User talk:Wehwalt - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wehwalt (talk | contribs) at 16:05, 25 January 2009 (Undid revision 266296608 by ChrisO (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:05, 25 January 2009 by Wehwalt (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 266296608 by ChrisO (talk))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives

1 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Rachel Corrie

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

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

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

Sorry it took me a few days to seriously get back to this article. I've tried to make both sides' positions clearer, and added in the IDF's reasoning for house demolition (to get rid of guerrilla hideouts and weapon-smuggling tunnels). IMO, the absence of this reasoning made it seem like they were demolishing random houses for the fun of it.

Also, when I looked over the actual account given in the israelenews cite (which made me poke my nose in here in the first place), I don't see much difference from the account already given - except his acknowledgement that the treads didn't run her over. I agree that it's more than neutral enough to use if quoted fully rather than selectively... but I'm not sure it contributes enough new info to be worth a paragraph in this over-long sprawl of an article. What do you think? arimareiji (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind one sentence. The idea is to show that Carr has told different stories all over the place. No need to mention that the guy was warned off speaking to the witnesses. Excellent job, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Wrt Mt. Olympus... smartass. ^_^ But you know he doesn't mean just any admin, he means ~~admins who agree with him~~... ~~if they can be found, that is~~... "independent admins."

And thank you for catching that Freudian misphrase. arimareiji (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Marvelous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've explained what really happened, so all I can do now is to wait for you to calm down. But please slow down the pace of material you're adding to one-up me; I'm not going to reciprocate and never had that intent in the first place.arimareiji (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm going to take a short break from Wiki, possibly a long one based on whether I have to go in to work tonight. Maybe that can serve as a sign of good faith with respect to my above statement. arimareiji (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Fair use rationale for File:1610c.jpg

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

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

TFAR date

Regarding the your revision it wasn't that Misplaced Pages were idoits, but the #time: function was:

jan 2 will check Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/January 2, 2008 page for pre-scheduling
jan 2, 2009 will check Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/January 2, 2009 page for pre-scheduling

This is a moot point now, since I've implemented an automatic system. — Dispenser 15:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I thought you were being overly pedantic. Thank you for the explanation and the improvement to the page.--Wehwalt (talk)

Rfa/Suntag

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

Rollback

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

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

Thanks

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

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

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Hey there, Wehwalt! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;)

Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh.

Best wishes, neuro 01:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Roux's rfa

Yeah, that was definitely me screwing up. Thanks for pointing it out. Icy // ♫ 01:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Prods

Hi Wehwalt, just asking why you deleted a load of expired Prods under various speedy deletion criteria? Was it a mistake? RMHED (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. i assumed we were supposed to use them if they came near the case.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The crucial difference is of course that a Prod deletion should be restored upon request but a speedy deletion doesn't have to be. RMHED (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Should I just type out a quick reason, then?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is what a deleted prod should look like: I Forget, you'll see it has the reason for the prodding in the deletion summary. RMHED (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dune Skateboards

Hi, I've restored the Prod to Dune Skateboards. You mention that it was removed by an IP editor, 75.0.191.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); but if you examine that editor's contributions you will see that it was a short-lived (42 mins from start to end) SP vandal whose only edits were to revert a bunch of mine, all of which were themselves reverted, and the IP was blocked for "wikihoundng", I'm sure, as an admin, that you don;t need to be reminded that vandals are not to be allowed to disrupt the functioning of WP in this way. this discussion about the same edit also pertains. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 03:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I hardly think making you do an AfD rather than a prod is disrupting the functioning of WP. I don't think you can restore a prod in that manner, but it's not worth a fight over. I'm sure, as an editor, you don't need to be reminded about the rules relating to prods.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf Wolters

Let me compliment you as an excellent article writer. Your style is very good. This article I read with total fascination. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The two lacks this article has are a lack of photos and also a lack of info on Wolters' post WWII career. I have a book on order about the reconstruction of postwar Germany that may help.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been very articulate in describing the human dynamics separating these two men, something I did not comprehend in the Albert Speer article. I have always been vastly uninterested (phobic) about knowing anything related to the ugly story of the Nazi and Germany, I guess because it seemed incomprehensible. When you render it in human terms, suddenly I am quite interested in learning how all this happened. So, thanks!

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

You have probably already noted, as reported in the newest newest Singpost, Misplaced Pages is receiving a massive upload of historical images from the German archives. Perhaps there will be something of use to you there. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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

DYK for Rudolf Wolters

On 4 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rudolf Wolters, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oliver Lundquist

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

DYK for Oliver Lincoln Lundquist

On January 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oliver Lincoln Lundquist, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Ethics in small scale societies

Yo, just saw this deletion show up on my watchlist; your edit summary of "Not notable" needs a little clarification, I think. Was this a speedy/proposed deletion or a closed AfD? Thanks, Skomorokh 23:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a prod. It was unreferenced. If you like, I can undelete and you can take the prod off. I just don't see how it is notable.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no worries, it's just that non-admins can't see the article once it's deleted, so I didn't know it was a prod. If it's not too much trouble for you, putting "afd"/"csd"/"prod" somewhere in your edit summaries would be helpful for us proles. Sorry to bother you with this, Skomorokh 23:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

no problem, will do. I usually only close prods.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Skomorokh 00:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Seth Sabal

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

Speer

If you look here, there are copies of photos of all the mad architecture. Not in usable form of course but I thought it might interest you. Fainites scribs 21:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretty interesting. A bit pricey, though. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2

You seem to have made a slight error in the tally there ;-) - Also, could you help out with the backlog at WP:AIV? Cheers! :-) John Sloan (view / chat) 02:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Too late at night. I'll look at it. I've never dealt with the page, but I'll see if it is something I can help out with.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The slight backlog that had developed at AIV has gone as quick as it came! I guess it must happen all the time :D - Thanks John Sloan (view / chat) 02:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And I thought my RfA was dramatic and nailbiting!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I just want you to know that I think your constant eye at this page, tallying etc is particularly commendable. I just hope that in the end fairness prevails at this RFA given all the unneeded drama, bias by those in power and the general shmozzle that was made of it by the hold. Time will tell if the Bureaucrat that had such a large hand in it will step in to clean some of the tally up by fairly weighting the evidence (I am in law in real life as I note you are also) - but in your case, again thank you for your exemplary work.--VS 14:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The lemminglike opposes just appal me. I have no problem with opposes, I oppose in RfA about as often as I support, but people don't seem to want to do any thinking for themselves. The crat was off base putting this on hold. Might as well wave a huge red flag in peoples' faces, prejudicially.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you in particular for your comments and your tallying. I actually like to do tallies when I'm monitoring an RfA, but I've gotten the impression that it's best for the candidate to avoid fixing formatting/updating tallies. Enigma 06:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Block note

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

That vandal from the other night

I don't know if you remember blocking a vandal that I reported the other night, but he's back, having hopped IPs. I've requested semi-protection for his target, if you are in the mood to wander over to WP:RFPP.—Kww(talk) 01:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Taken care of. No problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf Wolters

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

Stale complaint

Could you explain what you mean by "Stale complaint" with regards to Forsena? (Not being argumentative, just trying to understand...) Thanks, Gerardw (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The editor hadn't done anything in five hours, and what he had done was already being considered by two other admins. I had misread the clock, and thought the editor was currently editing, but he wasn't. I'm leaving it up to the other admins (see the link on the guy's talk page) who are considering a topic ban.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Gerardw (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

indef block of IP?

Hi, I noticed that you'd indefinitely blocked contributions. I think that might have been an error on your part, since IPs generally aren't indef. blocked except in exceptional circumstances, so I'm letting you know. Thanks for all your hard work! —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 22:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll deal with it. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Kanonkas RFA

Apologies if you thought I was been pointy or something with my "o rly" comment. I've replied at the RFA but it was a joke - until a week before the RFA Kanonkas had a sig. that was a carbon copy of mine and he changed it to the plain sig. Hence the comment and the note in my nom. Just wanted to clear it up that it was only a joke. Pedro : Chat 17:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, I understood! It is just when someone replied to you seeming a bit confused that I felt it best to weigh in.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Darn those bureaucrats! :) Pedro : Chat 17:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Unbais Editor

Dear Wehwalt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LOL,ROF, coughing

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		The best edit on the whole RFA page today. Dloh cierekim 23:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Subtle barnstar of good humor

		The Subtle Barnstar of Good Humor
		I award you 0.999... of a subtle barnstar of good humor for this edit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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

DYK for Woodes Rogers

On January 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Woodes Rogers, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Unlock, please

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stone-cold sobering

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

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

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

Tweak as a first move. I think that people are very sensitive right now about feeling like things are being thrown in their faces. Then make suggestions about what arguments are to be avoided, in a neutral way, without citing chapter and verse. Only then, if those fail, do you get down to cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling I'm not following ... you want it to be less "thrown in their faces"? How? I can mention a specific example from a recent RFA where such a question might possible have been less than helpful (if I can get permission). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I just have the feeling that citing specific cases won't go over well.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

curious edit

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

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

the new Rachel Corrie

(just kidding)
Hey, wait a minute... was "bigger fish to fly" a joke about my chosen name here? (l/r mispronunciation because the Japanese r is a combination of the English l and r)
(/just kidding)
If so, I'm glad. It made me smile. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I'm starting to see a pattern: When you see any change you don't like but can't defend not making, you get extremely combative in inserting or defending changes of questionable value. One example is the present circumstance, another is the undue "ISM is made up of g**d*** hippies" (my paraphrase), and a third is the "if you're going to call my website critical, I'll call the other side hagiographic" rampage you went on in Links. I'm not going to speculate on whether Elonka's surprise appearance represents a fourth.
All of the above three are matters that when you're calm, you don't support or even concede are unduly POV. And all of the above are matters that when you get incensed, you fight for (or against) tooth and nail. I'm not sure how to approach it, because so far when I try to talk to you about it, you get even more defensive and make even more drastic changes.
The "St. Pancake" editor is a straw man; it's intellectually dishonest to say that opposition to a vandal account means that you're neutral. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind you having a side in this. But I do mind it that when you go beyond an invisible threshhold, your edits get very pointy in "correcting" towards that side.
I don't mind because of the results; Misplaced Pages isn't that important. I mind because I think you're too intelligent and well-meaning to do so deliberately, and that's why I'm making this attempt to talk to you about it. I won't make another, because either you do or don't want to hear. Repeating or arguing about it would insult both our intelligences. arimareiji (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think your characterizations are accurate, and it is rather unfortunate that you feel you have to put things that way. Concentrate on the edits, not the editor, and assume good faith. Unhappily comments like that do not contribute to the building of good relatonships at WP. Rather than resort to comments about "extremely combative" "rampage" and the like, please look to your own tendency to insert facially neutral, but connotatively biased (and always in the same direction) edits, without any discussion whatseover on the talk page. Then, when you are called to check, you start to talk it to death on talk page with questons that you want answered your way right now, or, god forbid, you're going to repeat them again. Jeez.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish it were possible to resolve it peacefully. But between NPOV and peaceful POV, I'll choose the former. arimareiji (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Then kindly be more insightful into your own edits, which are very often slanted, and I believe deliberately so.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

PR was flatly frickin' wrong in implying that you shouldn't edit the article, and it still cheeses me off that he tried to say I was agreeing with him. Please don't think I've changed my mind about that; that was what I thought I read in your last edit (brass tax). But I do think that the "It's neutral this way, and grossly POV the same way but reversed" shows that this issue is one that you feel very strongly about.
Not to the extent of being an "awful" editor, or "hotheaded." (I think of you as being more of a dig-in-your-heels stubborn editor, like me.) You provide a contrasting POV that's excellent for catching mistakes - you were absolutely correct in saying that "many" is a weasel word, with which I was uncomfortable but couldn't think of a good way to deal with it then. You were also absolutely correct in noting that my phrasing sounded like "Israelis come in and shoot up the place." (I promise, that was an oversight - not intentional.) To make this article better will not be possible without your input, for those kind of reasons.
But neither will it be possible for me to do my part to make this article better if I have to constantly worry whether XYZ edit is going to make you want to add random "corrections" toward the IDF side elsewhere. I need to work on being a lot less prickly... but if you disagree with an edit, please give me a little more AGF.
Sometimes I'll unintentionally slant it toward the IDF, and Kasaalan will jump all over me. When I unintentionally slant it against the IDF, jump all over me. But jump on me on Talk for being dumb and not seeing the way that other people could read a given phrasing, rather than by adding counterbalancing POV. IMO, trying to balance inflammatory POV is like a novice driving on ice... by the time you see the result of a correction, you've swung too far.
My main focus isn't to show that the IDF or Corrie were "wrong." It's to make the story more compelling within the facts. That's why I'll add material like "that morning, they stupidly decided to get more confrontational to prove their mettle." That's why I'd like to add material like "ironically, the Corries wound up on the hammer end of the IDF like their daughter," though I'll need help in keeping it from demonizing the IDF. That's why I'd like to add material like "she talked to anyone in earshot, whether or not they particularly wanted to listen."
If history is boring, then it's lost its purpose, which is to teach lessons to avoid the same mistakes. Lessons like "be careful about the results of giving anyone carte blanche." Or like "the road to hell is paved with inspiring banners." And I still cling to my disproven illusion that someday, someone will actually learn from history before they repeat it.
I'll try to learn how to make a sandbox later on, and post some possible edits for us to hash through more directly. Right now, I'm just tired, and I thought that it would be better to blather all of this as a prologue. arimareiji (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd appreciate the irony of that, but it isn't clear that the two of them marched on the wall. I'm sure we can work it out. Incidently, didn't I add that stuff about the ISM getting more confrontational because they felt they weren't getting results? Are we sure they didn't throw Rachel under the ~~bus~~ bulldozer to make their point?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake in not checking timestamps before posting; I thought from your momentary back-off (20:37]) that you might have gained something from being shown that you call XYZ phrasing blatantly POV if it's phrased in favor of Corrie, and you call ZYX phrasing neutral if it's phrased the same way in favor of the IDF (20:15). Instead, you decided to accuse me of what you - not I - just demonstrated, to "balance things out." ("be more insightful into your own edits, which are very often slanted, and I believe deliberately so." - 20:57)
I've explained the "true secret dark hidden" motives you've attributed to good-faith edits before, to no avail. Apparently I did so again; I'm not good at learning from my mistakes. arimareiji (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggested it on talk page, and now Kasaalan is back. Make a proposal to settle the items in dispute. I think you are way off base with the comments like "gained something", it just isn't productive. Get on with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Woodes Rogers

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

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

Why'd you dump the reference to the documents at the Rep of Pirates blog? That's quoting new archival sources and the author even has an image of a portion of the original document. Just because it's a "blog" doesn't mean it lacks scholarly credibility. I suggest restoring that, but will await your response. --Vincent pearse (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Cauz I'm grooming this article for FA and it would certainly get knocked out at FAC. Can you justify it as an RS under existing policy?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Looks like somebody took it out again; I'm not pedantic enough to keep fighting for it, but seems a shame to have the article exclude fresh archival evidence. Vincent pearse (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I did because it was questioned at FAC. If you want to join the debate there, feel free. I do what the FAC reviewers say, within reason, because I want the article to pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Woodes Rogers ⋅

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Kanonkas

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Itsmejudith

Hello. Please forgive the spam but since Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Itsmejudith is heading toward a very close decision, I'm contacting all editors who were in the "Neutral" section in the hope that they can take a second look at the RfA and make a more explicit recommendation (either way). Thank you, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- though you would have gotten a "thank you so very much" had you chosen to support. :-) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I'm terribly confused. I was not trying to force you into supporting the RfA. The "thanks" above was absolutely sincere and the rest of the sentence was meant as a light joke, not as sarcasm. I don't have a stake in this RfA: I do think Itsmejudith would make a fine admin but I was only trying to make the RfA more active since it's hovering around the borderline percentage. When I asked if you could "make a more explicit recommendation (either way)", I really meant either way. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought. But what with one thing and another, I'm going to stick to talking on the nomination page. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

re scan

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

DYK for Donald Gleason

On January 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Donald Gleason, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Donald Gleason

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

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

Wolters pic

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

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Wolters1.jpg}

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

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

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

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

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Wolters1.jpg}

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

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

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Wolters1.jpg}

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

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

DYK for Kuldip Singh Dhillon

On January 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kuldip Singh Dhillon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Washington, D.C.

I've restored the indefinite move-protection for this article. It was move protected because it was a target for page-move vandalism which of course has nothing to do with being a featured article. Just thought I'd let you know. Regards, - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt! Well, DC is done at TFA! Amazing! I was wondering if it would be possible to restore semi-protect. The indefinite protection was removed when the article went up for TFA, but I think it can be restored again. If you don't think it would be appropriate to restore PP right now, that's fine. If vandalism continues I can resubmit at WP:RPP. Thanks for your help! Best always, epicAdam 01:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it; it seemed to go fairly smoothly. I've had TFA when I've looked across at fellow editors and asked "How much damage did they do?" Anyhoo, I've restored indefinite semi protection. Let me know if I can help with anything else.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being so quick with the request! According to article statistics, the article got 106.6k page views. Not bad in comparison to the 5k/day usual and I think a few more than most recent TFAs. All in all, no major problems. In fact, many of the edits were helpful; it's always nice to have good faith editors look over things. Anyway, thanks again. Best, epicAdam 02:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Corrie Article

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

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

star

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For highly amusing edits on WT:RFA today. And for getting the Borat article featured. Points deducted, however, for being a Simple Plan fan. Giggy (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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