the article led me to Chotiner, which led you to the press conference! See, bread cast upon the waters comes back with hooks in it!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I really see Chotiner as a difficult but possible FA possibility, and since the 100th anniversary of his birth comes up in October, a possible TFA. I am starting serious work on it, but will probably need to get a few more Nixon bios.  There's time, I already have an article at FAC and two more in line waiting.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll never forgive you for Zetterberg! OK, maybe a few hundred other DYKs will get me over it. Your articles show real work on your part. Keep it up. Alansohn (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't have time to do more than the occasional DYK anyway. Incidently, most of what was said about Zetterberg in the obits was fairly mythological/hagiographic.  He never put together a serious campaign against Nixon.  Even the Democrats refused to fund him.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

RfA...
...turns out to be short for "Request for Arrows". :) Thank you for your support, especially when I talked too much. :) This has been a hard but useful experience (useful experiences often are hard) and whether I ever accept a nomination again or not, I'm willing to address the cautions of the sincere Opposers and try to do better. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Deep Secret
I have nominated Deep Secret, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Deep Secret. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Murray Chotiner
--Dravecky (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf Wolters - Congrats!
Finally! Very well deserved! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Chotiner.jpg
I added on to the fair use on the article. Maybe we will get some feedback if that is not enough. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All the rest of the pics in the article are PD. You should have no problems. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but the key one is the photo of him.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I cannot believe that one fair use, appropriately justified, of the subject of the article when nothing else is available, is not OK. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. And I've made my case that the oppose should be disregarded.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Jerry Voorhis GA review
Hi, I reviewed Jerry Voorhis, left notes on the talk page and put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page or on the review page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The photo thing was just a suggestion, obviously not necessary for GA. I have a few suggestions in my review where it's more about your opinion or you making a decision. Hekerui (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion though. People certainly prefer having a free use photo.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats on writing such a nice article! And you're right, sometimes Congressbios are not reliable. I wrote this article on J. C. Watts and the bio gets his name wrong. Also, I read here about all kinds of German things: do you have some connection to Germany? Hekerui (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My name you mean? No, it is a reference to Wagnerian opera, which I used to be a lot into.  It is what Siegmund calls himself in Die Walkure.  Thanks for taking the time to review it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And Speer and Wolters, I got into when I picked up a copy of Inside the Third Reich two years ago and got interested.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha!
I see you finally got a reaction to Murray Chotiner‎. Someone was appropriately horrified. Great! Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 01:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I specialize in writing up the terrible things the subjects of my articles do in an absolutely impersonal way. I leave it for the reader to be shocked or horrified.  Planting spies on the campaign plane of the opposition candidate isn't cricket, I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are good. But I didn't think you would be able to embroil anyone in Chotiner‎ because I thought it was too abstruse a topic for anyone not living and breathing American politics to understand. That's why I kept sticking wikilinks in there, but I didn't think it was enough. Good for you. Definitely a compliment that you could take a subject like this and get someone to read it. I wish you would take another actually interesting topic again. Not Jerry Voorhis! But I suppose I have to see you through these things, for the sake of the wonderful topics you occasionally deign to cover. Your faithful friend, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 02:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'd love to go back and do another Speer, bring the article on Spandau Prison up to FA.  But I can't do that, there are no images!  I could get the sources ... open to suggestions to other interesting topics that aren't already staked out.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No diagrams, floorplans, drawings? No visuals whatsoever? Something from one of the Holocaust museums? &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 13:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a photo in the Bundesarchiv, but it was not one of the ones donated to Wikipedia. Once I get my current projects put to bed, I'll start looking into it.  The current Spandau Prison article frankly sucks.  There's more info in the Speer article about the prison, really, than there is the prison article.  But read the new info I've put in about Chotiner's role in 1952.  He was SUCH a slimeball, but I like a slimeball with style, somehow.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Loyd Wright
--Dravecky (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Voorhissig.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Voorhissig.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. <font face="Trebuchet MS">&mdash; <font color="#5A3696">neuro <font color="#5A3696">(talk) (review) 20:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Charles W. Lyon
I can see this is going to be never ending! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 01:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured it would be good advertising for the Chotiner FAC ...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides, I'm tired of California politicians. I've gotten zippo support from that Wikiproject, too, all they do is sit back and watch the GA and FA statistics mount up with my hard work.  I'm going to seriously look around for someone really interesting that isn't covered.  And not from California.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Californians are an ungrateful bunch. I know because I am one of them. Why does it have to be a politician? Because you live in Virginia (allegedly)? &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't say politician. I'm looking for another someone of mixed character, that is what I find interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone interesting has been "done". You have to find a new take on someone, like finding out Samuel Johnson could be diagnosed with Tourettes syndrome. What about Edmund Morris (writer), the guy who wrote the biography of Ronald Reagen without ever interviewing him? He was considered a good writer, but because of that book he has been dissed. Yet that biography may be truer than others. No one has satisfactorily "explained" Reagan. I had a friend not too long ago tell me that he could clearly tell while Reagan was still president that he had Alzheimer's disease because he was such a buffoon.  Yet all around me, I see his esteem rising so that now he seems to be considered one of our better presidents, to the point that Obama studied his methods on his way to the White House. Morris may be a way of getting at Reagan without dealing with Reagan's biography on Wikipedia. Well, I know that you seek a perverted politician. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 02:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't appeal to me somehow. It's got to be an article which has been effectively abandoned, I can't spend half my time with people making POV objections.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

First Media
Just a heads up. It looks to me like First Media is not a featured article and there might be a potential WP:bite problem at TFAR. Smallbones (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I left a nice note on the guy's talk page. I assumed it was, thus the edit summary, when I realized it wasn't, and the guy was a newbie, I left the note.  Thanks for the thought.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit of Murray Chotiner
I guess I am done for now. Hope I haven't made a mess of it. I have difficulty reading Tony's mind. I hope I addressed his complaints. It seemed like Tony was saying he wanted more description in the text, so I tried to add a little. I am surprised that there are so many articles that are marked disputed, like Jimmy Hoffa.

Of course, feel free to change everything I did!

What is the importance of the Alger Hiss incident was - why did it caused such a furor?

Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 21:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I made a few changes to what you did, mostly stylistic stuff and a few things I felt should be rephrased because I've read all the fee for article sources. The Hiss thing?  Viewers didn't like a convicted perjurer attacking a former Vice President, and didn't think Smith should have put him on the air.  The other "liberal" on the show, by the way, was--Jerry Voorhis!  Thanks for the copyedit, I'll leave a note on Tony's talk page.  Also, Nixon's fund was then legal.  Today, it would be against all sort of tax and campaign finance laws.  Nixon's opponent, Senator Sparkman had one.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How do you know it passed? I haven't seen the usual signs. (Not that I doubt that it will.) &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 23:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Karanacs said so on article talk page, and it is confirmed here. It takes the bot a while sometimes.  I love that image for the blurb.  When people see "neutralize Johnny Cash" and realize the connection to Nixon, they will be reading the article so fast their heads will spin!  I will use the complete memo as an image.  Down at the bottom of the article, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For us Americans, at least, it is a great tie in. This article was work though, for me to copy edit it. I had to go to bed immediately after. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry. At least you didn't fall asleep during, as you did with Lane!  I've done UK articles too, Woodes Rogers, and of course our German pair.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about Lane. I just could not read through it, never mind copy edit it. Usually I can get interested in any subject, for copy editing purposes. But I did fall down on the job there, I admit. Well, I think Chotiner was a victory as that was an up hill battle. I really really worked, really. So to see that pass is a pleasure. At least I didn't have to reorganize it. I appreciate that in you. You know how to organize an article. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it takes a little grease to make the organization fit. Thanks on both counts.  And your copyediting is needed because I tend to fall in love with my own writing.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the main obstacle in the copy writing business. The most those such as I can hope for a compromise that will pass FAC. But is is always wonderful when the editor has the "goods" to stand behind the writing, which you invariably do. Otherwise, I would be unwilling. Some bitterness has developed when I have withdrawn from copy wriing the articles of those whose work I suspect of bias. But with you, I know that you will change that which you cannot verify. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 02:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you again, that is high praise indeed. Yes, I try to write dispassionately and to avoid putting my personal views into these articles.  I think the Chotiner article is neither pro nor anti Nixon or Chotiner, it treats them neutrally.  I always try to write at arms length.  The neutral, detached narrator, taking the reader on a friendly, informed tour of whatever I am writing about, but not taking a side.  Write warmly, to interest the reader in the subject, but don't substitute your own judgment for that of a reader, but also, tell a story.  I always try to have a good ending to my articles.  In this one, it's Chotiner's Law, which reminds the reader that this was a very smart man.  For Wolters, it was the donation to the Bundesarchiv, which closed the chapter nicely.  And there's almost always something the whole article revolves around.  In this case, I think it is the 1952 campaign.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

jena 6
thought you might be interested, might be a place in the article for this Nableezy (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I had read Bell's piece when published mainstream, am inclined to let it sit and see if it gets any traction.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK template
I noticed in the T:TDYK history that you were having some trouble with getting the template to work. If you happen to remember what you wrote when the template wasn't working, could you show me what it was like so I can see if there was something wrong with the template (or if there is something counterintuitive about how it works)?

From glancing quickly at the diffs like this, my guess is that you forgot to use article when using the template (and if that was the only problem, feel free to ignore this). But if that wasn't the problem, and you're not sure why it was messing up, just let me know and I can look into it. Thanks, <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 22:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct. My bad.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem; just wanted to check what was going on. Best, <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 00:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

USMA TFA points question
Unless I misunderstand the TFA requests page, USMA would fall in the "underrepresented" category as noted in this footnote. The point tally for USMA's TFA candidacy is: Timing, Importance, Contributer History, and Representation. FAU's being on the TFA page (Main Page Representation) is not a factor and as such, the total should still be four points. Where am I wrong here? Ahodges7 talk 00:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't USMA listed under warfare on the FA page? There are considerably more than 50 such articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct, it is listed under "warfare". I was under the impression that it was listed as "Education", where it should be. I'm posting a comment as such on the FA discussion page, as I will not be so bold to change it myself on that particular page.  Perhaps as an admin, you could address or change?  It is a 4-year college that is funded by the Army.  I understand how someone could classify it with "warfare", but given the other subjects classified as such (ie: wars, battles, campaigns, equipment, people), doesn't a civilian-degree granting academy seem out of place and more in-line with "Education"?  Graduating cadets are awarded a bachelor of science degree that is accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.  Your thoughts on a category switch?   Ahodges7  talk 01:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have the authority to change that. I would suggest leaving a note on Raul's talk page, he is the featured article director.  Since I agree with you, I will post in agreement, time permitting.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Will drop line to Raul. Thanks.   Ahodges7  talk 01:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Checkers speech
I verified your hook for the DYK Checkers speech, but I suggested that you come up with a more informative hook. Your choice is splashy but it does not explain anything about the speech or the political situation surrounding it. Just a suggestion. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 17:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that in 200 characters, splashy sells. Doing something like ... that Nixon's Checkers speech is named after his kids' dog wastes a perfectly good hook.  It is not often we get a hook on something this important, now that we have descended to species of bamboo, 11th century warriors, and other such trivia, and I'd hate to throw it away.  I think my hook will attract people interested to learn why Nixon said that to Eisenhower, if they don't already know.
 * Incidently, the article is not yet done. I still have a bit of narrative to go, and then press reaction and perhaps a "legacy" or "relevance today" section, I think I prefer the former.  I'm not sure there is a FA in there, but there's at least a GA.  I will have to do a lot of work on it, I'm throwing all the info in, then will start cutting back.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note
As I don't recall you ever referring mockingly to my old username, being blocked for harassment, etc., if you have good faith and constructive suggestions, you are welcome to offer them at User:A_Nobody/RfA. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 19:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Puzzling comment
Old issue, but I continue to be puzzled by this edit. It seems completely irrational. The only way I can see that this could make any sense at all is if you thought I had an interest in changing a policy and then chose that particular case as an occasion to express it. So your comment makes it look as if that's what you thought. Did you really think that, or is there something in your comment that makes sense that I'm missing? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm really sorry, I can't reconstruct that far back. Looking at it doesn't refresh my recollection as to my train of thought.  Thank you for your helpful edits to the articles I've been working on, and if I offended you in July, I'm sorry for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Main page article
Who is responsible for that? The one that is slated next, Niobium, has four dead reference links. Is there not a quality review or check? &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess Raul doesn't perform a linkcheck.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Un-semiprotect Simple Plan?
The article receives less than the average amount of edits anyway. What are you thoughts? -- Poe Joe (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess I can screw the lid on again if it starts getting bad. Want me to do it?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it'd hurt. The article seems not to be progressing very well. I'd definitely advocate the un-semiprotection of Simple Plan. -- Poe Joe  (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK? issue
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. Carpet Crawler message me  05:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

TFA
So can I replace the May 19 entry?-- T ru  c o   23:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * With Everton? Can you show more points than Gillingham has?  It doesn't qualify to be removed due to negative votes.  Besides, it is too early to put on an article for May 30.  I saw one for date relevance, two for a two year FA, not sure if there are any more.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant like removing that nom and placing one for May 23 this one, which has 4-5 points, as seen on the pending page.-- T ru  c o   00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is up to you. The points, at least four of them, seem solid, it is within the legal timeframe.  Entirely your call.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so since OTE is the next to be replaced, can I renominate if it gets knocked off?-- T ru  c o   01:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. But people seem to think that USMA has only three points, so that may actually be next.  But going to wait for a couple more people to weigh in.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

HMS Pinafore
I'm planning to nominate HMS Pinafore in a week or two for consideration as a WP:Featured Article. Would you kindly have a look and put any comments here: Peer review/H.M.S. Pinafore/archive1? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll look it over, post comments, and weigh in at the FAC as well. It is hard to get reviewers these days.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nixon campaign sabotage of Paris Peace Accords during 1968 U.S. elections
Hello, Wehwalt.

You state that my contribution to the Nixon article “is no different then the nutjobs proffering the latest denigration of Obama (I use that noun cautiously, by the way) and demanding it be put in the article.”. By stating that my contribution is no different than that of “nutjobs” and by therefore implying that I am no different from a “nut job” you are insulting me instead of using real arguments. Could you please refrain from insulting me by insinuating that I am “nutjob” ? You should stick to comments on content, not on the contributor. I would like to remind you that Wikipedia policy states that “Civility is one of Wikipedia's core principles”. I urge you to study the following Wikipedia policies : Civility and No personal attacks

A word of advice : telling another person that he is crazy is not considered “cautious”.

You also state “I asked AN what Nixon biographers, such as Conrad Black, or for that matter Roger Morris, have to say about this. His only reply was to start this RFC.” I would like to remind you that before you ever asked these questions I asked you many questions that you never answered. You seem to believe that the standards I should be judged by do not apply to you.

Concerning the fact that I started the rfc, which seems to bother you : At 05:00, 17 April 2009 you deleted my contribution and asked me : “Please do not add until you have consensus to add”. At 14:28, 17 April 2009, I offered to “work together to establish the truth on this matter” and asked you several questions. At 14:37, 17 April 2009, you answered by NOT answering any of my questions and started your reply by insisting again that “An editor adding contentious material has the responsibility to build consensus for his addition, the default is not to add. Until you build consensus, you can't add it.”. On the policy article Consensus, Requests for Comment is one of the suggested ways of building a consensus. It’s completely illogical for you to criticize me for doing what you asked me to do in the first place.

Best regards, Armando Navarro (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously you missed the point of my caution. I hesitated to use the word "denigration" because it sounds like the N word, and Obama is of course black.  Comparing arguments is not the same as comparing people.  RfC is used after you have exhausted other means, such as working with the editors on the page.  Thanks for your thoughts, though:--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Since "Comparing arguments is not the same as comparing people" it should be OK by you, and as intelligent as your comparison, if I state in the discussion, for example, that "your arguments against my contribution are no different than the stupid people who deny the holocaust" ? Armando Navarro (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By convention, if you do that, you automatically lose the argument, per Godwin's Law. Please don't make this personal.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am so sorry, it would be much better it I stated in the discussion, for example, that "your arguments against my contribution are no different than the morons who deny 9/11" ? Would that suit you better ? Armando Navarro (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to make your argument as you see fit. Please also do me the same courtesy and do not suggest things I "should" discuss.  Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

FKL
Hi,

The reason why FAC is so exhausting for me is that I research as many details as I can. I truly go over the whole thing line by line, pondering many details (see my userpage for a related essay). I couldn't support FKL without doing so... and I don't have time right now to do that. So I can't +S, but don't take it personally. I only commented on FKL because I just saw that FKL should be POTUS issue as a glaring problem that needed to be fixed. Sorry I can't +S. later Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Two supports is enough to pass, since there are no opposes. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 22:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I routinely ask satisfied commenters to support if they are willing to.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess if this passes, I put on Voorhis. I'm not totally happy with the article yet, and there are a couple of image issues, but it's what I got. I haven't had time for Boulton yet and Checkers speech isn't ready yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

William IV
Thanks for implementing DuncanHill's solution to the "surviving issue" idea: I agree that it was better than my solution. You were correct to guess that my objection was purely stylistic — I thought it sounded redundent. Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyone's a critic!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you be willing ....
Would you review a legal GAN article, as I would be interested in what you would say? There are one you might easily do, being an attorney: Barrett v. Rosenthal. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no problem. It may take me a couple of days.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's ok. There is no time limit. Do you know how to sign up at GAN? &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I put the template on the page that says I'm reviewing it if that is what you mean.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry. I didn't know if you had ever done it before. I was impressed with some feedback you gave regarding another legal article. I am a forensic psychologist, so I am missing a legal education. Outside of mental health law, I am out of my territory.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't do it that often, but am starting to do it more to build up more willingness to have my own articles looked at.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Jeeez, a true attorney. Everything is quid pro quo! &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering ...
I'm considering reviewing your Checkers speech at GAN, but I fear the hassle you will give me over the POV. Sometimes it seems like only the FAC folks can whip you into shape. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 23:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Then stand aside and let's see what a third party's reaction is. Obviously we don't agree on this one, it happens, no big deal.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. (Actually, I haven't read it. I am just assuming.) &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 01:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to get a couple opinions on the POV before I risk going further with the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I just added an image to the Lane article, an image of the high school in Brooklyn named for him, that I journeyed to the deepest parts of inner city blackboard jungle to get (I had to go to Long Island). Next is an image of the stadium in Wheeling where the Checkers speech saga concluded. I will be en route from Columbus to Pittsburgh.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix FA and TFA
I am recognizing you for being one of the many people who came together to improve Saxbe fix as part of its development which has resulted in its WP:FA and WP:TFA status.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will look at Lane tonight or tomorrow. If you get a chance look at the Inauguration of Barack Obama. It has one valid oppose and one oppose for an image that was removed last week.  It is not looking so good and we need any advice we can get to stem the tide.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to be without internet for most of the next 48 hours. I did look at the first part of what is a very long article.  Fasach Nua's opposes are ridiculous.  Obviously Karanacs' is more serious.  I will read it over closely and get back with some comments by Friday.  Thanks for helping out on Lane, it is an offshoot of Saxbe fix in a way because I discovered him while going through Cabinet officers looking for more Saxbe fix examples.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)