User talk:Wehwalt/Archive 3

WP:FOUR
Given your userpage header, you may be eligible for the WP:FOUR award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to take a look...
If you have a few moments to spare from the dark side of Nixon and his dog, or just fancy a break from them, would you care to comment on the peer review page for Clements Markham? The article is pretty much my work alone, and is in need of some outside assessment. So I'd be grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't know that Checkers more or less ran Nixon's 1960 and 1962 campaigns, and then Haldeman slipped strychnine in his Alpo? I'll get to it as soon as I am done with the horror (the article, not the event) of commenting on Inauguration of Barack Obama.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm reading it. It's very engaging.  I'll have comments tonight or tomorrow.  Woof.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Inauguration
That Ledbetter Supreme Court thing seems like it might be up your alley. Would you mind taking a stab at correcting that yourself?
 * Also, do you have an opinion on this image?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Markham, Checkers and Boulton
Thanks for your Markham comments, which I am acting on. It's been a while since I did a GA review, but I'll certainly give the Checkers speech a go, within the next day or two, if someone doesn't pick it up first. I'll be very interested to see what you make of my distant forbear Matthew Boulton, when the time comes. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Really! I'm afraid my only famous relative was Peretz Hirshbein, who was a distant cousin at some remove on my mother's side.  Surprised you haven't felt motivated to pick up Boulton yourself.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Poor form
This edit you made was very poor form. Not only are you unduly highlighting a lower end estimate that Morris himself revises in a later work, ignoring the talk page discussions on this issue, and failing to keep up to date with the new sources which put the matter to rest, but you also did not even bother to inform me or anyone else editing Lydda Death March as to what you have unilaterally decided to do. Please self-revert and explain youself on the discussion page for DYK, where I have riased the issue. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 13:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed so. May I remind you of the promise you made in your RfA: "I will undertake, if elected, to preserve the appearance of neutrality and all that, not to take administrative action in the I-P area, said statement to be construed broadly.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)"


 * --NSH001 (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I remembered that as well NSH001. And was particularly peeved about it since only admins can change DYK hooks that are already queued, so I could not undo his action myself. And he is out now. Thankfully, Royal Broil placed the queue on hold before it appeared and a discussion is ongoing there to determine how to proceed.  T i a m u t talk 16:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thoughts. I do not consider DYK a I-P area, even construed broadly.  It plays by its own rules.  That being said, I will be careful of your sensibilities in future.  The good thing is that my intervention (and the talk page, which I read, was not nearly as clear as you'd make out) resulted in a better hook, which is a Good Thing.  Happy editing!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is clearly within the I-P area, so you should have asked an independent admin to take a look, or raised your concern on the article's talk page, or both. We now have an article on the Main Page with a ludicrous title, an NPOV tag, and a very, very upset Tiamut - one of the hardest-working and most careful editors hereabouts. The hook was fine as it was previously. And, sadly, I have to say, you have confirmed my judgement at the time of your RfA that you cannot be trusted, even to keep your own promise, let alone on other matters. NSH001 (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is, and I did not touch that. DYK is not.  Judging from your own comments at my RfA, you do seem to have trouble with cause and effect.  The things you mentioned are regrettable if true; however I did not cause them.  All the best.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please fix whatever you did to my talkpage
It is screwed up now. Can you revert your edit? &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Checkers Speech
Hy Wehwalt. I found the checkers speech article and had a look at it. Excellent work - but it seems like the only secondary sources used are about, or by, Nixon. Now that makes sense, of course, given that he made the speech, but as an MA history student who's done several essays in the area of Nixon (anti-communism mainly!) I've seen more sources that not only mention the speech, but examine it in quite some detail. As luck would have it, I can't remember any of them this morning, but I'm off to the Uni library today and I'll look some up. I apologize for the slightly rambling message, but I guess to sum it up, it would be - I think you need some more secondary sources in the article. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd welcome some. Preferably online.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Help!
Somehow, in constructing my FA userboxes, they ended up on your page; I have not a clue how to remove them and put them on mine. Do you know how? Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 04:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 08:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Help with images
Hi, both are in the public domain. Screen captures are derivatives of the original work; hence, they inherit the copyright&mdash;public domain due to no copyright notice, in this case. I have tidied up the information on both images and added a tag to recommend their move to Commons. Jappalang (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Borat semi
Hi, I noticed that you semi-protected Borat several months ago. Would you consider lifting the semi to see if the spamming problem is gone now?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've done it. I hope you'll keep an eye now and then on the article, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"aragot"?
Did you mean "agarot"? :) -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Louis Van Zelst
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.

File:Nixon while in US Congress.jpg
Hi, I have invited comments for this file at commons:Commons talk:PD files. Jappalang (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse's case
For your findings of fact, proposals, etc, you need to title your headers. They currently all read "Template". لenna vecia  13:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

TFA June 1
Just so you know - Ive placed Tropical cyclone up but i do not have any time to make up a blurb before the weekend Jason Rees (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've done one. Feel free to edit it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Many Thanks Jason Rees (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Larry King on Nixon
Larry King said tonight that Nixon was just not likable as a person, but that he was very aware of manipulating the press. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not terribly good at it, was he?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Necrid?

 * Oi, would you take a look at Featured article candidates/Necrid/archive3? I'm really working extremely hard to re-engineer my expectations level. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I will, but I can't say when. I'm in England, it is almost 7 am here, I'm throwing stuff into my suitcase.  It may be a couple of days, hope it isn't too far down the list.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. No rush or obligation... Good luck on your trip... 05:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! "within the B college paper level that gets made an FA these days". My thoughts exactly. Yours, such as Checkers, get little attention 'cause no one wants to take on the task of digging into the research. Hell, I don't even want to; I've been burned out by that aspect for quite some time.. My question is about ''myself"" though – am I being nice, now? I was recently accused of having no idea how to work within consensus etc. Ling.Nut (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, your comments were fair enough. There is intense unstated pressure to go along at FAC, one of the reasons I avoid reviewing other articles unless I'm asked.  Everyone fears retribution.  I had no problem at all with what you said about Necrid.  At least you went to the trouble of reading the refs (I did not, I could care less about any video game in the last 20 years, though I certainly enjoyed the classic arcade games in my time).  Let Kung sweat.  You're improving the article, and that's what we are all about.  He should enjoy it.  I've enjoyed our colloquy about the speech, because I know my subject, am comfortable with my sources, and am happy to defend the article and have a good discussion.  So should anyone be.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of United States Senate election in California, 1950
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.

Voorhis' signature
Hi, it is kind of hard to explain the issue with the signature


 * if we keep the recreation of his signature, then Voorhis' work has to be provided as a source (to verify the work)
 * however, since his signature is not copyrighted, why not upload it instead with PD-because (citing the claims in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Signature#Copyright) or PD-ineligible? The source would still have to be named.

I hope that is a clear explanation of my thoughts. Jappalang (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry. I just noticed you have changed the tag of that image, so it seems kind of moot for the above.  Could you provide the source?  Thank you.  Jappalang (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure that you realize that this is his signature, not an imitation thereof?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am thrown off by "I created this work entirely by myself." Jappalang (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, what do you advise, then?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For such situations, it would be best to explain what was the work done (photograph of the subject, scan of the subject, recreating the subject, etc) and from which source the work was executed. That would lead to less confusion.  What you did here does that very well.  Jappalang (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Note
It's not germane to anything but they are called Agorot and not Arogot. Arugot are flowerbeds :) Warm regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  11:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right on all counts, esp #1.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

BLG concerns
Re. William Windsor (goat)

I've replied in the DYK nom

 Chzz  ►  21:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wolters pic
I don't think I uploaded it did I? I thought I scanned it and sent it to you or possibly someone else. I'll try and find someone with an art quality scanner. Fainites barley scribs 14:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference error
You added a reference named "melvyn" to United States Senate election in California, 1950 without an actual reference; it's causing an error message in the reference section. Ntsimp (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

TFA
Hi,

Is there a list laying around that details the points awarded for this, that, and the other in regards to TFA requests?

Cheers--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read WP:TFA/R? It's not the clearest thing in the world, but it is what's there.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Why can't a fair use pic go on the front page then? Fainites barley scribs 21:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It has something to do with image policy. You might want to ask at WT:TFA/R if you want the gory details.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick Question - is their something in the rules of TFA that says the picture must be in the article nominated or can it be any image associated with the article? Thanks Jason Rees (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There's nothing in the rules on that. Up to the nominator, I guess, but beware of confusing readers.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK thanks for the advice im just looking to swop the picture for the TC nom to one that is a featured pictureJason Rees (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops.
It looks like you blocked me a while back, which is why YellowMonkey left you a talk page note. You should have blocked User:Keegaṇ. The point was to illustrate the subtleties of usernames and imitation. No worries, I laughed a little, it's not the first time. Happy editing to you. Keegan talk 06:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently. Maybe Admin school should use as an example a username that no one would mind if it got blocked?  Say User:Jimbo Wales?  Sounds like a win-win to me!--Wehwalt (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK Dartmoor kistvaens
Hi Wehwalt, I could not understand what you ment in the comment you made for this DYK nomination? Thank you--Mbz1 (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just meant that linking sun is pointless because exempting gnomes, trolls, and the Balrog, every Wikipedian knows what the sun is. So low value link.  Linking it doesn't help the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. I had no idea what you were talking about. I'll take the link off. May I please ask you to remove your comment after I do? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You can, though strikeout is preferred. But if you'd like it removed, I'll be happy to.  Best, --Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Congrats
I just saw Checkers speech was promoted to FA! Ruhrfisch ><> &deg; &deg; 01:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! It deserved it, and I was worried for a while there.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Raul likes it too - in case you've not seen this double congrats, Ruhrfisch ><> &deg; &deg; 14:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Congrats. How did it get up on the main page so fast?!  Hey!  How come there's no article on Checkers?  There's an article on Bo (dog), and Bo's just a newbie. Surely Checkers has seniority? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm stunned Raul took it so quickly. He may have a soft spot for cocker spaniels.  Bo, I'm afraid, has seniority as Checkers was never more than a vice presidential pet.  Still, I'll look at his NYTimes obit (yes, he had one) and see if I can put a brief article together.  Wow.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Barrett v. Rosenthal
Hey. You put this article on hold about a month ago. Doesn't look like anything's happened with it since, so you might as well fail it. Wizardman 15:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Totally forgot but I would have noticed if it had shown up on my watchlist again, of course. I'll fail it tonite.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Mifter (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Criminal acts notability
Wehwalt, being familiar with the Holloway case, do you have time to review the merge/notability issues raised at Talk:Esperanza Fire? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have, good to hear from you, hope you are doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

File:2052.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:2052.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. ww2censor (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: Natalee Holloway (film)
Hello Wehwalt, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I removed the speedy deletion tag from Natalee Holloway (film)- because: While the plot is a copyvio, the rest of the content is ok, so I just removed the plot Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions, please let me know. decltype (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Pinafore
Thanks for your help and support throughout the process. I've got my seatbelt fastened. User:Shoemaker's Holiday has "retired" from Wikipedia, although I think he'll be back someday. In the meanwhile, he won't be able to help. We'll see how it goes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy to help out where I can; I'll watchlist the FAC and see what's what. I'm a veteran of 11 FACs (10 passed, one took two attempts), so I know that they never focus on the article's true weaknesses, they always want something else.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox MLB player
You locked Infobox MLB player back in January. I think it's time to unlock it or at least change the protection settings to semi-protection. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 21:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This was a bad idea. There is a big debate about an additional parameter. Now was not the time to unlock it. Timneu22 (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, all I know is what I'm asked to do and it didn't look like an unreasonable request. Please seek the assistance of another admin to reprotect if he demems it appropriate, I'm going to get root canal, it's a lot more fun.  Thanks for the input.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because there's a discussion to change something in it, doesn't mean continued protection is necessary. If another edit war breaks out, protection is just a click away. Thanks Wehwalt and good luck with that root canal *ouch*. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 16:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Per a request at RFPP, I've re-protected it as it is a high-risk template as it is used on over 7,500 pages. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My original request at RFPP, seen here, was to change it from full to semi. I was told there to discuss it with the admin that protected it. So I did. There's no need whatsoever for it to be fully protected. Most vandalism is by IPs, not established editors, and as such, semi protection is fully capable of dealing with any issue. The reason presented at RFPP is paranoia. If I were going to make any change to the template, I surely would have done so already. Instead, we are discussing it on the talk page. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 19:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, I protected as Wehwalt said he wouldn't mind if it was protected if needed. Second, if you see WP:HRT, we do this quite frequently.  Given that the template is used on over 7,000 articles, protection seems justified here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning your protection, only the level of such protection. It should be semi instead of full. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 21:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to open my big fat mouth here in support of what Allstarecho is saying. My only real concern is that, by adding the HRT permenant full protection to the page right now you guys are sending a message. You've basically said "we support whatever side does not want change" (which, as Allstarecho and I, as well as others, have been saying, is kind of a silly position to take in regards to the controversy that is being discussed).
 * Therefore, I guess that the recommendation that I have is to unprotect it for now, and come back to it in a week or so. It was unprotected for a long time without any incidents, so I don't think that HRT protections is really a time sensative issue here.
 * Ω (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, clearly. Of course you may request unprotection through the normal route but please link this discussion there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is best if you took this to the relevant talk page? I didn't actually have root canal, by the way, it was my way of saying that, that would probably be more pleasant.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

TFA request
I left a question for you on the requests talk page. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny stuff
I thought O 77 and 78 were pretty good. :)  Enigma msg  05:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! It was hard to be original, did the best I could.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

re Could you expedite things on two OTRS images?
Apologies I did not get to this, but I did close a related one. Cirt (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) Cirt (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Boulton
Are you using English spelling? The guy is English but I detect some American spelling. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to, but it is entirely possible I screwed it up. I threw in a "whilst", just for local colour.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are hopeless. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I may be, the article is not, I'm happy to say. I just find it very ironic, that my little-mourned father (except, arguably by his sister) was very much into steam engines, a liking none of us shared.  I don't have a clue about how they really work other than the steam expands when heated and moves stuff that moves other stuff.  And here I am, writing an article in which steam engines play a significant part.  Maybe it is true, as we grow older, we become our parents.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strange that you say "my little-mourned father". I just had a telephone conversation with my brother who says "my little-mourned father" is being appreciated by him more and more the older we grow. Strangely, we are able to see the other side of the story now. Someone told me long ago that I would not truly understand myself until I understood my father's work, read his scientific papers and such. And that is turning out to have some truth to it. I say give those fathers a break! Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose you are right in some ways. I have a little more insight as to how he thought than when I was younger.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Khrushchev
What books are you reading? I looked around that there really aren't that many on Khrushchev. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 18:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Khrushchev: The Years in Power (Norton Library)"

Roy Aleksandrovich Medvedev. Then there seems to be a book by Taubman, a book by his son Sergei, and two volumes of his memoirs. I have them all on order, used of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't decide about the Taubman book. Worried that I'll dislike the POV. But perhaps that won't matter. I wish there was something more recent. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 22:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the POV? Good review of the book here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * '... but he is not always as sure-footed in discussing more recent political phenomena. It is an over-simplification to say that "Gorbachev shared Khrushchev's naivete about the extent of the Soviet people's commitment to communism".' I've been reading bunches of reviews. However, I will probably get the book, especially if you intend to do a "Khrushchev". I am very interested in Russian politics, in fact, Russian history in general. And clearly, this is the best book on Khrushchev. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, I will be careful in the "legacy" section with him, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are buying the books, we can certainly colloborate on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Check references first before reverting
If you have so many banstars then you should Know that it is correct to throughly check all references to any artical or section of article.

I see that you must not have checked out the ref I cited of real video footage of a speech By Obama addressing his Racial profile.

here is the ref again "Barack Obama, Obama Speech: 'A More Perfect Union', time In video when quot said 3min52sec to 3min59sec. Youtube posting of CNN video footage, March 18, 2008 located at web address http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU." so my advice is read it, watch it, know it, learn it and think about a citation before you ever revert a cited article/section  again--Antiedman (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Check references first before reverting

If you have so many banstars then you should Know that it is correct to throughly check all references to any artical or section of article.

I see that you must not have checked out the ref I cited of real video footage of a speech By Obama addressing his Racial profile.

here is the ref again "Barack Obama, Obama Speech: 'A More Perfect Union', time In video when quot said 3min52sec to 3min59sec. Youtube posting of CNN video footage, March 18, 2008 located at web address http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU." so my advice is read it, watch it, know it, learn it and think about a citation before you ever revert a cited article/section again---Antiedman (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read the FAQ. While I have no doubt he described himself that way, Wikipedia editors have discussed and come to a consensus about how we want to describe him.  You are free to make your edits (keeping in mind WP:3RR), but I expect that your edits, if repeated, will have the life expectancy of an ice cube on a sunny sidewalk in Iowa in July.  All the best, good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at the clip that Antiedman cites. Obama just says his father was black, from Kenya, and his mother was white, from Kansas. He does not deny being African American, and he does not claim to be "multiracial" in the clip, so without original research/interpretation, the primary source does not support the claim Antiedman makes about it. Edison (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Either way, then, he's wrong.  And I just read his talk page.  Quite a read.  "You've got to be taught to be afraid, of people whose eyes are oddly made, and people whose skin is a different shade, you've got to be carefully taught."--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Pinafore
It's been promoted. Thanks for all your help! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

B&W
Yeah. I don't think that my contributions have been so great as to count me out of the vote. The rejigging of the intro is much better. I'm on a semi-colon blitz. I hate them!

Amandajm (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, but I'm not sure how to deal with your point. If I was ever taught the exact proper use, that knowledge is long gone, and I'd like a few more eyes on that point. I hope you'll support but in addition raise the issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not canvassing
Packaging is everything, so I decided to call this bit of canvassing "not canvassing". Wehwalt, you and a couple of others are the ones most likely to disagree with my 5 points at Wikipedia_talk:Rfa ... so this is an invitation to come do your worst. Or shock me by supporting, either way :) - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Models
The Powerhouse has a superb collection of model steam engines. I could play with them all day. However, because the building os an old powerstation, there is plenty of room for a large display of big engines. Most of them are in working order. One of the most interesting parts of the display are six small industrial engines all together in a group, and of extreme diversity, yet using the same basic principal. The oldest one was left abandoned at the top of a gold mine shaft, was completely grown-over by a blackberry bush, and not discovered until a fire went through the paddock.

These guys, Boulton, Watt, Wedgwood and co, along with Joseph Banks and others, were part of the movement to abolish the slave trade. Wedgwood produced a series of little medallions (very small) which were sold to promote their ideas. They show a tiny kneeling figure of a slave in chains. At least one that I have seen is in one of Boulton's settings.

Another interesting point is that many of these well-known industrialists and engineers had no university training. They were inelligible, being chapel-men rather than church-men. The Courtaulds and their Taylor associates (who installed the steam engines in the Courtauld factories) were in the same boat. Amandajm (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, I regret I didn't go when I was in Sydney in March. I looked at Boulton's role in the slave trade, it was a bit ambiguous, unlike, say Wedgwood.  He signed his names to petitions, but took no leadership role, and also sold his engines to West Indian plantations which of course ran on slaves, and would continue to do so until slavery was abolished in the British Enpire in the 1830s.  Uglow rather makes apologies for Boulton, trying to push it into the social reformer model, but it isn't one of Boulton's strong suits.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is interesting because I read that ?Pitt? I think, said that with a few B&W engines they could end slavery in the West Indies altogether. Amandajm (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

A request
As you may be aware, the peer review process is struggling at the moment, as more articles are being nominated without a concomitant increase in reviewers. At present the process is over-reliant on the goodwill of a tiny number of editors (notably Ruhrfisch and Finetooth); articles are sometimes waiting many days for review, and often have to be dealt with rather hurriedly. As someone with a great deal of article-building experience, your help in reducing the backlog and keeping the process moving would be much appreciated. Would it be possible for you to commit to doing, say, one peer review a week? If you and a few others would do this on a more or less regular basis, it would make a significant difference (and you can always avoid my articles, which tend to be a bit long). Brianboulton (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try. I have family coming down this weekend, but I'll try to do one a week for a while after that.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

How about?
How about reviewing this for Good article - Morse v. Frederick - Supreme Court free speech case? Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 18:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll read it over.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruddigore
Yes, the IP is actually Shoemaker. I think the IP address is the library he uses that has the Rollins and Witts book. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Morse v. Frederick
I am so sorry that I got overwhelmed with improving the article to meet your standards, but I sincerely appreciate your assistance and suggestions, and I am sorry if I wasted your time. I have created both featured articles and lists, but I will think twice about trying to get an article I am not a primary author of to GA or FA status. Mostly, I found this article overwhelming because I do not have a background with law or court cases. Regardless, this was a learning experience. Keep up the great work, and we'll see if any one else tries to improve the article in the near future. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I was hard on you. I think it is possible for a lay person to improve it to GA, and I have don't mean to denigrate your skills.  The article does contain a lot of problems.  If you feel you will do better with another reviewer, I have no objection to asking for a second opinion.  Thank you for your good will and efforts to improve wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I add that if the subject were one of science or medicine, for examples, no apologies would be required. I think legal matters should be treated with the same respect. Often the lay person's understanding is off base. To counteract this, we have created WP:MEDRS to try to constrain unwarranted statements and conclusions. Of course, we wrangle there, but anyway, does legal have any similar guidelines? Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. I have two law related FA's, Natalee Holloway (with two other editors) and Jena Six but never really looked to specialize in it on WP.  Too much like work.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand the "too much like work" feeling and generally stay away from articles in my area. But when you are involved, don't you think your ultimate responsibility is to the reader to convey accurate information? &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, not just in law, in any article I do. But yes, it's got to be right, and like any professional, I hate seeing wrong words or info used.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just now replying to your response. Absolutely no need to apologize for being "hard". I completely agree that articles should follow strict standards, and this has certainly been a learning experience for me (working on an article that is outside my realm). However, I am trying to improve the article where I can, even though it may not be enough to get to GA status, and I still very much appreciate your time and assistance. No need for another reviewer--I have no problem with you in any way, I was/am simply doubting my ability to get the article up to standard given the amount of work it needs. Thanks again, and keep up the great work! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that is good. Keep plugging away, and let me know when you want me to take a second look.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been working on it, and I added citations several times as requested. However, I am not certain who Mr. Emborg is, even after searching through both the slip op and the oral argument transcript. Strange... -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You can have it now!
That glass of wine. All done! Congratulations! Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Better to drink it than to throw it in Awadewit's face! Thanks.  I got the Khrushchev book, by the way, and will start reading it.  The Nixon election articles are all done but the stats I need to get, so this and Ruddigore (a special request from Ssilvers) will be next.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My book is "in transit" being scanned in Lexington, Kentucky. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 23:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Amazon, I'd assume?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why yes. You don't have to be superstitious (if you are) . &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 23:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have my Khrushchev book now too and have started reading it. He built a homemade motorcycle and raced around on it. A little while ago I read a biography of Rudolf Nureyev. How different. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've got up to the mid 1920s. Also useful is the Tompson book, it is more condensed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Liberty Bell sourcing
Hi there.

I was skimming the reliable sources noticeboard (for my sins), and noticed you mentioning that one of the problems you've found with Liberty Bell is the lack of "serious" sources on the topic. If you're interested in tracking down a copy, I seem to recall there's some decent material, on both the bell and its myths, in Peter de Bolla's Fourth of July: and the founding of America, published a couple of years back. Shimgray | talk | 20:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that helps. Will keep working on it!  Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Comment at JC RfB
Hey, let me know where that shuffleboard thing is, I've been meaning to learn how to do that. I think I threw out my shoulder on that last round of horse shoes ... lol. ;) — Ched :  ? 23:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiddlywinks, anyone?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Record
Not at all. I replied on his, and we kept it in a section. Give him credit ... he's pissed as all hell, he feels like his entire country is being deemed inconsequential, but he's staying polite.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been there. They are great music fans.  Where the blip did this Council thing come from when no one was looking?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I should have been paying more attention. I usually rely on talk page stalking to notify me of these things, and it didn't this time.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's how I found out. Looks like it is time to clear out the infection at ArbCom that results in swelled heads, again.  It is avery simple remedy, it is called an "election".--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Heads-up
Wehwalt, I've replied to your valedictory comment at the BN. No reply required; I'm just letting you know to make sure you spot it amidst the confusion. Cheers &mdash; Dan | talk 21:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thought, but I think I've said what I've had to say on that subject. All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks
Dear Wehwalt, thanks for your input at WP:BN. Your points were strong. AdjustShift (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. I still think we need surround the Bureaucrat Headquarters and shout "Where are our !votes?" and "Jimbo is great!"--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, it's noteworthy that I find myself agreeing with you, isn't it? Face-wink.svg Seriously, though, very good points there, Wehwalt. :) Best, — Aitias // discussion  22:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Aitias, you know what they say, a broken clock's right twice a day! :)  Glad to have us together.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the walk around the block!
Wehwalt, thanks for the breath of fresh air. I am just a little sensitive about comments from that person, but now I realize I was just being baited. So thank you for for stepping in. This is why I would be no good at politics. Thanks! (Back to Moscow.) &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad I could help!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "It's the pep club trying to pick a representative group from their school. Somehow, they'll never get beyond the cool kids." You do have a way with words. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh heh thanks--Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for FA of the day feedback
Sorry to waste time on the FA of the day suggestion page. I missed that Alzheimer's had been run already. I was hoping purely out of self interest that a health related FA would run on that date as I am doing an outreach presentation for health educators that day. Thought it was worth a shot. I got practice editing at least =-). Jennifer Riggs (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a problem in the least. Glad you had the practice.  Thing to do, is to check on the article's talk page near the top, there will be a box that says it was TFA on such and such a date.  Try again sometime!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh?
As far as I can see from the history, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development has seen neither vandalism nor edit-warring. What's the rationale for protection? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 00:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was actually more or less an edit conflict. I'll take it off, since IPs haven't been a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, things were getting out of hand. But now the reverting editor has retired. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, but unless I'm completely daft, the edit-warring was taking place on the project page. So why protect the talk page? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 00:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was trying to lower the protection (you got in first by seconds).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Things are utterly spiraling out of control.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment re:allanyst's proposal
I largely agree with you on point 5, but think some sort of group is needed to facilitate this sort of thing at arms length from ArbCom, in order to address the concerns people have about scope creep. I have a proposal here that I think addresses all objections, and your input (pro or contra) would be valuable. → ROUX   ₪  16:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
...for your recent comment and suggestion on my talkpage. I regret that my wording touched off such a large-scale reaction, but I appreciate your efforts to see both sides of the issue. I believe that the situation has been resolved and look forward making more...useful...contributions in the future. Doc  Tropics  18:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Giano knows how far to push things, and encourages the other guy to go just a little bit over the line. Don't fall into his trap in future.  I do not believe your block was justified, and if your block log ever becomes an issue, for example if you ever decide to run for Adminship (I have no idea if you are a good candidate, just saying), I won't hesitate to say you were done in by a troll.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much Wehwalt. I've noticed comments by you on a couple of other pages relating to this, and I really appreciate your involvement. My personal opinion doesn't carry much weight right now, but I think you're a fine admin. Doc  Tropics  14:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What to do?
Someone moved Yarlung Tsangpo River (which I created) to Yalu Tsangpo River, Yarlung Tsangpo Canyon to Yalu Tsangpo River,  Talk:Yarlung Tsangpo Canyon to Talk:Yalu Tsangpo Canyon and Talk:Yarlung Tsangpo River to Talk:Yalu Tsangpo River. I did some referencing for both articles and there is no justification for changing the name. This was already done once and moved back. (See Talk:Yalu Tsangpo River.) Wikicommons uses Yarlung_Zangbo. The change is not the preferred spelling. This may be one of those ethnic spelling issues. This is an apparently new user who did not discuss on the article talk page. How to handle? Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Give it a reasonable amount of time, say 48 hours. Then move it back, explaining your reasoning.  If the user moves things again and refuses to engage, I'll consider using my adminly powers, depending on the situation.  It will work out.  Either it should remain as before, or there should be a darn good reason for the move.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. But I am not sure how, as it has already been moved three times, plus has bunches of redirects. How do I do a move? (After 48 hours I will have forgotten about it anyway, so this question is hypothetical.) &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 23:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see one move for each article. What is your suggestion?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't care any more. My response was a reflexive action from the days when I cared. After the last set of moves, we discussed it (those few of us who care) on one of the talk pages, and it was resolved to move it back (See Talk:Yarlung_Tsangpo_River), which was done. I don't know where this newest move comes from. Wikipedia is an endless round of "whatever". I am worn down. There is nothing you can do, except help elect a president. Thanks, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 23:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling. You can only do your little bit here.  Wikipedia doesn't need a president, it should, say, every two years, elect a dictator.  If he won't engage in discussion, I'll look closely at it if you want me to.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. Thanks for the offer. I'll get back to you if it seems important in the future. Another ethnic conflict! Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 01:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
Could you remove your well-intentioned comment from Giano's talk page? I believe it will have the opposite effect of what you intend. Jehochman Talk 20:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if you do that, doesn't the NEW MESSAGES banner come out?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It may, but if you provide an edit summary, such as "on second thought, my comment is not helping", that will put you in a much better position if some sort of shitstorm ensues. Jehochman Talk 20:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you saying it's ill advised because it's Giano and he'll come after me?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Giano is more than happy to leave you, and see you remain, exactly where you are. Giano (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good wishes.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Then let's consider the matter settled. Jehochman Talk 20:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Drinks at the pub, guys? Who's buying the first round?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm. Jehochman Talk 21:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Jena 6 Subsequent activities
Fair enough. Can you point me to the prior consensus discussion about including this sub-section? If there's already a community consensus on this issue that seems reasonable, it doesn't need to be re-addressed. Djma12 (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. It was mentioned by a couple of people in the FAC and after I explained much of what I said to you, they let it drop.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

NO!
Regarding the DYK, do NOT discuss it at Talk:Barack Obama. There is so much fighting there that even ArbCom had to get involved. Please honor my request. The DYK can be discussed by the normal DYK people, who are calmer and are DYK experts. User F203 (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I normally ask first, I've removed your comments from the talk page and ask that you leave it off. Look at that talk page and you will see extremism and fighting. If you or other DYK editors think it is a bad hook, that process is ok with me. I just don't want Obama extremists (extremists on either side) to infect and poison DYK.User F203 (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 2 on my own talk page yet):Why not take it to the DYK talk page first then and get reaction?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that my concern is not with the hook, it is with the existance of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If you oppose that the article exists, let me know and nominate it for AFD. I will not get mad. The same thing goes with the Gaza articles. I have read about extremists hounding other editors. I do not want to be hounded so I do not edit Gaza or related articles. User F203 (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Solution: I will nominate the article for AFD. If the DYK people hate the DYK and/or the AFD people kill it, it's ok with me.User F203 (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

See, an editor with an agressive sounding name "KingofBattle" is already fighting in Talk:Barack Obama even after 10 minutes. Please work with me and don't let the infection begin! Please. User F203 (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * sorry. I don't have a problem with the article and it looks like good work, but very often similar articles are at least considered for merger.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:QueenofBattle has persisted in putting your comments back in order to create a huge fight (canvassing fight). You kindly said you're sorry. Please block him if Queen persists in putting the comments back. In the mean time, I have entered an AFD to address your merger concerns. User F203 (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Block him? Me?  Over something I am (rather involuntarily) involved in?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Block is no longer necessary. I was afraid that Queen of Battle would live up to her name and battle. Her Royal Highness seemed to be on a revert edit war.

My predictions are correct. There have been edit conflicts and controversy that do not exist in Wikipedia except in Gaza articles and Barack Obama. I no longer care if the article is deleted because I have written down the addresses of the buildings and can visit them myself if ever in Honolulu.

Thank you for your kind demeanor. Others are more agressive and less welcoming. User F203 (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness that I no longer require blocking. Now, where do I sign up for that really good English class you was offering?  QueenofBattle (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Down the hall, to the left, past the girls' locker room. That was one of the weirder things to happen to me on WP.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too. I am still looking around for the Candid Camera folks.  QueenofBattle (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And now someone who was absent when username vowels were handed out is accusing me of incivility for saying that F203 freaked out! If anything, I think I was too moderate.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Shame. I have no dog in this hunt, but mocking my username seems uncalled for, and somewhat lacking in WP:CIVIL by itself. BTW, I came here only to look at the 'freaking out' comments you referenced, otherwise I would not have noted your comments regarding me. It is sad that you think you were 'too moderate'. I fail to see your appellation of User F203 as fair or civil, and your further comments in response to a gentle comment by me strengthen my opinion regarding your civility. Be well. --4wajzkd02 (talk)
 * Your username was not mocked, I simply couldn't remember it and it was a shorthand way of referring to it. Those who go looking for insult generally find it, whether it is meant or not, look at Henry Louis Gates Jr..  But far worse it is to take offense on another's behalf, especially one who has not taken offense himself.  Happy editing.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Those who go looking for insult generally find it". And those with a deficit of civility hide behind banalities. --4wajzkd02 (talk)
 * Again, I thank you for your comments. Happy editing.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely the same to you. Best wishes, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Some good out of this fiasco!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

How's it going?
How is Taubbman Nikita Khrushchev going? I am disappointed with the book, as so far it has not explained anything. In fact, I get the ideea that the author doesn't know. Perhaps I m not far enough along. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 02:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've gotten distracted from Khrushchev but will get back to it soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your interpersonal wikirelationships seem to have veered off to wiki high school. Why don't you give them all membership in the "cool kids" group? &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 14:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I want in on the Tom Brown's Schooldays guy. I've always thought well of Flashman, especially after reading all of Fraser's books ... I'll take Taubbman with me on the plane tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: California's 12th congressional district election, 1946
Sorry about that. I made an edit to ElectionsCA to include the article in a new section. This would seem like a logical place to put it. Good luck with the article. – Zntrip 17:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Editor's Barnstar
Happy to. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Henry Louis Gates, Jr.
Since you are adding the material back in, how about following BRD and discussing it on the article talk page? It is not perfectly acceptable to use here, as 1) the police report is disputed, and 2) Controversial subjects require careful use of secondary sources to determine what is important and what is not. Choosing to use a primary source like a police report here, is extremely problematic, and sets up a situation where editors are determining the importance of the content rather than the sources themselves. Instead of reverting, please take it to the talk page. I've already commented on talk about this. Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is it OK for you to unilaterally delete it, then? It is OK to include because it is specifically attributed to the police.  WP does not censor; we need to have both perspectives out there.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have both perspectives given in the secondary sources, and both have been provided in the article. I have already commented on the careful use of primary sources on the talk page.  The burden of proof is on the person adding, not deleting, and per BRD, I would expect you to address this on the talk page.  It is not ok to include because it is attributed to the police, nor is such a justification valid for any primary source.  We already have enough information from both sides, and we don't need editors picking and choosing what they think is important from the police report.  Secondary sources already do this, and clearly tell us what is important and what is not.  Primary sources must be used carefully, and in cases where there is controversy or recentism, they should probably not be used at all.  I hope that clears this up for you. Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

From WP:PRIMARY:     *

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.

Accordingly, since a mainstream newspaper (the Globe) has published this primary source, it is perfectly OK to use it, as long as we don't interpret it. I hope this clears this up for you.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm following WP:WELLKNOWN, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, all of which have been bypassed by your revert. I'll address this on the talk page since you have chosen to duplicate this discussion there. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not discuss it on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard? That's what they are there for.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I'm going to reply directly to your comments on the article talk page. You have added primary source material back into the article which does not accurately represent the source, and this is precisely the problem that you refuse to recognize.  Perhaps you should actually read the material before blindly reverting? Viriditas (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's about the fourth different reason you've cited for deleting the material. And not all at once, as one concern is addressed, up comes another.  If it is inaccurate, perhaps say where it is and let another editor clean it up?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is precisely why we do not rely on primary sources, especially in BLP's, and especially during recent, controversial disputes. Surely, you've been here long enough to know this? Viriditas (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with using the police report as a source for what the police say. Still waiting to hear about which parts do not accurately state what was in the police narrative.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm addressing this on the article talk page, as I previously informed you. There is everything wrong with cherry picking from a primary source in a BLP that is currently experiencing debate and discussion in the media. Viriditas (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've replied over there.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

When the physical damage finally healed, Gates' right leg was left two inches shorter, and he "walks with the aid of a cane".


 * First, that doesn't even read correctly, so please correct it. The original says, "As a result of that injury, Gates walks with the aid of a cane."  You claim that my paraphrase, "When the physical damage finally healed, Gates' right leg was left two inches shorter, requiring him to walk with a cane" is somehow "contentious".  I'm curious why, since Gates has been using a cane to walk (in public) since he was 14.  Care to explain?  Is there a difference between "as a result of that injury, Gates walks with a cane" and "Gates' right leg was left two inches shorter, requiring him to walk with a cane"?  If so, please explain it to me.  You seem to be placing some kind of emphasis or meaning on the word "requiring" (which according to WordNet means "have need of") that does not exist.  Also, your claim that Gates' use of the cane to walk is "contentious" is bogus.  There is no such dispute anywhere.  He's been using the cane to walk for most of his life. Viriditas (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of correcting it. Viriditas (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks and sorry about the goof. As for the change, if it means the same thing, be content with that.  Too often around here, people twist words to inflict their own POV, so rest up for the next one!  Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Call out
WikiProject Alternate History is currently holding a roll call, which we hope to have annually. Your username is listed on the members list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active within the project. If you still consider yourself an active editor, please add your name back to the Active members list. You can also list yourself as a Supporter if you feel you cannot dedicate the time necessary to be an active member.

Please also see the Project talk page for more information concerning this Call Out. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Poison
Your actions show how poison has infected WP. I am not blaming you but merely commenting on the poisonous atmosphere of WP.

I wrote an article about Obama's Hawaii homes. Everybody liked it. Nobody said it was garbage. Those who visit Hawaii will be able to see exactly where each structure is located.

However, once you placed a notice on Talk:Barack Obama, all hell broke loose. That talk page is the Wikipedia equivalent of the Nevada Nuclear Test Site or downtown Baghdad. Explosions all over the place.

This shows that WP is indeed a reflection of the world. There is no one WP. There is the WP war zone (like Iraq), WP obscure zone (like Gozo Island), and other WP zones. Once you enter the WP war zone, prepare to get your leg blown off. That's too bad. User F203 (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am very sorry you feel that way. The thing is, none of us own our contributions, though god knows we feel possessive about them.  Once you were kind enough to donate your time and effort, it became part of Wikipedia.  But an idea:  Why not take the substance of the items and write it up as Hawaii boyhood homes of Barack Obama?  It might get a better reception.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. If I do write it, I may have to write it in the sandbox first until it reaches a critical mass. There is much to write about his boyhood places in Hawaii. I have read many articles, including a front page Wall Street Journal article about his friend who asked Obama for money since he lost his job. It can be much more than a list of addresses. I think I might try that in a couple of weeks. That kind of article has to reach a certain quality upon starting it, unlike some stubs. I think the subject is interesting in part because he moved around. A person who lived in one house would not have enough information to have an article. It would simply read "Person A lived in his boyhood home in Topeka until he left for college. End of article". User F203 (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Give it a shot and also discuss it on the talk page of some of the editors at AfD whose positions you find to be more reasonable.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Gates arrest
Sort of tricky wording the paragraph but I believe that I've made it NPOV. For instance, Obama makes a charge against the police, the police refutes it by pointing out that he did not have all the facts (Obama also admitted he didn't have all the facts). It is also Obama's opinion that both the officer and Gates overreacted. This will go on the arrest talk page. GoldDragon (talk) 04:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't like the language about "police across the country". That's a bit expansive.  Stick to the facts, please!--Wehwalt (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I know that there was criticism from Michigan and Florida, as well as the Cambridge police department, although if you can find a better wording than "police across the country", that would help. GoldDragon (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd avoid characterizing it in any way, simply cite the quotes that we have.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nazi architecture versus Architektur im Nationalsozialismus
Hi Wewalt, first thank you to invite me to add some points to the English lemma. As far as I can estimate, the two lemmata use a completely different approach. I will summarize some points on the user site, I assume its not being done by some copy paste and translating, but it might be worth while to compare. Youre comments a are warmely welcome. BR --Polentario (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Helen Gahagan Douglas1.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Helen Gahagan Douglas1.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --NW ( Talk ) 01:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Khrushchev 2
I mentioned Khrushchev to my brother, who knows Russian history like the back of his hand, and he emotonally started reeling off names and dates of all Khrushchev's bloody acts. I think the way to go about this is not to minimize any of that, but in additions show the contradictions in his character, the animal will to survive in a chaotic political environment, the humiliating moments, the pitfalls of having no education when mingling with the world sophisticated political elite. Plus Khrushchev was operating under a primitive fear, as those at his official level were not only being tortured and shot, but so were their wives and children, at the time he was purging. I hope I don't sound like I am defending the man, but he was a human being. And he had more dimensions than a Charles Manson. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 13:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I agree. I've been a bit distracted by starting the FAC on the 1950 election article, but how do you think what I've written about Khrushchev looks so far?  I'm up to the Great Patriotic War.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

TFAR
Hi, can you check my point tally here? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

United States Senate election in California, 1950
Some sentences I just don't understand, like: "In early April, polls gave Nixon some chance of winning the Democratic primary, securing his election." How did early April polls giving Nixon "some chance" secure his election? &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 15:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand this sentence now. I've copy edited some of the article, until my brain blew a fuse. There must not be one detail you have left out!  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 23:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that detail and overdetail depend on the size of the canvas you are given. Here, the detail is needed, it is a farily intricate story.  It is not all the detail, if you read Mitchell's book for example, there is quite a lot I left out.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your bullying of a reviewer
I'm letting you know that I've complained to the two FAC delegates about your behaviour at Mattisse's talk page. Tony  (talk)  16:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Tony, I'm sorry that you were offended. Perhaps a better way of handling your hurt would have been to post on my talk page, or via email, and let us work things out.  I don't think I would recommend the route you took, of posting on my talk page that you had "complained" to the two FA delegates, and also posting at length here.  Did that make the process regarding this article better or fairer?  Did that make me more likely to accept your comments as borne of a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia?  My comment, which was on another editor's talk page, was born of frustration.  Tony, what emotion sparked you to post what you did on the FAC page for the article, and on Karanac's talk page, and on SandyGeorgia's talk page, and then to tell me what you had done?  Was that the right thing to do?  Think about it please.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Frustrations at FAC
Hi Wehwalt. I've observed the events at your latest FAC, and I wanted to say that I understand your frustration. Heck, any nominator does—very few articles sail through there without a hitch. However, as a busy FAC reviewer myself, I must defend Tony's method of providing representative issues and asking for the article as a whole to be treated. I've seen this scenario unfold probably 500 times. When an article has many problems, it's just not possible for reviewers to provide an exhaustive list. Anyone who believes it is so has not spent any significant time reviewing FACs. The reason we can't do it is that if an article is a ways away from FA standard, it is not the reviewer's job to bring it up to standard. The article should be withdrawn and worked on. If it is close to standard, most of us will list the issues and polish it up. I'm not commenting on the events that ensued after Tony's review, as they are not really my business, but I urge you to understand Tony's method and to treat his opposition as actionable. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  04:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I think at this point, unfortunately, Andy, it's become more a matter of personalities than prose. I'm still hoping to defuse it though.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can aid in calming this down, I'd be grateful though.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Um
? → ROUX   ₪  05:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably very soon now.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be a damn shame. The site needs people who are passionate about making it work. But 'a man must do...' etc. → ROUX   ₪  05:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hell is other people.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved discussion
Discussion moved from Sandy's talk page to here on prompting of others. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please also note my statement about not involving ArbCom. There are two main reasons: 1. Tony has shown that he was capable of providing more information in the past so this is a momentary problem and 2. the problem affects copyedit reviewers in general and needs to be fixed as a whole. ArbCom cannot fix either of these. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony's gone to war on me personally and on my article. I've tried to deescalate things.  My response has to be to either fight back or withdraw from WP.  I've pretty much had it.  Why should I slave over an article and then have him and his friends torpedo things at FAC?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is no longer a fight between you two. There is no more a war. Now, we have a discussion about the tools that were used in any war. So please, let it shift towards that and depersonalize the matter so others can step in. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine. It takes both sides.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As you can see, I chastised him about his combative post. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not enough. He has to engage to resolve this situation.  He needs to take back his oppose.  His point of view is adequately represented in the discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One step at a time. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I won't be back on probably until Sat. nite so there's time. And Karanac's comment on WT:FAC was very much to the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My God! Giano (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Tkach
Lets discuss at WT:TFAR because I can see this getting drawn out across our two talk pages and I don't realy understand the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. You start.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You're back!
Thought Saturday nite was the returned time! I did work on the article some and plan to work on it more, if that's OK, to remove the "casual" language, reduce the quotes etc. What do you think? Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 12:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I found the article much more interesting than I thought, once I got into it. Didn't have to hold my nose. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 12:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

still on road
Found a hotspot for a few minutes am now on plane. Can only edit a new section. Tonight will email you a fascinating doc I found re Chotiner if your email will handle attachments. Nixon was as confused about him as we are. Thanks for the Senate edits keep up good work.Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

FAC kerfuffle
Hi, Wehwalt. No need to respond while you're traveling (I've intentionally avoided owning a Blackberry so I don't have to be connected to the internet in my free moments). I'm just finding time to weigh in on the recent kerfuffle, although I was keeping an eye on it as it was unfolding. I did see Karanacs and your efforts to defuse the situation and get focus back on the article. In my (long) experience with Tony, he simmers down as quickly as he simmers up, and he strikes an oppose when issues are addressed. Since Karanacs has handled things quite nicely, there's only one thing I would add at this point ... if I recall correctly (and I may not :), you were one of the editors who offered help to Mattisse during her ArbCom. I hope in the future you'll think twice about making posts to her talk page (or anywhere, in fact) about other editors that may lead her back to the behaviors that caused some of the problems to begin with or cause her to think that such posts are a good norm; it appears (from a mile-high view) that what caused Tony's initial concern was your first post to Mattisse that personalized the issue, and an apology in that regard may help defuse matters further. (Perhaps I noticed this aspect of the issue because you have made similar posts about me to her talk page in the past; my nature is to overlook such posts, but I can understand that may not be the case for other editors, e.g.; Tony.) The article issues will be resolved sooner or later, but I'm concerned that people who offered to mentor Mattisse not lodge less than exemplary comments about other editors on her talk page, as that may tend to confuse the situation with respect to her own sanctions and desirable behavior. I appreciate your subsequent efforts to get the FAC back on track. Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's OK, I'm logging in from O'Hare and my flight is delayed. As we all know, my civility skills are imperfect, though I do my best, unhappily all perfect editors have retired.  If it will calm things down, I'll go to Tony's page and apologize.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In my experience, Tony is not unreasonable ... I can't speak for him, but I do understand how that initial post to Mattisse's talk could have inflamed and personalized issues unnecessarily. Safe travels, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've dropped him a note apologizing. Hopefully he will accept it and shake virtual hands.  Thanks.  Will be home Monday, looking forward to my own house, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, etc.
Is there a baseball fathers-and-sons article? I couldn't find one offhand. It's an interesting topic, especially as it seems to be an increasing phenomenon as time goes by. There weren't very many early ballplayers who had kids that were also ballplayers. But there are a lot of them nowadays. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is. Here.  I have no idea how complete or reliable it is, especially as regards the early days of baseball.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suppose that the individual entries are sufficiently verifiable. Where a list like that runs into trouble (and hence wikipedia guidelines) is completeness. According the almanac, there are over 300 father and/or brother combinations, and that's a pretty long list. It would almost seem to be more in the realm of a category. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. It should probably say that its completeness is unverified.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

1950 Senate election in California
In case you're wondering, I haven't forgotten about it; it's just that whenever I have some time to do another thorough go-through, you or Matisse seem to be in the middle of one already. One of these days I'll find some time where edit conflicts aren't a problem, make a few copyedits, and likely register my support. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to start any time, I was just clearing up a concern that was posted, a little ambiguity about the Eleanor Roosevelt story.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

July 29 sig
Can you check your July 29 sig at Dwarf planet on TFAR. It seems to be malplaced.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Albert Levitt
Before you sink lots of effort into creating an article, can I ask: what is Levitt's notability beyond his involvement in the eponymous case? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here. As a Federal District Court judge in the Virgin Islands, he ruled that the 19th Amendment applied there and that women had the right to vote.  He later became somewhat of a religious nut job and ran against Nixon for the Republican Senate nomination in 1950, and finished sixth out of six, behind Nixon, three Democrats, and a bigamist.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Do either of those things make him notable? Certainly not his candidacy for the GOP nomination. Candidacy for a national legislature does not supply sufficient notability for a standalone article, see WP:OUTCOMES, so a fortiori one who is merely a candidate for candidacy for national legislative office! The 19th amendment decision, I suppose, could be argued to be an interesting footnote to the Insular Cases -- but not necessarily. At the time, the Supreme Court's leading case was Balzac v. People of Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922), which held that the Sixth Amendment's jury trial was inapplicable to Puerto Rico (like the Virgin Islands, an unincorporated territory). Skimming the case, though, it's not clear that its prohibition applies to all civil rights, let alone to political rights (the distinction was still alive and well in those days). It may well have been within the ballpark to conclude that the Nineteenth Amendment applied to the Virgin Islands, although I'd have to study the issue more closely to decide it. Even if it was a truly novel reading, however, it would be the decision that is notable, not the judge. Our article on Roe v. Wade, for instance, doesn't even name the judges who sat on the district court panel in that case, and although we do have an article on one of them (Judge Sarah T. Hughes), her notability is premised on other matters, not simply participation in one important case. Is there more, or is that it? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's more coming. He helped draft the Equal Rights Amendment in association with Alice Paul.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's face it. The man was a federal judge (he seems to have resigned over the governor pardoning someone he convicted).  I think that's pretty much per se notable.  I'm looking at a NY Times article about his swearing in.  He was a minor public figure for much of the 1930s, before he seems to have gotten religious mania.  He also ran for Senate in 1960 in New Hampshire and sent a telegram to the Pope asking about Kennedy's loyalties.  It all adds up to notability, and it doesn't expire.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see where that link supports the claim that he helped write the ERA. A google search isn't promising. I don't assume that involvement in such foolishness creates notability, either. Nor do I agree that federal judges are per se notable, but let us assume that they are. Levitt wasn't one. The first cue that something is wrong is that FJC, which has bios for every federal judge since 1789, doesn't have one for him. The reason is simple: when one thinks of federal judges, one has in mind judges of article III courts, but Levitt was the judge of the District Court of the Virgin Islands, an Article I court. Although such people could, in the strictest sense, be thought federal judges, we shouldn't think of them as such for purposes of your proposed per se notability test. Think of the consequences. Are we to think that every person who has ever held a commission for the Merit System Protection, Patent Appeals, or Immigration Appeals boards -- who are just as much vel non "federal judges" as was Levitt -- is notable simply by the fact of their nomination and confirmation? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He wrote over 75 drafts of the ERA for Paul. We can duck the question of the article III vs article I courts because he was the highest level judge for a top level US political subdivision.  Apparently the VI had 2 judges at the time, the other was the Police Court judge ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So what? He was a lawyer who wrote drafts of failed legislation. He was a judge on a minor article I court for a few years. He unsuccessfully sought a party's nomination for office on a few occasions. And he was a party to a case so minor that it is omitted from free source of Supreme Court caselaw, relegated to a status below even dissents from denial of cert. This is notability?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On balance, yes, I think he is notable, or I would not be writing the article. If you want to nom it for AfD, that's fine.  But yes, by the rules we have, I think he's notable.  A number of news articles about him, mostly from the 30s.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly disapprove of nominating articles for deletion while they're still wet behind the ears. An article that I created was once nominated within three minutes of my creating it, see Articles_for_deletion/Leftosphere, and I've lamented nominations for articles that were barely a month old, e.g. Articles for deletion/Juliet Davis; Articles_for_deletion/Blue_Sun. You think Levitt is notable; I don't see it, but I could be wrong. If we let the article stay, you (or another editor) could add material supporting notability, and the encyclop&aelig;dia will have grown and benefited. If we delete it, and the same material later emerges, WP:RECREATE might allow the article to be recreated, depending on the material, but time and effort by the community will have been wasted on the intervening processes, to no benefit to the encyclop&aelig;dia. Strangling the article at birth at AFD is therefore counterproductive and inefficientt.


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

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


 * White Elephants in the Caribbean By Henry Albert Phillips (shenanigans and corruption)
 * Do you have this one? &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 12:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


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

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


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

My head is at its most comfortable on the line
The English language includes these words precisely to avoid phrasings like "he resented the Democratic candidate for governor James Roosevelt". If you want to switch it back, I won't object, but it might be worth noting that I'm from outside the States, and seem to manage fine with it (I'd never heard of a "franked envelope" before today, though). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a philatelist, or used to be. Franked envelope is perfectly proper English.  So is gubernatorial.  Let's use both and hope no one has a problem with them!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't get this either: "According to Tipton in an interview given just before the election, Nixon fell for the ploy." What was the ploy that Nixon fell for? &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 23:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They knew communism would be an issue, and after Boddy, they knew Nixon would exploit it. They figured if they got him to attack her as a communist early, the issue would be worn out by Election Day.  So they baited Nixon by trying to link him to Marcantonio, which has got to be the most stupid election ploy I've ever seen.  They found that the communism issue just would not die, and it stayed alive all the way through.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, this is confusing: "Truman vetoed it; Congress enacted it over his veto by wide margins in late September. Douglas was one of forty-seven representatives (including Marcantonio) to vote to sustain the veto.[61] Nevertheless, she pledged to stand with the President, ..." She voted to sustain Truman's veto. So why the "Nevertheless, she pledged to stand with the President"? &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 23:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Hmm.  Let me play with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't make sense that it was a "ploy", as Nixon had already determined to make her political leanings an issue, having been to Florida and visited George Smathers. It doesn't seem like Nixon fell for a ploy, but rather that he seized on the opportunity. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But the Douglas camp didn't know that. They suckered him into what he was going to do anyway.  At best, they got him to do it a bit early, because it was Chotiner's view that voters only really concentrate on a campaign for two months.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Has your opponent fallen for a ploy if you offer your head on a platter and your opponent takes it? &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They thought voters would tire of the issue, so they tried to start it in July. Bad mistake.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The only other thing I can think of is that with Douglas dead in the polls (the NY Times article is from Nov 1), Tipton was putting up a brave face.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I think. Tipton was trying to make his horrible error look good. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 12:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure; I hope it's promoted. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 06:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, knock wood. And my experience with FAC is that the unexpected always happens.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

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


 * Hmmm. That's interesting.  I guess that is OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thx ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  12:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

info
Do you know about WebCite? I've just starting using it for new articles where my references are web links that may rot. In reviewing GAs I found articles that used them. Very nice. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 21:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that sounds good. Some of the links from my early FA's, Natalee Holloway and Jena Six are doing that.    I'll have to look into it.  Sitting at Albany airport, where there is free wifi.  Latest upload --Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Humm. From Sacramento to Albany. Suspicious.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 21:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, capitals of disfunctional states.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

the guy thinks it WAS on probation
As do I and bugs. Please indicate your perception his comment doesn't apply rather than remove it. ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  15:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is why I suggested that you start a new topic, rather than amending this one. But you have them replying to a question athat wasn't there then.  That's rewriting, and we don't do that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * {sighs} If someone thinks it already WAS on probation, their reasoning is rather likely to also apply to the idea that the article should be, don't you think? Hiding his input is out of order since I've indicated that I in good faith think it pertains to the discussion. Again, should you think it does not pertain, you should've simply amended the discussion to indicate your perception of this and allow the reader to make up hi/r own mind as to whether it does or not. ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  15:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be canvassing if you asked him to restate his comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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


 * I don't know. I wouldn't mind doing it, but I have too many projects waiting, so maybe at some point, but not right away.  Interesting character, although I think there's a misprint on that quote from Congress.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't use Digg.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

July 12?
Any idea what happened to cause this spike?&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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

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


 * I also have a book "Lincoln's Greatest Speech" on it. It will be a bit of time until I really get into it, I'm behind on the Khrushchev article, which is a real pain, and the down to the wire drama on my current FAC United States Senate election in California, 1950 is distracting me and keeping me from any serious work.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, I don't think the speech is going anywhere anytime soon. Good luck with the tricky guy and the (not actually) pink lady. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No heroes in that story, I'm afraid.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Albert Levitt
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. -- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs)help us! 14:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was actually just about to post my reply when the orange "new messages" bar popped up on my screen. I must have missed that when reviewing the article; it now checks out, and I've approved it for DYK. Excellent work! Cheers,  Dylan 620  (contribs, logs)help us! 14:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #8
You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

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

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

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


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

Old school vandalism hunting 2 award
well done :) Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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


 * Actually, since time is relatively short, and I do not know when DGG will be able to clarify (or if he has a follow up to my last email), could we proceed based on good faith, as if DGG did not feel badgered or anything like that, and work on addressing your concerns? Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


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


 * Oh I know it would help! But I have absolutely no control (or knowledge) of when DGG will be able to reply. I would suggest that we accept as a working hypothesis that I'm right about DGG for now, so we can tackle the rest of your concerns. If I turn out to be wrong about DGG, then that will just be more reasons to oppose (hence why it makes no sense for my to lie about this). Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


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

Thanks. Now the crux of your concerns at the time were that I lacked a nomination statement, and that you couldn't tell what I learned since the last RfA. Since then I've made one, and answered several new questions. Did the statement/answers I answered made a general good impression/is there something unclear / something that made a bad impresssion? Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


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


 * Alright, good enough for me.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


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

Admining by proxy
Could you take a quick look at the deleted contributions of ? I've noticed a couple, and I get the impression that he is contributing a number of things that wind up deleted as reposts of previously deleted material. If he's a newbie, forgiving one or two is easy. If there's a pile, it's a sign that he probably isn't really a newbie.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Anything significant?&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

* 01:25, 15 August 2009 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore). . File:Touchmyhand.jpg

* 12:46, 14 August 2009 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore). . File:Touch my hand.jpg

* 06:36, 11 August 2009 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore). . Graffiti (Chris Brown album) (deleted 29 Jul 2008 at 16:14)

* 06:35, 11 August 2009 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore). . Graffiti (Chris Brown album) (deleted 29 Jul 2008 at 16:14)

* 06:35, 11 August 2009 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore). . Graffiti (Chris Brown album) (deleted 29 Jul 2008 at 16:14) (←Created page with '"Graffiti" is the fourth studio album by the Pop singer, Chris Brown still labeled by Zomba/Jive which will be releasing soon.') --Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Those are the ones I knew about. I was just afraid that it was the tip of an iceberg.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, those are it. Sorry I forgot about  it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

California's 12th congressional district election, 1946 is now a GA
Congratulations, California's 12th congressional district election, 1946 is now a Good Article. I'll just echo Happyme22's sentiments in that it's a great read. Let me know if I need to tweak any related pages or templates. I've removed it from WP:GAN, listed it at Good articles, and placed a GA template on the article talk. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Re the peer review, I'll be happy to look at this in the next 48 hours. Perhaps, if you have a moment or so to spare from The Great Unshaven One, you could look at, and maybe comment on, my current PR, Cosmo Gordon Lang? Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: Boulton on the front page!!! Yippeeee!!!


 * Yes, I am pleased about Boulton. I will for sure look at Lang right away, can't wait to find out how an Archbishop is connected with colder climes, if he is!  Thanks for the help!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting teh article to GA. I had a look at today's featured article Matthew Boulton too. It is very well written. Tbo 157  (talk)   15:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, thanks. I'm keeping an eye on your GAN, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Khrushchev 2
I'm becoming overwhelmed by this Khrushchev book. Too much awful detail. What was the source of Stalin's power over all these people surrounding him? How could a nation function at all, never mind at war, with Stalin sleeping late and forcing everyone to get drunk at night? And there is the story of Khrushchev's daughter-in-law, Liuba (Lyonia's widow) who was arrested in 1943 and sent to various labor camps, released in 1948, then exiled in Kazakhstan for five years. And the strange tale of her son, Tolya, sent to multiple orphanages where he was starved, and at one point '"lived" in a railroad station ventilation shaft'.

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

Khrushchev? He was a Ukrainian first. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 18:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


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

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


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

Yes, I know. You might want to try Tompson's book, it is much shorter and goes less afield.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting that you add it. I think you have stop at some level of detail. As it is, with the book my head is spinning as I try to keep track of it all. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. You might want to try Tompson's book, it is much shorter and goes less afield.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gotten The Ed 17 to agree to look over the military sections of the article, since battles make my head spin.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And I'm being very careful what words I use to describe the Ukraine. The last thing I need is to be caught in a nationalist battle between Ukrainians and Russians.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The book does a fair job of explaining the Ukraine. I had been unaware of that business about the western Ukraine and the Poles, etc. etc. The history of that whole area is intense. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's why the Ukraine is still politically divided today, with the Westerners leaning (er) West, with the East of the country pro-Moscow. Orange Revolution and all that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Interesting addition to the article, that Khrushchev had sex with Stalin's wife and Stalin. (I haven't reached that part in the book yet.) I have become fascinated with all the intrigue going on after Stalin's death. Now the book's detail stands it in good stead. In fact, I want to know more! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 16:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but it is rather a novel theory. Aren't they talking about when Khrushchev was at the academy?  Do you think I should put it back?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I was joking. I thought it was an off-the-wall suggestion and further, is it really a serious suggestion in that book? (I assumed that if it had any credibility we would already know about it.) &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 18:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. But "our" book has become extremely interesting and Khrushchev is becoming more mysterious. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 18:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea. It isn't mentioned in the books I have, although he certainly knew Stalin's wife and gave her (probably untrue) credit for puffing him to Stalin in the early Thirties.  She died soon afterwards.  I'll look into the book mentioned, although if it is into fringe theories, not sure I want it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Really, how relevant is it in the context of so many other compelling factors? Khrushchev was dealing with massively complex situations. Even if it were true, subsequent events surely must have over ridden it. If you get into the gossip side of what those people were doing ("our" book does generally mention that they were all cavorting around), there is no end to it. I don't get the idea there were many intensely emotional relationships for Khrushchev that influenced his behavior, outside of his family. Well, he was emotional about Stalin, but I don't think that rumor accounts for it. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 19:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I refuse to believe that Khrushchev could have had sex with her and survived the purges. Even if Stalin had suspected, he'd have been taken out in a "bread van" and been off to the Lubyanka.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of the alleged sex with Stalin. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I read it as Stalin's wife!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it, Mattisse, this source says Wolfe's book was published in 1957. Obviously subtle vandalism.  Somewhat clever though.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I though it was with both Stalin and his wife! &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see you are right, but check what I wrote above. There is no access to Soviet archives in 1957!  Someone was having a joke on us.  Rather complex subtle vandalism, using a real book, but subtle vandalism nonetheless.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought it was blattant - not subtle at all. He did have a problem with Stalin's ghost though. We still don't seem to really know how he pulled it off. He was very crafty. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was an actual theory, but a fringe one ... stranger things have been theorized. And I agree, no doubt Khrushchev ordered it leaked.  With it out in the sunshine, they could not pretend it had never happened.  Though there is probably more to that than the BBC report, the reporter is acting modest and puffing himself up at the same time.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * These archives are interesting. My brother asked me if the "doctors' plot" was true. Seems like it was all part of a strategy.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus· ƛ · 12:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

G&S
Please check out the recent disagreement at the Talk:Gilbert and Sullivan page and my talk page (where the editor admits WP:OR). What do you think should be done? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ryan fathers and sons
It occurs to me that the point of Ryan striking out seven fathers and sons is a good illustration of the longevity of his career. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Aren't there already ample illustrations of his longevity in the article? But if you want another one, I'm OK with that, but it should be one sentence, and properly sourced, and there is no need to list 14 names.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Aha, because the source has all the names already, right? So I could just say, "In his lengthy career, Ryan struck out 7 sets of fathers and sons," followed by the link to the source. Does that sound better? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I reduced it to one sentence in the body, and also took that info out of the lead as it appears to be undue weight. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

RfA and ANI post
Hello Wehwalt, hope you're well. I noticed this morning the "oppose" at Jake's RfA, and a corresponding ANI thread. I certainly hope that MR. IP will retract his humor (?), but something does tickle my thoughts on this. While I'm hesitant to actually mention names, there does seem to be an air of familiarity between the [who] that was attacked in the Village Pump post, and the "oppose in RfA". I recall a recently banned editor who has had multiple monikers over the years which had similar interests. Nothing I could hang my hat on of course, but just wondered if that thought had crossed your mind as well. Cheers and best. — Ched : <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? 13:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing offhand, but I really didn't start following these things until I passed RfA in December.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Gates controversy
Per this edit please note that there is a discussion on the talk page. The content you restored is disputed as non-neutral and unencyclopedic, among other things, and seems to be subject to an edit war. I suggest you self-revert lest you become a party to that edit war. If you wish to participate as an admin you may want to caution the parties to stop reverting and reach consensus first before adding disputed content... or as an editor, please join the discussion page to explain why you think the content does or does not belong in the article. Your edit summary pointing out simply that the content is sourced is not really a viable reason to add or delete disputed content. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thought. I have no intention of getting extensively involved in either capacity, and I think I will let the edit stand.  Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks for responding.Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. I think it wouldn't help matters if I deleted it, and there are ample eyes on the article to do anything that needs to be done.  Basically, I'm keeping a distant eye on the article hoping that once the fuss dies down, there will be the opportunity to improve towards GA/FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, I don't want to edit war myself either, and even though I think it's a matter of encyclopedic tone with some POV overtones, it isn't really a huge deal. In due time the article will improve.  Wikidemon (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that you were initially doing the right thing when you reverted Viritidas' changes, as I believe that this is presently the status quo: Obama's apparent siding with Gates, without having all the facts of the incident, drew criticism from members of law enforcement. While Wikidemon is certainly entitled to his/her own opinion, I feel that Viriditas instigated this dispute in an attempt to weaken or water down one side of the story. GoldDragon (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the article talk page - GoldDragon is right and I was mistaken, that the status quo was that the language was in the article already. It was not a new proposed addition.  Wikidemon (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's unsourced and was removed for that reason. It doesn't matter if it was new or old. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you claimed that there was an "inappropriate deletion of sourced material". Please show me exactly where and what source supports the statement of "Obama's apparent siding with Gates". Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Trouble reading dashes in headings in Murray Chotiner
Maybe it's just my browser, but they all look like Spanish beginning-of-a-sentence upside-down question marks. Smallbones (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me¿I really don't see anything wrong there, do you?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

TTKK
Thank you for dealing with the point about User:TTKK which I raised at ANI. I agree with everything you said: we are dealing with a well-intentioned and useful group of editors, and don't want to antagonise them. That is why I made a point of saying "Probably you were not aware ..." and also inviting them to set up separate accounts. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My guess is it's two people, It really shouldn't be much trouble.  Of course, they could set up another account, and keep on joint editing and we'll never know.  I'm not losing any sleep over it!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
For the support on the admin board :) i appreciate it. -- Ashish-g55 23:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Khrushchev 3
Thanks for giving me the idea of reading the Khrushchev biography. I am thoroughly enjoying it and admire Taubman's writing. He gets around mentioning Khrushchev's name too much nicely. Even though on a subliminal level, I already knew what he is saying. Still, I admire his presentation. The POV seems well supported. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 01:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He won the Pulitzer for it. It is really good stuff.  Definitive, possibly, for our generation.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Nixon resignation
It is very odd that Nixon's resignation is not really discussed anywhere. Nixon Resignation is redirected to Watergate scandal where the actual resignation becomes lost in the shuffle. Even Richard Nixon doesn't highlight it. I was looking for a link "President Nixon's 1974 resignation" in your California congressional article, but I can't find anything. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 16:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/display_pdf.pdf?filename=/share4/pqimage/hnirs102/20090721103053527/6843/out.pdf - Is this a good link? I get a blank page. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Request
Can you confirm the points at ? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

sept 29
I think the points are OK. We had discussions last fall and a plane is not a train. Am on blackberry so can only edit by adding new section.Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I I

Talkback
— Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

12th Congressional....
I was pleased to support the FA nom. I do think the third paragraph of the Lead could use a little expansion. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll look at it. Thanks.  I think you are right.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tricky Dick
Yes, he and the archbishop struggled through together. No more archbishops for me, but no doubt more to come in the Dicky saga. The 1962 election for governor of California surely beckons... Brianboulton (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Alger Hiss controversy is next. Happyme22 and I agreed it is a crying shame that there is not a comprehensive article on that one.  I'm doing the reading on that.  Right now, I'm working on Nikita Khrushchev.  What's next for you?  Cold places?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup. I'm doing a couple of Nansen articles. I started the research last year, even went to Norway and Northern Russia, but got sidetracked. Look out peer review late Sept. Hiss sounds a very good idea, and I'll look forward to the old shoe-banger, too.Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I could do a fair job of the '62 campaign without another visit to the Nixon Library to view their files on that campaign, which (judging by the campaign files I viewed) will include a lot of news articles difficult to impossible to view online. I may be in California briefly in November but I do not think I will have time to go to Yorba Linda. I also promised Ssilvers I would try to get Ruddigore towards FA. Once the new bio of Helen Douglas comes out in November, I may look at that seriously too.  Khrushchev is about 60 percent done on the "rough draft" stage, I'm hoping to get some more done today and get it to GAN by the end of the month.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on 12th congressional district
Sorry I couldn't help out more. -Optigan13 (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Gee, thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on the FA! A minor thought: I disagree with the way the ellipses are handled at the end of sentences. The MOS says: "Put a space on each side of an ellipsis, except that there should be no space between an ellipsis and ... sentence-final punctuation ... following the ellipsis". So I think there should just be four dots immediately following the last word of the sentence. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I kept meaning to take a look at that, but never got around to it. Glad to hear it passed. Steve Smith (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That is how I would do it in real life, except that I read that to imply that you only leave the sentence final punctuation in if it is a question mark or an exclamation point. Thanks for the congrats.  I haven't forgotten Ruddigore, it is on my to do list, except that Khrushchev has turned out to be a mammoth project.  I'll get to it though.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Jspearmint
It's a shame. He is clearly an extremely capable writer. I might say he has created what appears to be a legitimate article in Ebenezer Howard. I suspect he might have such a love for Teh Hoaxing, however, that rehabilitation is more than unlikely. Crafty (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, I have no idea who this editor is. Jack1956 (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * He's probably crawling out another mole hole to hoax us someplace else. I'll try to keep an eye open for him.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. Now I know his style and MO I'll do likewise. Silly lad. Crafty (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Simple Plan [regarding Twitter]
Hey, I was the one who posted the sentence you just removed that had a Twitter link to it. Well, on the Simple Plan homepage, I found a link to what they said was Pierre Bouvier's official Twitter account. Now, if it's his personal account, don't you think that his word is more reliable than anything? Why did you take that down? Seriously? --Zzguitar14 (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Two reasons. First, we know they are working on a new CD, so it didn't actually say anything.  Second, that link will deteriorate as Pierre tweets more, and eventually that information will vanish or be effectively lost someplace, so there is a verifiability problem.  I'll concede that his Twitter is probably qualifying under WP:SELFPUB, but I don't think his praise of his own songwriting is encyclopedic.  Why not just insert a news article?  If you want to discuss it further, why not take it to the article talk page so that other involved editors can opine.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well the information it provides is the fact that he said that Simple Plan will be going back to their pop punk style, a style that they had previously left with their third album, Simple Plan, so I felt it was needed. As for the fact that he will tweet more, well, yes, that will happen and the information will not be easily viewable to the average person without looking for it. I guess we can just keep this information to ourselves then and wait until some website posts it up before Wikipedia's editors let it happen to the Simple Plan article --Zzguitar14 (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are suggesting more than Pierre actually said. Also keep in mind that primary sources, and I guess Twitter qualifies, are disfavored.  But again, I'm just one editor.  Why not post on the SP talk page and get others' views?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to do that then you can do that. I don't feel that it's debatable enough to post on a talk page so I'm not going to. I don't really care what happens to that little piece of information. My life doesn't depend on it. --Zzguitar14 (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

FA success
I'm glad it was promoted; sorry I didn't return, but as you said, I din't oppose it anyway. Cheers. Tony  (talk)  01:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tony. I appreciate how busy you are.  My next article, Nikita Khrushchev has turned into a mammoth project and won't be ready for FAC for at least a month.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR
-- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs)help us! 22:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

email
you have email.. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I said yes to the first one, was there a second?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

FAC size
Wehwalt, I think a lot of editors (including me) have found it hard to consider some hard-and-fast rule about size in FACs. The Khrushchev article is big, and there are no daughter articles, I see. But I'm fine personally with that size. Just as long as you can defend it as in summary style throughout. I guess it comes down to explaining the greater level of detail in one or two potential daughter articles. Images: could do with a good audit WRT location and size. Tiny is no longer in vogue. Looks like a promising candidate. Tony  (talk)  13:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Advice requested from Awesome Wikipedian
I would like to see Cosmo the archbishop on the main page. I don't think I've ever seen a modern archbishop as TFA, though I think some of Ealdgyth's ancient ones have been there. Cosmo's birthday is 31 October; unfortunately it is only his 145th, no nice round number. The 100th anniversary of his enthronement as Abp of York was earlier this year, but the article wasn't written then; there are no other key dates coming up soon, and no round numbers at all. So, how many points would Cosmo earn if he was nominated for 31 October as (a) a recent promotion, (b) a fresh topic and (c) a 145th birthday boy? Advice welcome. You might also have an answer to a query I have posted on the TFA talkpage. Regards, Brianboulton (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was away. I went to the exhibit on your estimable ancestor in Birmingham, please note the new photos from the exhibit (they told me not to take photos.  Too late).  Uh, I don't think you can draw the categories that narrow.  I think two points, no religious leader since July 10, and date connection.  A bishop on Halloween.  Oh well.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congratulations on Today's featured article/October 4, 2009 - I added the only free image (cropped) I could find, not sure if there is a better one out there, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">><> &deg; &deg; 20:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There isn't. But I really prefer the cropped memo that I used as the TFA/R blurb.  What does a man's face, long dead matter?  I think the cropped memo will be FAR more effective.  What do you think?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think a person's face matters, even if "long" dead. It is what I retain in my memory as a "visual" of Chotiner (being a visual person). — Mattisse (Talk) 21:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not see it at TFA/R - tomorrow's TFA was up on the Main Page briefly and then I saw all the new TFAs in the queue and added the cropped picture. I also like the signature (if a bit unusual), but it seems Raul prefers the pic. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">><> &deg; &deg; 21:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So it seems. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We agree on direct and indirect date relevance points!
Pretty sure anyway. I did try a re-wording, thinking yours is too long, but I'm not sure I like it any better. All the best, Smallbones (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The concept is I think widespread, we just have to find phrasing that won't lead to arguments.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

unblocke me

Khrushchev
He was a peasant and the Bolsheviks disdained peasants. They were mostly well-educated and of the intelligentsia. It seems to me that Khrushchev rose through the system by a combination of his ability to actually accomplish tasks (having a stellar working knowledge of how-to) and the party's proclivity to centralize in Moscow, hence moving Khrushchev to the center of power relatively early on. Seems like a flute in the system, and his astute working of the system, that put him at the top, and his "insecurity" seems in many ways to be justified. — Mattisse (Talk) 18:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. Another guy who was damned good at what he did, and still was insecure.  How do you think the article is looking?  I think with a few more cites and more data on China, the last section I have to do, it could likely pass GA.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I love the part when Khrushchev went to visit Mao and floated like a blimp with his lifesaver in the pool while Mao swam back and forth using fancy swim strokes. Then Khrushchev got out of the pool, sitting on the edge, because at least he was "higher" than Mao who was still in the pool. The meetings between "world leaders" makes for fascinating reading. Really, they used the playground tactics of children. Some things never change, I guess, and are understandable regardless of language barriers. — Mattisse  (Talk) 19:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. I'll try to work it in.  I've left in things that humanize Khrushchev, like the dreary nights at Stalin's, though I expect them to be attacked once this gets to FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not expecting you to include these things&mdash;these are just some of my personal favorites. One thing about Khrushchev's  "secret speech": a source I have says that it was an attempt to save Marxism by distancing the philosophy from the actions of Stalin. It must have been painful enough, as from Taubman it seems that Khrushchev retained an emotional attachment to Stalin.  — Mattisse  (Talk) 19:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think so. He knew Stalin had feet of clay, and then some, but he had admired him for so long ... --Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding Dr. Zhivago, I believe Taubman says that Khrushchev had not read it when he banned it, and that when he did read it much later he liked it and thought the decision to ban was faulty. — Mattisse  (Talk) 20:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's in there. The Times obit tells a variation on the story, that at most 200 words in the book were unfortunate.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you have done an exceptionally fine job on this article. However, where is mention of Castro? Only in the photo? No text about how well they got on, as promised by you? Regards, — Mattisse (Talk) 23:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll put in something about how Castro was enraged by Khrushchev's actions to end the Missile Crisis. The article is not done, but with the backlog at GAN, there was no harm in nomming it now.  Thanks for the praise.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Krush
Feel free to take the article through MILHIST's A-class review after wp:biography's peer review if you would like additional comments. :-) —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  17:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll see how extensive the bio review is.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. That is a great article, by the way; history students all over the world are probably thanking you at the moment. :) —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  17:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's taken a lot of work and I am still sitting here with my laptop and two open books.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Nikita Khrushchev
Good work on the article, but you added to the article and it is causing a cite error. 75.69.0.58 (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Leonid's wife, Liuba Khrushcheva
I'm sure that Taubman says that Leonid's wife, Liuba Khrushcheva, was not released until 35 years later. — Mattisse (Talk) 16:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Check page 160 (if you have the trade paperback). Released in 1948, then spent five years in internal exile in Kazakhstan.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right. I don't know how I got that idea. I guess I was appalled by the whole story, with her kid living in a ventilation shaft and all. And he was apparently very like Leonid in personality. — Mattisse  (Talk) 17:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

mild liberalization
It's your article but I think "mild liberalization" is a meaningless term in this context. What does it denote, Obama-lite? — Mattisse (Talk) 20:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How is that? Also, is there anything we can do about the garbage in the first paragraph?  Why do we need two sets of pronunciations?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I know nothing about pronunciations, but it does seem excessive. Vladimir Lenin has only one set.  — Mattisse  (Talk) 20:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I will get rid of some of it. It amazes me that even as we try to perfect this article, 2,000 people or so a day are relying on it for information.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

About your comment on AN/I
(this one) It's not a matter of what I'd like to see done, disruptive behaviour is called disruptive for a reason. Besides, I'm sure there's a way to deal with anon users, it's not like it's the first time an IP causes trouble on some low-visibility pages. Just today, there are at least two other notices on AN/I about unregistered users.--93.45.135.178 (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

City of London School correction
Hi Wehwalt. I've made a slight change to one of the history paragraphs in City of London School after someone quite rightly pointed out that it didn't make sense. Could you have a look over it when you have time to see if my new additions make sense. Thanks. Tbo 157  (talk)   19:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've taken a shot at improving the language there, feel free to edit, I don't have the reference and won't be offended.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much.  Tbo 157   (talk)   21:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK
I've got a DYK nomination in for September 25 for The Ne'er-do-Weel. Any idea about the status? It's been sitting for a long time. Thanks for any info. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I approved it, anyway. Nice work.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Chotinermemo.jpg
File:Chotinermemo.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Chotinermemo.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Murray Chotiner‎
What is the deal with all the sudden vandalism? — Mattisse (Talk) 22:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's TFA today.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh. Definitely a mixed blessing. — Mattisse (Talk) 22:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know. No serious edits to improve the article, really, just a lot of overlinking and vandalism.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Throwaway85
I'd seriously consider undoing your unblock. Whilst Slrubenstein's was technically the first wheel-warring action, there was considerable discussion beforehand (whether consensus was achieved is doubtful, though). However, your unblock without consultation would definitely be seen as wheel-warring should this go any further. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 23:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the fact you didn't discuss it with the blocking admin ... just trying to ensure no-one gets into trouble here. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 23:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm not sure it is necessary, but in an excess of caution, I've undone it and asked for comments at AN/I,and posted to Slrubenstein's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Throwaway
I appreciate your comments, I will reply at AN/I Slrubenstein  |  Talk 08:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"I think I've allowed ample time for consultation, but have not heard from the reblocking admin" - this was an hour or so after your re-block. I blocked around midnight my time, and went to sleep. Give a guy enough time to sleep and wake up. Fifteen hours or even one day is ample time to get feedback, not one hour. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I've weighed what you said, and I think he should be unblocked. If for no other reason that I'm sure after all this fracas, it won't happen again.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Good unblock, IMO it wasn't meant as any kind of racial slur. BigDunc  13:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Spade
Your reasoning is naive or absurd. To call one a spade is to assault one with a racial epithet. This is a separate matter from calling a shovel a spade or using the phrase "a spade is a spade." No one would be offended if one called a certain kind of shovel a spade, and I agree with you that there is nothing offensive about the phrase "to call a spade a spade" (and i have no problem with any user using this phrase). But it does not logically follow that therefore using "spade" to address someone is also innocent. It is not. It is a racial slur. Maybe you did not know that before. Now you do. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate it. I think everyone has been educated in this process and hopefully thing will go smoother.  All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nansen request
If you have any moments to spare from Nikita or Nixon or whatever is your current project, or just feel like a change of scenery, could you look at Nansen's Fram Expedition, now at peer review, and perhaps leave a comment? Brianboulton (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Novodevichy Cemetery?
I noticed that you got a pix of Khrushchev's grave. Did you get any other pix of Novodevichy graves?

If so, please consider adding them to the gallery on that page. Smallbones (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Only Yeltsin, I think, which I already put in his article. I will doublecheck my photo archives on my computer.  Damn, if I had only known what was wanted, I would have photographed the whole place.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to WP:reward baord challenge
I would have given you an anti vandlaism award but ive done so already for that challenge i believe. I think this award though is more just for the work youve been doing but consider it just the same as if it were for anti vandalism as well. I will make note though on reward board that you met the challenge twice. Good keen eye. Keep up the good work Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Um, I thought we agreed to let it go? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'll edit it out. Wasn't thinking.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
If you block one party for edit warring, you should block the other side as well. ChrisO was not edit warring with himself. Three reverts is not an entitlement. Be fair, or you'll be overturned. Jehochman Talk 00:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Already have been! It may be a wiki record.  But I used the 3RR template.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My prediction was correct! We need to look at the history there and see who's at the root of the trouble.  ChrisO let himself get played too easily.  He's got to be more careful.  The parties on the other side need to have their actions looked at. Jehochman Talk 00:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Khrushchev's images
Hey dude. I asked and  on Skype to do an image review of the article, and they found many problems. Could you look over all the images that are in the article? Many are nominated for deletion, including your photo of the grave because Russia does not have freedom of panorama (commons:Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama). Apologies, —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  01:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. Glad to hear it. I'll give the rest of the article a pass once I've got the time on my hands to do so (which might not be until later in the week, I'm swamped in History papers at the moment). Cam (Chat) 23:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for being unbiased. The level of partisanship was really disgusting. As what I can see a neutral admin, I urge you to review my contribution to the article of contention and tell me if I violated any of the wikipedia guidelines. Because as far as I can see (see also my comment on talkpage), I did not. Thank you.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Also the other two users asked for a pardon of their block. One of them has been here since 2005! and had never done anything wrong! His record is (or was) clean till now. The normal procedure would have been a lock on the article, Rfc and Mediation. Not an indefinite block for content dispute. However, if I go to adress this injustice it will be a waste of my time and I do not have the time to do so. But you as a neutral person can see the damage this does to wikipedia's image. What is interesting was that another admin tried to keep my block based on "copy right violation" (which I addressed and several admins agreed it was not). The second admin said: "Decline reason: "The block is fully justified by your disruptive editing and refusal to acknowledge the problem."  None of them gave me a good reason.  I might be wrong, but my feelings tell me that they were proxying and etc.  This is some serious corruption and I think this is sort of corruption will hurt Wikipedia's long term image much more than anything else. Anyhow, I thank you for your neutrality and that is why I invited you (if you feel like or have the time) to let me know if I had made any mistakes in that article that warranted an indefinite ban. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Also despite what ChrisO says about me, I have a Ph.D., I review journals and even articles from Encyclopedias that have to do with humanities.  I am a scholar myself and would never support fringe theories.  All sorts of ugly accusations are made against me. I will be on a wiki break, so if you have time (it is up to you of course), I would ask you to review my contribution (note there has been some bad feelings between me and ChrisO before) and see if it merited an indefinite block by that admin. Either way I wish you the best and I'll be on a partial or more break. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, just doing my duty as I imperfectly see it as an admin. I do not wish to become a partisan or overly involved in this dispute and thus will not look at those other unblock requests, leaving them for other admins to handle.  If they remain unresolved or ChrisO starts his threatened arbitration, you may want to bring these issues to the attention of the Arbitration Committee.  I do agree that the process had a very poor appearance.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, so much for what I said, I looked at the unblocks, and I felt Arad needed unblocking.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 18:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

TFAR
I am pretty sure you are wayching TFAR, but I have a point query for you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Arbitration
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Requests for arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Requests for arbitration;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the confusion. As you had closed the AN/I that preceded this, never having filed an arb (and in an abundance of caution and overinclusiveness), and given that in other matters such as AfDs I understand it is good form to leave notice of the next move up the ladder with the deciding admin, I notified you as an involved party.  But yes, I now understand from your reaction that it is not that sort of involvement that is meant (but presumably involvement with the indicated conduct, not admin review of it).  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunate circumstances
Hi, As you know, User:ChrisO previously broke WP:3rr in the article Human Rights. However, I have followed procedure per the discussion in ANI before and I called for an RfC on the inclusion of a source (Talbott). I stated clearly:"I think following dispute resolution, it would be good to seek an RfC. As I said, I will abide with an RfC. However the RfC should not be a character assassination. Rather it should be a well intentioned RfC on wether Talbott is a reliable source for this article. I believe he is, and you do not believe he is. If other users judge it is not, then I will abide by their opinion."

However he reverted my talk page discussion and a rational was not given! This is really because of the 2 minute 3rr that a user can give themselves the right to revert the discussion of others. Had I done that, it would have been a permanent ban. I can't even find the discussion I initiated which talked about why he got favorable treatment (the archiver did not bother to archive it!) and instead as you recall, I got replies: "Nepaheshgar should know this is not a law but a guideline..". However as you noticed, the main point was why should some users get favorable treatment? I do not feel like making a report in ANI on why my talk discussion was r.v.'ed, because I believe I will get banned again like I did last time. I am not sure what to do except leave wikipedia. I am trying to follow procedure by calling for RfC and instead my discussion gets reverted. And again if report this to ANI, I will be blocked probably like last time! And I noticed that my discussion on 3rr and favorable treatment was removed! If no action is taken, I will take a longer leave (I took a 5 day leave already before restarting the discussion). Thank you. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you initiated the RfC exactly per instructions? If he took advantage of a mistake you made, that's within the pale.  I would suggest doing it again, and make sure you go exactly by the book.  Get comments by someone who is involved in RfC, which I am not.  If he reverts you and there is no apparent reason, then you have every right to go seek another forum than RfC.  Just be very careful you have followed rules to the letter and ask for help if you are not sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I am leaving the discussion. I asked for 3rd opinion in the webpage (and did not file an RfC).  But I did get a 3rd opinion or two in several places.  However, I know what will happen if I ask for an RfC as some people will be canvanssed and join the discussion.  My concern was that the user for no apparent reason reverted my discussion in the talkpage and gave no good reason.  If I had done that, I would have been banned for sure.  But I am letting go of the discussion as it is not in my interest to waste more time on this and the first almost permanent ban has lead me to believe that if this goes further, it will take too much time and in the end some favours will be carried out.  But thanks for being a fair admin. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard D'Oyly Carte
I'd appreciate your input when you can get to this. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hikers
Could you please contact me in regards to the 3 Hikers in Iran Nlinds (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Nlinds
 * Usually we talk on each other's talk page. I don't favor off wiki communications.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A few acts
Nice to see my edits being recognised :P. The Factories Act, curiously enough, is already on my to-do list! I've got the sourcing, so I'll bump it up the list a bit. The other two I'll need to find sourcing on, but if I can get it, I'll write it :). Anything else in that area that pops up, give me a poke. I'm halfway through a Bonar Law rewrite, and there's stuff there that concern's Neville's brother, father and early achievements, so message me if you'd like me to take a looksee - ditto if you need a GAN, PR or FAC comment. Ironholds (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unionist works fine; I've chosen to use Conservative, just because my article stretches past both sides of the conservative/unionist naming, and consistency is required. I'm afraid I've found no mention of Chamberlain as a possible successor; the three realistic candidates were Derby, Curzon and Baldwin, but my bios don't list other potentials. Ironholds (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Very nice! I'm up to 1915 or so with Law, I keep getting distracted with other things. Feel free to contribute what you can to the article. Ironholds (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Law won't be ready for a while - I'm only up to the middle of the First World War with him :(. I keep getting distracted by other projects - as an example, check out today's featured article. Ironholds (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh, congrats.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thankee. Should be working on the other Inns soon enough - another distraction! Ironholds (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do; I'll also work in what I can from the Law bios and some other sources I have sitting about (FA co-credit, mwahaha....ahah.) Ironholds (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess cash is not good enough for people these days:)--Wehwalt (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

TFA heads up
I assume you follow Raul's talk? (Comment without prejudice to Raul's discretion in Main Page scheduling :) Just to let you know to follow 3 article proposals within 3 days at TFA.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed that Raul isn't using alt text (his perogative), so I stopped asking for it. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Neville Chamberlain
Hi: I did a review of Neville Chamberlain, and it is currently on hold due to lack of citations in certain sections. Other than that, the article was amazing and a pleasure to read. I learned a fair bit from it, and feel I do know the man better. Keep up the good work! Ray Talk 17:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

left note at Talk:Franklin Knight Lane
Did he or did he not graduate? Smallbones (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Namesake
N.B. My late father was named Franklin Kay in Lane's honor in 1930, 9 years after his death. So it would appear that Lane's efforts were well remembered in California. <font color="F64A8A">Shir-El <font color="DF73FF">too  17:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope so. I read all the articles at his death which said he would never be forgotten.  He was.  The main memorial to him is a hideous inner city high school in a beautiful building.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Dime (United States coin)
I would say just remove the coinsite.com links (not a reputable source) and take the whole thing to FAR (I already have an article listed at FAR, so I can't do another one right now). It is terribly short on sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably, but let me look at it in a little more depth.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I added maintenance tags. Personally, I think the best move for now would be to take it to FAR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I took it to FAR. You can take a look if you want. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Idea
We are behind with giving out DYK awards. My idea is to give out some awards and deputise them to give out some more awards. Do you think that might work? Victuallers (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. I'll try to help out if I get a chance, if you want?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award
As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Chamberlain
I have asked Tim riley to take a look at the article. When he's done (this weekend?) I'll take a look. He actually knows what he's talking about, whereas all I can do is proofread. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good, he's hard at work already. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I will try to look at it later this week - I shall be away from Sunday 15th to Friday 20th. My initial concern, before reading, is the question of its length. 15,000+ words for an undistinguished British prime minister? There are no current featured articles on British PMs, but so far as presidents are concerned, FDR is 11,400 words, Reagan 10,500, Ford 8,400, Obama 6,200 and Silent Cal 5,600 (that long?). Does a summary article on Chamberlain really need 50% more prose than, say, Reagan? I'm sure the material will be presented with your usual thoroughness; I just wonder how there can be so much of it, and whether the length issue will be an problem in the article's future progress. Brianboulton (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The man was at or near the top of British politics for 15 years. I did go into Munich rather finely, let's see what reactions are.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Without having analyzed this yet, I'd suggest, Wehwalt, that you try your best to streamline the language and content where you can. You'd rather not have other editors hacking and slashing at the article who know less about it than you.  You have the best chance of slimming it down in a balanced way.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll still wait for the peer review to have some idea of a target, if it is necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Chamberlain Signature
I do believe that the site is reliable. It has many autographs of world politicians. Then again, if you could find me another source image, eg. a book/letter from himself, I'd be more than happy to retrace another one. Connormah (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll look into it, but no particular hurry. Thanks for being willing to help.  This has turned into a massive project.  He was a great vegetable man, I understand he promised "peas for our time"?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll get to that right away. Are the copyrights okay? Connormah (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The document is crown copyright pre-1959, since Chamberlain prepared it in his capacity as a UK Gov't employee, so it is public domain, but the signature is PD-ineligible anyway since it contains no copyrightable info. So we are covered either way.  Many thanks for your help.  Please let me know what the file name is and i'll substitute it in.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How's this? [[File:Neville Chamberlain Signature 2.svg]] Connormah (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Very nice! Thanks for your help!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Anytime. Any other signatures you may want done? Connormah (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not now but I'll keep you posted. Thanks again!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck with the FAC! Connormah (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Motion to reopen ArbCom case "Mattisse"
ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you particpated in some way on the Mattisse case or the associated clarification discussion.

A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Mattisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Khrushchev
<Karanacs puts on a reviewer hat and hides the FAC delegate hat under the bed.> Hi Wehwalt, I saw this and wanted to quickly point out my experience. I found the Khruschev article to be very well-written and it flowed very well. However, in my first reading I never got to the foreign policy section; I generally don't have a short attention span, but by the time I got halfway through the domestic policy sections I was tired and had to go do something else. If the article hadn't been so beautifully written I would have likely gotten tired before that. Our average reader probably does not have as long an attention span as I or some of the reviewers. You may want to reflect on whether any of the early life/domestic stuff could be spun off into another article to ensure that readers do get to focus on the foreign policy stuff. A great example of a recent article which essentially implemented more of a summary size during its FAC nom is Inner German border.</takes of reviewer hat and unearths FAC delegate hat - ew, must dust under bed>

That said, as an FAC delegate my personal opinion is worthless and won't be counted whatsoever. I'd like to see the opinions of some of the other reviewers on the length, and if they agree with you then I'll accept that consensus says this criterion has been satisfactorily met. From what I've seen, you care more about article quality than pretty stars, and I just wanted to give you something to think about. Karanacs (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am going to wait and see what reviewers think and understand why you are waiting. I will, however, look through the article.  I think shortening for shortening sake is a mistake, though.  The article is not much longer than the Reagan or FDR article, and Khrushchev spent ten years as a superpower chief, presiding over a number of momentious events.  I seem to be stuck with long articles right now, Neville Chamberlain, currently at PR is slightly longer than K's article though I will probably shorten it.--Wehwalt (talk)


 * Is there a list of FA's by words of readable prose? By length in bytes it seems to be around 43rd were it promoted, shorter than Reagan and Truman, who each led their country for shorter than K.  FDR is longer, but he had 12 years to K's 10-12.  Also Obama.  And McCain.  But I haven't seen that in terms of readable prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is what Sandy and I use to decide if we need to prod reviewers to look at length: User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics. It's based on readable prose.  Karanacs (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And note that I'm peeved about all of those Dynasty articles at the top, since they did not pass FAC at that size. They are a third larger than what passed FAC, meaning a third of their content was unvetted.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt, per this, it wasn't my intent to take a position here at all, merely to point out to you how to interpret Dr Pda's list. His list gives the impression that we're passing FACs at that size, when in fact, many of those ultralong articles grew to that size post-FAC.  I just wanted you to know how to read the stats.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, you can get User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js to check the prose size in word counts (on the page Karanacs linked, he only gives in KB, not words). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually don't have a monobook. I couldn't make it work, and I have no great need.  Anyhoo, I've posted a proposal at the FAC page for Mr. K.  Not thrilled about it.  I see more of a need for Chamberlain than for Khrushchev.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You must get one of these! That's how you can easily tell which FAs have appeared on the main page (their link turns green at WP:FA).  If I can do it, you can do it :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It works! Thanks Sandy.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Look forward
Hi Wehwalt, I look forward to your ArbCom candidacy. The more content editors we can get on there, the better!  ceran  thor 01:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am concerned, however, of the chances of wiki-lawyering. ;) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both. Don't forget to donate to my campaign slush fund!  Negative advertising is expensive.  My campaign advisers are Murray Chotiner (of course), Francis Urquhart, and James Carville.  That way I am bipartian, international, and wrap up the graveyard and fictional votes.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm more concerned about the potential for purges...as the author of an FA-class article on a writer I'm quaking in my boots. ;) Seriously, I was pleased to see you throw your hat in the ring. Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm quite disappointed by it, actually. I'd hate to lose Wehwalt's excellent content work. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the high quality candidates who are starting to emerge, Julian, you may have no worries there. One of my campaign advisors keeps sending out pink emails comparing my rivals unfavorably to Vito Marcantonio, another keeps telling me to triangulate with all my opponents, and the third urges me to respond to press queries with "You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment" and for some reason is asking me if any of them likes to climb the clock tower at the Houses of Parliament.  Oh well.  Seriously, what I think would suffer are the non-FA stuff I do, like DYK and I don't know if it would be proper for an arb to do what I do as an informal facilitator at TFA/R.  Likely will not have to worry about it, I think I'm a decided underdog in this race.  Worth fighting, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you'll certainly have my vote. I strongly believe that those in the highest positions on Wikipedia should be a member of the editing community itself (ie. they should have experience with content, either through writing or maintenance), and in that regard you're among the strongest candidates thus far. Good luck with the election! – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. And if you think I'm gone as a FA writer, you gotta nother think coming!--Wehwalt (talk) 05:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me?
Sorry to spoil the love-in here, but what exactly is "I would have voted to desysop all of them, or at least required them to face a new RfA to keep the tools. Friendship is a great thing, but that friendship was a huge COI with their duties as admins." supposed to mean? Neither myself or MZMcBride were sysops at the time; while I can't speak for MZMcBride I've never seen the slightest evidence that he's a "friend of the_undertow/Law" (zero edits to the_undertow's talk page, zero edits to Law's talk page), and by no possible definition could you consider me a friend since my interaction with him was and is pretty much nil. Are you believing whatever you've been told on IRC without bothering to check for yourself, misremembering evidence to suit your particular agenda, or just plain lying in the hope that nobody will bother to check? There may be a fourth alternative but I sure as hell can't think of one, and none of the first three are traits Arbcom members ought to have. – iride  scent  20:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The ones who were admins, that is. I'll rephrase my answer.  I don't do IRC, by the way.  Sorry if I was imprecise in my answer.  No intent to be.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've amended my answer and noted that I phrased it badly the first time. I have no agenda and was not involved in the ArbCom case in any way.  I am sorry to have given offense, but it came of answering too many questions too quickly too late at night.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad Iridescent and I were able to work things out.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on an answer to a question
Your answer to the question about content/conduct here is, well, kind of short, so I'll ask you to make a clarification: You don't think the committee should do any of the things I mentioned, that is, sanction editors who violate content policies or establish procedures for binding content resolution (for example, Centralized discussion/Macedonia, which was initiated by the committee)? That's how I'm reading it; am I right or have a misread you? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll respond there, OK? For more eyes on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to come back to this so late; I've been a bit busy. Could I please get one last clarification, either here or on that page about your thoughts about sanctioning users who violate content policies? Your answer still doesn't really make it clear if you support sanctions only for conduct policy violations or also content policy violations. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Conduct only. However, I know ArbCom gets more than a few fuzzy cases, and I'll try to disentangle them with the guiding light being that ArbCom has limited jurisdiction and shouldn't be getting involved in content matters.  I hope this helps, if not, please feel free to ask more.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess that's pretty much what I needed to know. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom
Glad to see you are running for Arbcom. From all my interactions with you, you have come across as a great and fair editor and administrator and I hope you get it. Cheers. Remember (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Tell all your friends.  Yes, we never lost respect for each other during the Jena Six craziness, and the article eventually became a worthy FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Nikita Khrushchev Signature
I've found a letter signed by Khrushchev. Would you like my to insert the signature into the article? Connormah (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure! Thanks.  Appreciate it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #9
You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. --NBahn (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Message from Ben
Ben says to say hi, and also how disappointed he will be if William Speirs Bruce doesn't make the main page on 30 November. He is considering an encyclical on a new method of allocating points for TFA nominees. On other matters, many congratulations on the Khrushchev article - a big success in every sense of the word. Can you briefly fill me in on the revised Chamberlain strategy? Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Tell Ben such an encyclical would be bull. Thanks for the praise.  The revised Chamberlain strategy is to cut it off when he becomes Prime Minister on the grounds that most people will care about his PMship and that is what should be in the main article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good choice. I'll try and get to the aerlier article in a day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And I'll do my best for Bruce. Haven't been to Rome since Ben reached the top of the greasy crozier, but I saw JP2 at Castelgandalfo when I was in Rome one summer.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Chamberlain
I'll take a quick look at the acts - I've been rather distracted with uni work, so haven't really made much in a while. Still, I'll see what I can do :).

Dragon's Egg
I signed up to review this article for GA, but I removed myself from the sign up, as I have lost my legs recently. What do you think? I would do it if you helped me. Best always, — Mattisse (Talk) 23:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. How can I help?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am very good at general prose issues, but in terms of the plot, not so good as I have not read the book. My first reaction was that the plot does not quite make sense; that the invovlement of humans is not fully explained (even though, as I understand it, this is downplayed in the book. Still I feel the plot ought to make sense to the casual reader.) That is one issues. Also, I am unsure how well the hard science is explained in the book. And it is hard to see how there is much plot. What do you think? All the best, — Mattisse (Talk) 23:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are quite right. The human story is downplayed, but is important to the plot.  For example, when the humans are exploring (by instrument) and the cheela are still primitive, they activate a light that plays across parts of the neutron star on a regular pattern.  This particular frequency of light activates a pleasure center in the cheela, and causes a runtish cheela who discovers where it will be to be acclaimed as a religious leader, who builds a huge temple (and is torn apart when the light goes out, that bit of exploration done).  But the huge temple is recognized by humans as a regular feature.  Both the human backstory and the unwitting interaction between human and cheela (but for the humans' arrival, the cheela would have remained in savagery) are downplayed in the plot.  Some attention should be given to it, though the cheela are the interesting part of the novel.  Also, a cheela and a human meet "face to face" (well, there the cheela spacecraft is outside the window of the human spaceship) for a brief second.  I think it could be souped up without going overboard.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you still willing to work on this? The nominating editor is ill, but I can try to fix anything you bring up. Regards, — Mattisse (Talk) 23:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I probably won't get to it until the weekend, but what do you want me to do? Evaluate the plot and make comments about that?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind. The article needs a review by a person able to evaluate the whole thing, and that person is not me. (At first I thought it was just the plot.) Regards, — Mattisse (Talk) 17:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions at arbcom election
I have taken the liberty of deleting the first two questions (1a and 1b) that I put to you on the "Questions for the candidate" page, along with the resulting discussions. The reason I deleted the material was mainly because, although I obviously think the edits in question were poor ones, I can't quite convince myself that it was entirely fair to single out a couple of bad edits from your editing history when I haven't really had time to do as thorough an analysis of your contributions as I would like. Also I was a little concerned that that part of the discussion might detract from what I consider to be the more substantial questions regarding your resistance to recusal and what I see as a lack of experience in dispute resolution.

You are of course, fully entitled to restore the deleted material if you so choose (as long as you restore it in its entirety) as it included both my questions and your responses. At this point I've done what I felt ought to be done on my own part, so whether or not you choose to restore is of little consequence to me. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I did reference 1b in my answer to 2, so at some point I may look it over and decide whether to modify my answer to 2.  The odds are not, but if I do, I will drop you a note.  Frankly, I don't think our colloquy will be very interesting except to those who will reflexively vote based on one issue, but what do I know?  Sorry I haven't been very active at DYK recently, I'm busy at FAC and distracted by the election.  I still have a bunch of ICC commissioners who need articles, I'm hoping to get to those early next month.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!


Stellar work, my friend. May your work outlast your hopefully (un)successful ArbCom candidacy. ;) Best,  ceran  thor 22:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the praise. Don't forget to paypal to my campaign fund!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jimbo sure does like his bribes ;) Throwaway85 (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!


I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! You too.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving, Wehwalt! I see how it is. You're going to be a big, powerful arbitrator and forget about all the little people to whom you've promised editorial work on trivial entertainment subjects. Ah well, I must go and eat a huge amount of turkey now (having the big celebration today). I'll be passed out on Tryptophan, red wine and high calorie desserts, so I won't worry about it. :-p -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I've got the books on Ruddigore, I just need to sit down and work on it. With the Chamberlain situation under control, hoping to get at least some work done while waiting the election results.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Derrell Robertson
Hello! Your submission of Derrell Robertson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Jack Tenney
Hi there, Wehwalt. I have been inactive on Wikipedia for quite some time, so I hadn't noticed your work. It deserves congratulation. It would also seem that our research interests overlap in some places--at least partially. One of those overlaps is on the issue of this politician. As one of the primary composers of the Luisa Moreno article, Jack Tenney appeared on my radar screen as her primary adversary and the man who ultimately caused her deportation. Since there was no article yet on him, I added him to my to-do list and promptly forgot about him.

The other day, I happened across Wikipedia in my net-surfing and thought I'd check my list, and I was elated to discover that you had created the Tenney article, for which I thank you. Since it did not include any of the concrete results of his anti-communist crusading, I added in the tidbit about Moreno's deportation. I was a bit surprised to see that it was removed--haphazardly at first glance, since I didn't see any reason why anyone would doubt it. But since it was removed for not being sourced, I gladly added the citation of the Griswold del Castillo text.

Now, I wanted to talk to you about this, because I am a pleasant person who despises the often-nasty disputes that arise from differences of opinion or practice concerning the creation of WP articles, and I find open and frank discussion the best way to avoid them. The issue of deportation is often unclear to those people who are not familiar with immigration issues. There are several ways people can be deported, and being "offered voluntary" deportation is one of them. In such cases, individuals have deportation orders and are prohibited from being in the country, but rather than being physically removed by an official agency, they take the responsibility of relocating upon themselves. It is technically referred to as a "voluntary" deportation, but they are still being expelled from the country by official means. So it is still a deportation. I think this it is important to show that Tenney's actions created consequences for people such as Moreno. Otherwise, his anti-communism is nothing but talk.

I also wanted to discuss this anti-Communism as practiced by Tenney. If you read the article from the Journal of San Diego History that I referred to, the author talks about how Tenney used anti-communism to advance his political career. In fact, it talks about how had been fairly liberal until he realized who was buttering his bread--the anti-union agricultural interests. It also goes into his defense of the San Diego-area military establishment against accusations of discrimination by Moreno and others.

I think this aspect of Tenney's political career is important and, if not included, creates an incomplete picture of who this person was. It may not be flattering, but it is true. I would prefer it if we could work together to create a good article rather than removing one another's contributions without any discussion.

How does that sound?--Rockero (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine, but keep in mind that NPOV means we have to make very sure we take a neutral perspective. Obviously anti-communism hurt a lot of people.  It was not, however, an unreasonable perspective post Yalta and Potsdam, and in view of what happened in the postwar period.  If you read my articles, you'll find I am very careful to take an absolutely neutral tone in the articles where I touch on it.


 * I'm grateful for the praise, and I thank you. I doubt we overlap very much, since my Tenney article came out of my Nixon articles.  Tenney was a sorta-friend of Nixon, and was upset when Nixon did not endorse him for Congress in 1952.


 * I rephrased what I did in Tenney because I did not feel that there was an established link between Moreno being investigated by a state committee and her subsequent by federal authorities. It sounded very post hoc ergo prompter hoc to me.  Obviously we can find a way to rephrase to address the voluntary deportation issue, and my remaining concern was that Moreno (a minor figure, though I understand the POV that she is significant in a certain era of Latino history) was given undue weight in the Tenney article.  Surely Tenney investigated more significant figures, actors and so forth, that we could put in the article as well?  And yes, I did read the San Diego article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
For answering my questions; regarding this - could you link me to specific cases (or better, specific FoFs)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's one.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And another.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The first one in particular is VERY interesting. If you remember any other examples, please don't hesitate to add them to that list. I think that the first one is a great example of a constructive arbitration case (something that I in my experience have seen very, very rarely). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Forgive me if I don't remember any more, I'm a bit distracted right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Refactor now.
Do not use lynching metaphors when discussing the mass murder of minorities in relation to a user who alledges they would "die for dixie." Refactor post haste plz. Hipocrite (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Think you are being overdramatic, but don't want there to be distractions as we discuss whether a user should be unblocked, banned, or whatever.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggested resolution
Wehwalt, would you be willing to do the following: Since you are the one to have unblocked, I think you should be willing to do some of the necessary work. What do you say? Jehochman Talk 16:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Ask Die4Dixie to retract all of their recent offensive remarks.  They can strike them through.
 * 2) In the alternative, if they refuse to do so, please write up an RfC and I will co-sign it with you.  If that step is taken we can suspend the ANI thread.  I am on record criticizing ANI as a poor venue for such discussions.


 * You double posted, would you mind deleting one of them? If you specify the remarks in question, I have no problem with what you said.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think he should strike the comments at Talk:Holocaust about uncircumcized penises, and follow up comments, and his comments at WP:ANI and his own talk page about Jewish administrators seeking to do him in. Wikipedia is for learning.  The ignorant are most in need of the encyclopedia and their participation should be encouraged.  However, we need to show people that such comments will not be tolerated.  If he makes mistakes, he should fix them before he's allowed to edit again. You have good judgment.  If you review the conversations with him and teach him right and wrong, and he gets it, that result is what I am hoping for. He's entitled to his personal beliefs, but he has to check them at the door. Jehochman Talk 16:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That is fine. I've dropped a note on his talk page, referring him to this discussion and asking him to comply.  Let's see what he does.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like a reasonable course of action. I'm glad to see you guys reach a consensus. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your support, here and elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. gl Throwaway85 (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have struck the comments at Holocaust. I would be willing to discuss striking the ones on my talkpage after discussion with you both here. I do not plan to edit main space until we have this discussion. I will speak at ANI.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and state your concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that. It would be best if you looked through your contributions from today and struck anything that assumed facts about another editor's real life identity or beliefs, or suggested that others were acting in bad faith. If an administrator takes action against you, the only requirement is that they not be involved in a content dispute with you.  I've not been editing Holocaust except perhaps trivial reverting vandalism or spelling (as far as I remember off the top of my head).  It isn't a topic that interests me.  Recently I've been writing about Astronomy, US military history, and Nazi submarines (such as U-853).  You'll notice that the Nazi sub article is properly neutral and well written.  I don't have any axe to grind relating to German-Jewish issues.  If you want to edit Wikipedia, you should pick topics where you can edit neutrally.  If you feel strongly about a topic, probably you should choose to write about something else.  If you are getting friction when you edit subjects about Jews or Communists, try US military, sports, business or something unrelated. I believe there are a large number of Medal of Honor recipients who don't have proper articles yet.  You could help with that project. No matter what your personal beliefs there are articles here you could help with.  Jehochman Talk 04:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jehochman. You can see the visceral reaction you got.  Strongly suggest you find anything more neutral if you want to stay here.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First I ran a search for Hochman using his first name that he gives here on Wikipedia. The article that pops up is about bull riding and has plenty of in-group humor of the "Nice Jewish Boy" type. If that was not you, then I do apologize. I still believe that your block was an emotional one. Two people saying "carry on" and my wanting to persue it a little farther hardly reaches the WP:BATTLE that you suggested as the blocking rationale, Jehochman. I am sure your editing is neutral; I just don´t think the block was. Immediately requesting a community ban when I was unblocked (even though I was resolved to wait to ask, and hadn´t posted another unblock request) tends to indicate an investment in the whole thing that should be apparent, after careful reflection, and demonstrate that there is a little more to this. Your objection to my describing SLR on ANI the way I did (although he has had some very recent problems with his use of the the tools, and very public ones at that) and then your standing by why much more egregious attacks were made on me at ANI by axe-grinding editors that shared your personal distaste is troubling. I think you should let others block if you are as emotionally involved as the community ban idea would suggest. I personally think I have contributed a lot to cleaning up the BLP issues at Felix Rodriguez. I think there has been a net positive at the Cuban Five. Please feel free to check out my responses to questions on my talkpage to understand how far I got in reading the article before that train wreck picture drew my attention. I didn´t read the entire article. I got the strong Jewish exclusive Holocaust flavor the the lede has. I saw that perhaps this wasn´t exclusively Jews. I went to the talk. I have now read the entire article. I can see how some would think that I was insensative. I do appreciate Werwalt´s even handed caution to SLR. I still think he(SLR) was out of line. He demanded to know which body, happily leading me down the garden path in my ignorance, and allowed me to think that if I was right, then there was merit to my concern. You could have asked me at any point. Some even think that this was some opening salvo in some kind of denial of the Holocaust. If that is a Gentile, does that mean there was no holocaust? That someone would believe that it lead there is little better than tinfoil nuttery. I have no idea where that picture came from. I don´t read Latin alphabetized Hebrew. You have made a lot of hay from my previous blocks. Check them out. Some were bad blocks. Perhaps my requst was poorly couched,(as are knee-jerk accusations of antisemitism that only serves to make people hysterical), and I might not have quite hit the right note when I made the request for review, but judging by the responses at ANI, I am sure I had the right tune. You also selectively quoted me and cherrypicked, so that lazy editors on the antisemite witch-hunt who wouldn´t go see the comment in context were inflamed. I am sorry, Hochman, but you share a good deal of blame for that ANI drama-fest. Mea culpa for insensative, but tua culpa for trying to find antisemitism where none existed and whipping up the mob. The petulant comment that you would have unblocked me in a week, but were going to try and have me banned becuase of an unblock is just plain childish. As far a bad faith, your accusations are now being parroted across the project because other editors got to see you self righteously comment on an editor and not his comments. You ascribed motives. You provided no diffs to support your allegations of an "agenda". You scryed a crystal ball and you were wrong. Forgive me if I have been too candid here, but you have certainly had your say. I felt that it was only fair that you hear me. I will strike those comments, but I will not repudiate my belief that you have behaved recklessly and emotionally, and it would have been better if someone with a little less visceral, and a little more restraint and detachment had done this. I certainly didn´t bait that man. My intellect has been questioned openly at ANI, the number of crayons that I have in my box. Hell, it has even been speculated that I am some sort of diminished capacity savant. But I´m not stupid enough to purposesly bait with two edits over two days and then go to ANI and link to the whole interaction to have a "fish fry" as you termed it. You strike those cliams of antisemitismthat you bandied about, and your comments about agendas, and I will gladly do the same. You will fond me a reasonable enough man if dealt with on the level.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it has been pointed out that you re not that Hochman. The mistake was not sinister, even if unwelcomed. I really wish that I had been right, as thinking wrong in this can´t be helpful. --Die4Dixie (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know
I voted for you. I hope you win. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is nice to hear on a difficult day.  Oh well, at least I was with friends tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As did I. The drama surrounding this case is insane - I think block policy allows way too much these days and there shouldn't be so much violent drama around unblocking to discuss. Orderinchaos 04:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think ANI needs a serious overhaul. The venue brings out the worst in people. Jehochman Talk 04:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.I'll feel better about it in the morning. There's a good thing about this.  If I lose this election, I'm going to be able to say to myself, "You did the right thing, and it is not your fault that some failed to recognize it."  It beats the heck out of a lot of other ways to lose.  Not that I'm throwing in the towel, mind you.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we are in the same boat. It is better to do what you think is right, than to do that which is popular. Jehochman Talk 05:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Shall we rearrange some deck chairs?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm normally vehemently opposed to voting for or against someone based on one incident in which they happen to have agreed or disagreed with me; however in light of the fact that Calton felt the need to act in that manner, I've now voted for you in the interest of offsetting what I feel to be a vote based on lousy rationale. For what it's worth. Of course there will be others, but I'm doing what I can. I don't know you from any other incident though so let's hope I don't regret it :) Equazcion   (talk)  14:24, 3 Dec 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm suspecting that not many will make it a one issue vote, some will reconsider, and if I lose, I will do so with a clear conscience.  Some may vote for me, as you did, because of the stand I took.  I'm sure there are arb candidates who are desperately avoiding use of the tools during this time for fear of offending someone and Wikipedia has fewer people on watch because of it.  And if I lose, what have I really lost?  Two years of extremely hard work with the abuse I've gotten a taste of here after every decision?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, I planned to vote for you anyway. After your unblock, I made sure to vote and comment in support - not that I agree with D4D's comments, but I recognize you took a stand on principle at a particularly sensitive time. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There aren't any alternatives. Even if I were minded towards hypocracy, doubt it would regain votes, and frankly I feel I am more minded to stand up for myself.  Keep in mind that people would care less had I unblocked some guy for 3RR or something, they wouldn't act like this.  How can I do less than be fair?  An admin's job is not to lead the mob, or to turn aside as the pitchforks and torches pass.  It's to stand up there, and see that, that which is done is right.  Thanks for the good wishes.  I'm at peace with myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Check out my userpage. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for starting that AN/I thread in regards to the sockpuppet investigation. I appreciate admins who ensure that editors are given a fair shake, and not just dismissed out of hand. I also appreciate your recusal from the situation, as it kept everything above board and ensured that the matter was dealt with as cleanly as possible. All in all, very fairly and professionally handled. Kudos. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I believe in fairness, that without that, there are real problems in human relations.  Good luck!--Wehwalt (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you too! You'd have my vote were I able to give it. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
 * Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
 * Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
 * Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
 * Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
 * Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
 * Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges,  iMatthew  talk  at 03:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)