User talk:Wehwalt/Archive 1

• Thanks for your work on the Natalee Holloway article. It's nice to see reasonable people editing for a change. --Dystopos 14:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Your reversal of my edit. If you check my link, which you deleted, you will see that the writer, Jeane MacIntosh, was saying the same thing, re: "The three main suspects in the Aruba disappearance of American teen Natalee Holloway walked free yesterday so I was putting in a POV reference from the Post writer's point of view.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unhappily, it is POV nonetheless, for the reasons I explained in my edit summary. Besides, she wasn't a girl, she was 18, and she may not have had killers. Suggest you take it to the talk page if you feel stronly about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for adding the piece on the Fictional use of Junius. Currenty I am researching Junius and am really intrigued to hear of Sight Unseen. I would be most grateful to hear more about it. Please feel free to use my e-mail address --Eltharian 3 April 2006

• Hi! I noticed you'd done some work on the Podkayne article, and I had a question for you. I just finished re-reading Podkayne of Mars (Berkeley Medallion Edition, 1/1970, 7th printing). In this ending Poddy is hurt, but will recover, and Uncle Tom lectures Dad. The Wikipedia article says "Podkayne is injured by the bomb, but will recover, and the moral of the story, as spoken by Uncle Tom, is omitted entirely." Do you know if there are three different endings? I'm wondering if this could be someone's memory playing tricks on them, or perhaps the 1995 version with both ending omitted UT's lecture in one of the endings to avoid repeating it. I don't suppose you have a first edition copy of this book? DejahThoris 07:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I don't, but no, there are only two. Tom lectures Dad in both editions, but in the version where Poddy survives, the lecture is much softer and Tom doesn't really attack the parenting as much. Maybe that should be rephrased in the article.--Wehwalt 10:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! --DejahThoris 20:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am mistaken, he doesn't lecture in the version where Poddy dies.--Wehwalt 17:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good edits sir, and I don't ever mind doing some minor edits to articles. That article was a MESS and really needed the work. SmartGuy 16:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really like your first two edits to this article, but I've reworded a sentence regarding Queen Victoria's mother that might be read as a POV statement. ("It is unfortunate that Victoria's mother did not return the kindness.") I do hope I've caught the gist of what you meant -- feel free to correct it if I did not. Cheers, Marysunshine 23:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent edits! I appreciate your enhancements. Jim Dunning 19:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit. Thanks! HiramShadraski 12:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely that there were two groups out to get Uncle Tom. It makes more sense that Mrs. Grew was a backup option. After all, any plotters willing to blow up a liner would have no qualms about sacrificing an underling just to increase their chances. Occam's razor. Clarityfiend 00:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible. But Poddy thought there were were. That is the conclusion she comes to. We can rephrase around the point, no huhu.--Wehwalt 00:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidently, nothing stopped Grew & Co from killing Tom once they had him. They want him to sing their tune, they don't want Finnegan representing Mars at Luna.--Wehwalt 00:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant episode is on page 156 of the Orb edition, 1997, a few pages into chapter 11. Heinlein, as an engineer, is unlikely to have thrown jewels into the mix as financing, particularly since the HK dollar circulated freely in Luna and the Party had plenty of them, courtesy of Mike's swindle. However he really didn't understand the nature of the device in several ways - not just the lack of efficiency but the need for long ruby rods, which are usually made artificially (it's a form of corundum). Djdaedalus 21:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: child->teenager->minor->adolescent. I actually thought of the word 'adolescent' a few minutes after I made that change. It seems about right (i.e. sexually mature (in a biological sense), but not yet 'adult'). 'minor' is a legal term, so it's not quite right; 'child' isn't right either (and has really bad mojo in that context). I guess we'll see if anyone else wants to weigh in. -- Jim Douglas 23:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that you had not looked at existing articles on the Euro before you wrote Introduction of the euro. The Euro article is actually too long: there may be scope for splitting it. But please make sure that your material is properly integrated with the existing articles. Your version is of course available. -- RHaworth 01:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need some time to integrate the online resources on the introduction of the euro into the new article. Then I will delete the material in the existing euro article. Give me a chance.--Wehwalt 02:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just put in my 2 cents here. I agree that the article of euro is too long. Nevertheless, a splitting is a delicate process and it requires time and peer reviews. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I blundered in. But I proposed writing a new article and a couple of people said go for it. I'm not the best writer, but I get things started.--Wehwalt 01:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting it Nenyedi 01:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw your interests page, and I wish to explain a bit situation with mentioned history-related article.

In fact, we don't want to erase content of this, it will be merged into more global article like "Occupation of Ukraine".

Also, as you can notice, current version of article contains >50% about Holocaust, it's not the primary goal of it. If it will be merged into Occupation of Ukraine it will be more title-specific. Because at that times, there were Soviet people, not Ukrainians. And article particularly speaks about Jews.

Also, you mentioned, that article is referenced, but I want to tell you that most references are not valid, since citations were misinterpreted by editors. You can see talk page for more info. Briefly, the strongest accusations were provided from some journalist, which has only one article on history, and has no historical background at all.

Thanks for understanding, please provide your arguments. --Galkovsky 06:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

noticed your edit back there, i'm not sure about the desert eagle reference, but i made the hooey lewis contrib, and i did it after i found i was the only person who got the huey lewis reference, among the people i was watching it with. in fact, none of them had even heard of him, much less his music. so all i'm saying is that perhaps it isn't that obvious, after all. also, didn't find any other reference to huey/hooey lewis in the article. joseph 15:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining. If you're interested, check out the goals of our February participation drive, detailed in the Announcements section of the project page. Again, welcome! BuddingJournalist 14:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK as "possible", though I still prefer "allegation"; if Mr. Corrie states "there was never a threat made against us" then he seems to be contradicting the suggestion that he was facing possible kidnapping. "Possibility" disregards his perspective for an inferior yet preferred perspective, IMHO. :o) Still it's fine either way, better than it was, Cheers DBaba 05:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take it as a personal attack... as people say, "it's cool". About the putting new things on the bottom of the talk page, I didn't know because I'm relatively a new Wikipedian. Sorry if I caused any fuss. Ian Lee 01:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi once again! If you want to, you can add one of the SP userboxes I made to your userpage (User:Ian_Lee/Custom_Userboxes). You don't have to, but it's just a thought. Also, I've been thinking about making a Wikiproject for Simple Plan like the My Chemical Romance Wikiproject. I do realize that SP has A LOT less fans than MCR... at least here in America, but I think that we could probably get at least ten serious members (you, me, Cambridgebayweather, ect...) to join, and I think that would be sufficient. What do you think? — Ian Lee (Talk|contribs) 06:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind... I took the initiative into creating it myself: Wikipedia:WikiProject Simple Plan. Join! — Ian Lee (Talk|contribs) 07:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar			From:
Picture	Type Of Barnstar	Note	Username
	Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar	I hereby award you this barnstar for helping me get off on the right foot here at Wikipedia. Thanks!	Ian Lee 03:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've seen you frequently around the article Senses Fail and other related articles. Please consider joining WikiProject Senses Fail, an effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage and detail regarding Senses Fail. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks that you can help with. Thank you for your time.

Mcr616 00:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wehwalt!

Persian literature was previously a GA. However it was silent about contemporary literature. I added information about "contemporary persian literature". The section needs copyeditting and also shortening. In case you are interested in the subject, I would like to ask you to help me in copy editting the article. I also posted a request in the "League of copyeditors page". Thanks alot. Sangak 16:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will try to work on it this weekend.--Wehwalt 18:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Take care.Sangak 15:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed you reverted my fixing to the infobox and changed "charge" to "convicted of". While I much appreciate your intentions to avoid confusion, I'd have to tell you that in the turnout of the article, "convicted of" simply cannot show up in the infobox because our current criminal infobox code does not contain such a "convicted of" row. As you can see in Schapelle Corby article, the "convicted of" does not show up. So my suggestion is change it back to "charge" and maybe make a convicted of row when my colleagues in WP:CRIME project improve the infobox. And if you know anyone who is an expert in infobox code, he is more than welcome to edit the infobox template to add "convicted of" row in the template, rather than in the article. Wooyi 15:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the page. Check out WP:SFW for a shortcut. Mcr616 21:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... YOU KNOW SIMPLE PLAN PERSONALY??? LIEK OMG R0XORZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU HAVE TO TELL ME EVERYTHING YOU KNOW ABOUT SP... or were you just kidding... oh wait... Talk:Simple_Plan#Who_gives_a_crap_about_Patrick_Landis.3F... do you really now SP??? 'cause it'd be cool if you did... 'cause I wouldn't mind if you're lieing... and if you are lieing but dont want anyone else to know... you can email me at: ianianlee@hotmail.com

But if you arn't lieing... LIEK ZOMG I HAVE SOME SORT OF LINK WITH SP... LIEK OMG!!!! — Ian Lee (Talk - Contribs - Sign - Gimme!) 22:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it should be obvious from the materials on my myspace, www.myspace.com/thesuperfan that I am not lying--Wehwalt 17:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I know this is a talk page that's supposed to be used for improving WP, but...) I was just wondering... what are the members of SP really like? I mean, I've seen alot of videos and been to a few shows... but I have a feeling like that they're not the same on camera as they are in person... or am I wrong? I have so many questions... but lets start with this! — Ian Lee (Talk - Sign - Gimme!) 02:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent you an email--Wehwalt 12:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for your recent work on The Mikado. Please note that the libretto does not state that executions must be "in order" (though I agree that this is an inherent assumption in the logic). But, I don't think we should dwell on what's *not* in the libretto. The key idea in the song is that "we made him headsman FOR WE SAID who's next to be decapited cannot cut off another's head until he's cut his own off". That is, what interested Gilbert was that the Titipu nobles used a *logical reasoning process* to stop the executions (they "argued IN THIS KIND OF WAY... and all is right!") It isn't necessary to show the assumption behind the logic: it's the *fact* that they used this argumentative reasoning process to halt executions that's funny, IMO. Anyhow, if you disagree strongly, maybe we can figure out some language that will please us both? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 06:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things that I have not yet focused on very closely at WP:G&S is the plot synopses for the G&S articles. If you want to cast an eye on, say, an act a day, we could fix them up over a few weeks (some are better than others)? Just and idea. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 20:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do.--Wehwalt 07:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your changes to Pinafore. There's probably more to do on that synopsis, but I'll have to get to it another day. Do you know how to add images to articles? Some of the articles, like The Sorcerer have no images at all. There are plenty of great images at the G&S archive (including public domain clip art and postcards), but I don't know how to import them. See, e.g., http://members.aol.com/guron/index.htm and https://www.gsarchive.net/postcards/index.htm Best regards, -- Ssilvers 16:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not good at it. I just copy what others have done, but it gets the illustration there. See, for example, Eyre Massey Shaw. I wrote that article and put up the image of Captain Shaw.--Wehwalt 22:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out The Mikado and please express your opinion about the current "Cultural reference" section issue. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything we can do? Kww 16:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: That's not a judgement by wikipedia, but a historical fact! The idea was to suggest what salic law was in context, but have it as you will. The Franks certainly did for a millenium! I wonder though, do you think if Victoria had inherited Hanover, would Prussia have annexed it, or the first Reich developed the way it did? Somehow I doubt it. Cheers! // FrankB 03:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Builder Award
		Its for you because im sure the world would be in chaos without you Can't we hate our allies and love our enemies 20:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reported User:Mr strike my leg stop i dont like fly for his recent edits like the one above. Please follow this link to add your thoughts on this incident. [1] --Knowpedia 04:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious why you removed the comment regarding Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and her promise to introduce a bill to give Elian citizenship. Tthe later comment that Republicans did not have the votes for the bill is a little confusing without the original explanation of the bill, IMO. Of course, your overall additions have been wonderful. I enjoyed reading through the appeal and its final outcome. Thanks for adding it. CodeCarpenter 20:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not complicated; as the Republican leadership said they didn't have the votes to pass it in late January; Ros-Lehtinen's promise in February to introduce such a bill didn't make much sense in context.--Wehwalt 20:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you deleted the infos I added on the Simple Plan page.what does RS mean?--NeptunianDroid 19:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source. See WP:RS, also WP:V. Basically, we can't be sure that what is said is true, it does not come from a newspaper or some other entity with editorial oversight, and the band hasn't said anything.--Wehwalt 00:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you added a note about Reginald Allen's book but did not give a specific enough citation. I added the book as a ref at the bottom of the page. Would you kindly supply the page number that you got that from? Thanks! Best regards, -- Ssilvers 17:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If it is not the right format, feel free to correct.--Wehwalt 17:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did so. Most of the G&S articles' citation format needs to be updated to the footnote method under WP:CITE. If you would kindly give all the bibliographical info to any cites you add in the future (author, title (vol + issue for periodicals), city, publisher, year, page number), then I would be happy to massage the format for you. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Nolan Ryan, I see that you deleted the Fangraphs url as linkspam. I actually think if you take a look at the info in the url you will see that there is unique information there. If after having done so you do not see that, let me know, and we can discuss. Also let me know if there is some other reason you believe this is linkspam. Tx. --Epeefleche 14:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Can you remind me of the URL?--Wehwalt 22:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Tx. Here it is. [2]--Epeefleche 00:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks useful. Put it back, I won't delete it.--Wehwalt 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some person on my talk page wants to know where to find a damage control dvd... could you help the person out? — Ian Lee (Talk) 06:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. As far as I know, none was available and I never heard of an unofficial one.--Wehwalt 08:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found what seems to be a bit of an error in your article. I corrected it, but if I'm in error, drop me a line. I left a comment in discussion on the article as to why, with a supporting link. --gunnerclark 13:29, 20 June 2007 (cst)

Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but as a LoCE member, I just wondered if you would be willing to have a look through the Kent article. It is currently a Featured Article Candidate and needs a copy-edit for grammar by someone who hasn't yet seen it. Any other ways to improve the article would also be welcome. Thank you very much, if you can. Epbr123 21:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some work on it and put it on my watchlist, and made some suggestions on the FAC page. I'll stay with the article and keep working on it at least until its FA status is determined.--Wehwalt 22:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your excellent review and copy-edit. I'll start work on the improvements you've suggested. I wonder if you could also have a look at Shaw and Crompton‎ sometime. It's also an FAC at the moment. Many thanks. Epbr123 22:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The search facility sucks. When you search on a keyword, it will show the 50 page thread it shows up in, but not the individual post. I'm interested, but not that interested in what they said about you. Kww 17:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wehwalt! Just dropped by to tell you that the Simple Plan is up for deletion again, so if you want a say in the discussion, you better do it now. — Ian Lee (Talk) 21:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expand the lead for Eight Days of Luke then? I guess you're right, what I put is imprecise (although I have seen it described as such). Kweeket 17:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wehwalt. Okay, so I've done a rough draft of the SP logo thing. It's not perfect but it's a start. Anything you want me to do in particular with it? Click. — Ian Lee (Talk) 23:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe post it to the project page?--Wehwalt 13:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did. Just thought you'd like to know as you're kinda like the only other active member. — Ian Lee (Talk) 19:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, hopefully that will change as we get closer to having a CD. Most of these I have seen are horizontal in format (I have a couple on my page). Suggest a similar size.--Wehwalt 19:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that kind of brings a problem. How do I represent Simple Plan in such a small box? If it was a fish Wikiproject, you'd draw a fish. If it was a pencil Wikiproject... well you get my point. Do I just have the "SP"... could I possibly fit the whole "Simple Plan". What would you suggest I do? — Ian Lee (Talk) 20:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the sketch, as a horizontal field, with SIMPLE PLAN at the top and PROJECT at the bottom? --Wehwalt 20:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't exactly sure what you meant... but click?. — Ian Lee (Talk) 21:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd lose the faces entirely. Maybe put a SP, similar to the logo, instead of the faces, but don't put the S on the left and the P on the right, but put them together on the left, then have the words as you have them. I hope I"m being clear.--Wehwalt 21:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Similar to the logo"... do you mean this logo? — Ian Lee (Talk) 21:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, though I don't expect that you can copy it exactly. Just SP is what I meant.--Wehwalt 21:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure but this can't really be copyright violation because they lend out the picture for free so you could use it? No? In any case this one would for sure be the safest. — Ian Lee (Talk) 22:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go with the first one. It looks more professional.--Wehwalt 23:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upload? — Ian Lee (Talk) 00:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, why not? Thanks for your work.--Wehwalt 00:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

--Wehwalt 00:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, on second thought, instead of creating the entire thing, why not use the standard format (see the two on my user page). Put the SP logo on the left, with the standard font text "This user is a member of the Simple Plan project". Shorten it if you have to.--Wehwalt 11:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have something kinda like that click. But if you want it with the real SP logo... well I don't want to get in more copyright buisness. I could send you the cropped version (no background) of the SP logo via e-mail if you insist. — Ian Lee (Talk) 17:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you have done is fine. I've added it to my userpage.--Wehwalt 17:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i am aware of this, Vandal Proof (the software i use to fight vandalism) warned you for some vary odd reason, i believe it has a bug. I apologize for the warning that you did not deserve. I removed the warning directly after i realized the mistake. Happy Editing, Tiptoety 01:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wehwalt,

I heard you had episodes of MTV Damage Control on tape. I am missing like 2 or 3 episodes from season 2. Can you help me out??

Thanks, Curt1s28 12:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that isn't correct. I am big into Simple Plan, but I only watched a few eps of Damage Control and didn't tape them. Pierre is a better singer than game show host!--Wehwalt 12:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work! Rklawton 23:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation of the British monarch has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --RelHistBuff 07:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim 02:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had undone 81.179.100.251's change of the Ireland rating from 16 to 18, along with a lot of vandalism from other anonymous users, after looking at 81.179.100.251's IP location and figuring that it would be unlikely that somebody in New Jersey would know the rating in Ireland. Now I see that you've made the same change; given that you're an established user, I'll let it stand. Perhaps 81.179.100.251 was you?

BTW, while I was editing this page, I also corrected what appeared to be a nesting error in the messages here; most were grouped under two 'Senses Fail' headings. Please fix that if I was incorrect. Wdfarmer 20:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks on the nesting error. But I didn't do anything about the ratings on Borat.--Wehwalt 21:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Your "Revision as of 13:38, November 7, 2007" change was a revert, and that revert changed the rating from 16 to 18. So now I don't know what the correct number should be, 16 or 18. Can you decide? Wdfarmer 02:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

16.[3]--Wehwalt 02:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll change it back to 16. Wdfarmer 02:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; I see that it has already been done. Wdfarmer 02:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thanks for your work on this hotly controversial article. You've done an excellent job for a very long time, you're neutral and objective and diplomatic. Barnstars and all that. Kudos! Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 05:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the account VVehvvalt2 (talk · contribs) belong to you? I was checking the "What links here" list for Natalee Holloway and couldn't decide if this was your sockpuppet or a sad attempt at impersonation. - auburnpilot talk 00:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No relation, I fear. I don't do sockpuppets.--Wehwalt 18:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's not your account, and it is clearly trying to impersonate you (copying your user page and talk page) I've indefinitly blocked the account and deleted the copied pages. - auburnpilot talk 18:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Wehwalt 18:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say precisely ... I was just summarizing the text in the Amigoe article. I think he used a limo service on Aruba, so he would have had multiple chauffeurs, depending on shifts and schedules.Kww (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It just read sort of oddly. I understood that they had free taxi service in Aruba, of course it would be more convenient to use a single company.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free taxis? Where on earth did you hear that? If the Twittys got some kind of free service, it was one of the many things the island did to try to show concern. It certainly isn't standard.Kww (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol! I wrote ambiguously. I meant that "they" to mean the Twittys. The Twittys got free taxi service. I know that that is not a standard amenity! Been there, though I rented a car.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're just being obstinate now. You haven't even tried to justify that edit. You're removing helpful and sourced material; why not try to explain, why? Cheers, DBaba (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should have waited a few minutes for me to reinsert it elsewhere in the article. Cut and paste takes time.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not place the other criticisms chronologically, why only this piece? What makes this particular criticism different from the others in the criticism section?

When I look at the Boston.com ref you've removed completely, I see "When the Clinton administration ordered the boy returned, Republicans milked it for Florida's Hispanic vote." Do you not understand the significance of the Florida vote, or how close the vote was? Are you saying you want additional citation? How about

Nevertheless, the Hispanic vote could play a decisive role. Plaza recalls that Bush won Florida's 25 electoral votes in 2000 by a margin of only 537 votes. On that occasion, Hispanics voted overwhelmingly for Bush after President Bill Clinton antagonized many of these citizens by deciding to send Elián Gonzalez, one of the Cuban "boat people," back to Cuba.[4]

I can't help but get the impression that these recent edits serve only to obscure the most salient points of the issue. DBaba (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, that it is impossible to tell what the effect would have been on the Fla. vote had Elian not been a factor. It is sheer speculation. Republicans get a large majority of the Cuban vote anyway. And, recall, there were many who applauded the Clinton admin actions and probably were more likely to vote Gore as a result. I'm also somewhat suspicious of a source which tallies the Cuban vote so exactly.

As for the other criticisms, there is only one. That one has struck me as a nice summation of things. I'd be willing to see it deleted it it is a major problem.

But I'm reluctant to discuss it further on my talk page. I suggest you make your case on the article's talk page and we'll discuss it with the other editors. I do not feel so strongly about this that I would block consensus, but my reading of what happened the last time there was discussion of putting stuff about the election on the Elian page was that editors did not feel it was appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I do not know much about the case. Andries (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've no issue with you using Myspace under WP:SELFPUB. However, if Wikipedia has added blog.myspace.com to the spam blacklist, you are unable to use it as a citable source, even if it would normally be allowed under SELFPUB. Perhaps there is a procedure by which one can request permission to use a blacklisted link for this particular page? (I'm not aware of such, but there might be.) Chubbles (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is, does the fact that it is on the spam blacklist trump WP:SELFPUB? You think it does, I'm not so sure. The reasons for it being on the spam blacklist have nothing to do with blessthefall. I suggest we leave things status quo and await developments. This is bound to be picked up by another source.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in your opinion as well.Kww (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a note to the closing admin, not from. The closing admin doesn't exist yet, because no one has decided that discussion is complete. Usually takes about a week unless there is a really strong reason to close early.Kww (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Given that it was an admin who posted it, I assumed . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you edit a page, there's a button labeled "preview". You might want to familiarize yourself with its operation.Kww (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Touche.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on The Used's fourth studio CD requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mbisanz (talk) 11:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 17:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wehwalt, I have just noticed that you have been adding succession boxes to UK parliamentray constituencies for sitting prime ministers (which seems to me like a good idea), and also that you have created Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies represented by a sitting Prime Minister.

I'm not so persuaded that the category is a good idea, so I have started a discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies, where I have suggested that a list would be better. Would you like to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Sitting_Prime_Minister_category? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good faith edit we all missed.Kww (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it's true, it could be argued as relevant, since they're his own offspring. The Ty Cobb, Pete Rose and Ted Williams articles, for example, talk about their sons and their attempts to be ballplayers. I expect other father-and-son combinations, such as the Alous, the Smalleys, and others are also discussed. Of course the latter were all major leaguers. The question with Ryan would only be whether there was any public notoriety about it, as I'm sure countless big leaguers have had sons try and fail to follow in their fathers' spiked footsteps. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree that if the best they could do was college baseball, unless there's a lot of notoriety in what they did, we probably shouldn't include it. Of course, it would have to be sourced in any case.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of greater significance, perhaps, is the involvement of father and sons as executives in the now-AAA team, the Round Rock Express. [5] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The team's website confirms the involvement of all three Ryans. [6] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that, I think, is worth mentioning.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:WT.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Warpedtournotice.jpg. The copy called Image:Warpedtournotice.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:WT.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two efforts have been made to discuss the straight-A issue. Perhaps you could reply to one instead of reverting?Kww (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't noticed it. I can't revert anymore, I am at 3RR limit. I was waiting to see if the guy (who has never edited any article but the NH one) reverts for a fourth time in 24 hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, he's retracted his comment. Probably because after we both demanded discussion, he started one, and you reverted anyway. So, how about going to the talk page and explaining your argument?Kww (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I did not notice the comments. Ships that pass in the night, I guess. I have to check I have both the article and the talk page on watch.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did he violate 3RR in deleting that material? In any event, that isn't what I call good faith and I really suspect he is a sockpuppet of Jonaaron. He has only edited this one article, and he has been a member for six months.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did. If I were you, I wouldn't bother, because it's a complicated report (3 reverts to one version, one more to a second one), he'll tire out, and you came right up to the edge, so there's a chance an admin will slap you for edit-warring. Back off for a couple of days, and then edit it back.Kww (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Sp3 final.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to notify you about the image being disputed as fair use, but I see you uploaded it. I personally think this is utterly stupid. The fair use rationale you gave was way above par, and I'll stand by it if it goes for deletion. Fair Use has gone insane. — Ian Lee (Talk) 23:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Natalee Holloway you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Natalee Holloway for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. jackturner3 (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Nhposteraruba.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on 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) 16:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wehwalt, you revered an edit I made with the edit summary "rv pov". The material in that sentence is exactly word for word from a reliable source. Why would you change that? --nyc171 (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is misleading and sensationalist. It is our job to summarize in a npov manner--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:2052.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have beefed up their articles, and we nominated them for GA review. If you have time, please review and comment. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at Grossmith. Any comments on Barrington, or further comments on GG welcome. FYI, I also did Grossmith's son, George Grossmith, Jr.. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go over them with a fine tooth comb. I just glanced at Grossmith, really.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Warped Tour 2006, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warped Tour 2006. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Jmlk17 06:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think that this article should exist?Kww (talk) 01:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nooooo. AfD, say I. Do you want to do it or shall I?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a redirect. Merge being a form of keep and all that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We edit conflicted on me saying the same thing.Kww (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds think alike. Now let's make it stick. Minor offenses my ass.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Natalee Holloway you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Natalee Holloway for things needed to be addressed. Million_Moments (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted a number of edits I made that took me a time to do. In doing so, you reverted bad grammar, unclear statements, and reliable source links. I have reverted you because of that. Perhaps there are some POV issues, but that does not mean you should revert all of the edits made in one fell swoop. I am looking for other sources to balance it, but have not been able to find any. Instead of a quicky revert, please help balance that which you see is an unbalance. Also the Human Rights Watch is a reliable source, so are the lawsuit links. As the policy states there is no time limit, so that which is unbalanced may be balanced in due time. Like I said, I couldn't find anything to counter balance it, as the woman did die because of her actions and views. Thanks for taking this into consideration. The Smoking Nun (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check WP:RS on this. I can hardly think that catdestroyshomes.com is a RS. If there is bad grammar, suggest you correct it in a separate edit from a controversial change. And please don't alter a court's ruling to push a POV. Why don't we discuss on talk page?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can figure out, the reason Weter wasn't extradited was because he got the court to cancel the warrant. If there's a valid warrant, the extradition can't be refused, but if you can get a court to declare the warrant itself invalid, it negates the needs for extradition. What cannot happen is for there to be a valid Aruban warrant and another country in the kingdom refusing the extradition. A subtlety that probably isn't worth explaining in the article.Kww (talk)

I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of Eve Carson or Lauren Burk. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at WP:N/CA. There is a page for comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you should object to to an explanation for why the UK and Republic of Ireland happened to be using the same currency at the time of decimalisation in 1971. The way it was previously worded had misleadingly attributed the parity to Bretton Woods in 1944. The parity goes back long before Bretton Woods. Bretton Woods merely confirmed the status quo as far as the Irish Pound was concerned. Bretton Woods tells us nothing about why the parity was chosen. If I was reading the article and I was curious as to why the UK and Republic of Ireland happened to share a common currency in effect, I would feel that the original version that attributed this parity to Bretton Woods, had told me nothing. 203.177.241.5 (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article really has to do with the transition from lsd to decimal, not the fact that the two currencies were tied to each other. I think it is a little too far off topic, also you should use references. I don't know that you have it right.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are correct that the article is about the transition of pounds, shillings, and pence to decimal in two countries on the 15th February 1971. But the article already stated in passing that the two countries used two separate currencies that were on par as a consequence of the Bretton woods agreement of 1944.

This is not technically correct. The Bretton Woods agreement merely rubber stamped the already existing status quo. So if it is of any interest at all to the readers as to why the two countries of the article just happened to be using currencies at par and just happened to be changing over to decimal on the same day, I thought I'd elaborate a little bit on the background.

I could have put in more details, but just as you say, it would be going off topic.

I think it is at the right level now. It points out that the Republic of Ireland were effectively using Sterling at that time and that their monetry system was totally integrated with that of the UK. Hence the Irish government naturally followed suit with the UK when they decided to convert to decimal currency in 1971.

As for references,look at section 49 in this 1927 act of the Irish parliament. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1927/en/act/pub/0032/index.html

This act explains the technical introduction of the Irish pound in the Irish Free State in 1927 at a time when British Sterling was still the circulating currency. It explains how the new Irish currency is to be redeemable for British legal tender at the London office of the Irish currency commissioners.

The Irish pound was effectively Sterling under a different name until 1979. A similar state of affairs continues today on the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Falkland Islands, St. Helena, Ascension Island, and Gibraltar. These territories also changed to decimal on 15th February 1971 as did Malawi. Malawi was still using the Sterling system at this date even though it had gained independence from the UK in the 1960's. Malawi, in this respect was in an identical situation to the Republic of Ireland although its banking system was not integrated into the UK clearing system as was the Republic of Ireland's.

For your curiosity, Malta, Nigeria and Gambia continued to use the old pounds, shillings and pence even after the UK had converted to decimal. Nigeria was the last to convert in 1973. George Smyth XI (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the territories, while they (now) issue their own coins and banknotes, sterling is a legal tender there, and they have no independent monatery policy. I still think you're going overboard, and you need to put references on the article page, not here. If you have info on how "D-Day" was handled in the colonies, by all means insert it, it would be interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there is very much to it as regards the three colonies of Gibraltar, St. Helena, and the Falkland Islands. In 1971 none of them had their own coins (apart from the odd crown and special issues). They were all using UK coinage and simply converted with the UK. They have all since begun to issue their own varieties of decimal sterling coinage.

Malawi and the Republic of Ireland are both ex-British territories that converted from pounds, shillings, and pence to decimal on the same day as the UK.

The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands began using their own decimal coinage on that same day. The Channel Islands definitely had some pre-decimal coins, but I'm not sure about the Isle of Man. George Smyth XI (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William IV of the United Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Chwech 00:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would have figured it out, but I just thought I'd tell you. Oh, and by the way, why did you resign from WP:SPW? - Poe Joe _{(formerly Ian Lee)} (Talk) 03:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, given that I get a pass now from the band, I feared WP:COI concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the limited discussion, this proposal was marked rejected. It can be resurrected at any time, and may become useful in the future, but for now, just wanted to thank you for your contributions. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for your support re CAMERA thing. I do feel railroaded...I've been quietly editing for some years without confrontation...I join a group which gets infiltrated by Electronic Intifada (sounds pretty militant to me), my private emails and email address gets compromised, interpreted, and I get banned for a year because I supposedly don't get it. There is something I don't get for sure, lol. Anyway thanks for understanding my POV. As you can see you were clearly in the minority, which is to say, alone in your opinion. Great minds are often lonely. All the best to you. Juanita (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Natalee Holloway - nomination started. - auburnpilot talk 00:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. I plan to be online the next few hours to see if there are any early comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have our first comment. My suggestion regarding the lead is to combine the last paragraph with the third, which would look like this. A superficial fix, but meets the 4 paragraph limit. - auburnpilot talk 00:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SOunds reasonable. I'm sorry, I fell asleep.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I signed off just after midnight local, and the comments we received were not too difficult to fix. The only one that still needs to be addressed is the one link from the Dutch police, and I doubt we'll find it hosted anywhere else. - auburnpilot talk 14:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna need some help on those image concerns. Not my area.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left a comment there. I think there is a strong case for several of them, but the book covers have a weak argument. If we had a full section discussing the book, which I don't think we need, there would be a better argument (but we only discuss the books briefly). - auburnpilot talk 20:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What gets me is this is not where I thought the FA criticisms would be. I know the article thoroughly, and I had thought the concerns would come in specific areas. Shows what I know.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's now been 72 hours since Black Kite's comment, the last one that was actually about the content of the article, and we're closing in on 42 hours since JayHenry's. This is not at all what I was expecting. - auburnpilot talk 21:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the paraphrasing so it quotes directly, thanks for pointing this out... it does improve the accuracy. Oboler (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your reply. i don't have a problem with any of your comments, or any of the thoughts which you have indicated. it's good to hacve some feedback. so thanks for your helpful input and replies. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. As long as we respect each other, it is all good.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes seem to have appeased one, but pissed off another. Don't you just love it? - auburnpilot talk 21:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy -- Thanks for your comment w/r/t the Borat revert! I was actually in the middle of further copyedits when my internet went down for a few seconds, so I didn't realize you were editing at the same time. When I looked more closely at my revert I noticed that other things had been changed that also sucked (I'm paraphrasing now for brevity), so I was combing through and restoring individual sentences/paragraphs, etc., in addition to just general proofing. If you like, I can pause for awhile so you can see what I've done so far, and let me know if I'm making changes you're thinking of making, etc. I'll wait to hear -- Sugarbat (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm done. You actually had caught me on an edit conflict, but your changes were close to mine, so I made a couple more and got out. Go to it. I'll look it over again later and make sure everything is smooth and there aren't any howlers. By the way, why do we want the chicken in there? She is good for one sight gag and then is not heard from much.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't really care that much about the chicken, either -- mostly what I'm paying attention to is keeping the overall style intact. Whoever wrote the bulk of what I consider the best version[s] of the article had a nice rhythm going, overall, and I'm going through older versions to see if I can salvage material that looks/feels closest to what I imagine the version had to have been to earn "featured" status. The chicken thing, I think, was more illustrative of the kooky-factor of the characters' movements through scenes, etc., but if it sticks out like a thumb after I've tightened up the rest, I'll yank it. And of course if I do that and people miss the chicken, they'll pop her right back in, as is meet and proper.

I might not finish the whole article tonight because it's so long, but I'll be back over the next 24 hours to tie up loose ends/see what other shenanigans erupt while my back's turned, etc.  :) Sugarbat (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I plead guilty to having written a lot of it! Why not go back and see what it looked like when it was promoted FA or was FA of the day, and use that as your guide?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please tell what is the largest trade union in the United States? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, look it up on Wikipedia? Probably the AFL-CIO, I'd think.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[7] Sometimes decent vocabulary just escapes me... :) —97198 talk 10:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not massively active on en wp but if you need a hand with anything do nudge me & I'll do what I can to help. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Two is better than one, esp with likely sockpuppets involved!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote or comment on the FA nomination of Trial by Jury here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trial by Jury. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will. I saw it was a FAC; the article looks great!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We have now done Thespis (opera) and are near the finish line on Trial by Jury. We have decided to work on Pinafore next. I figure we can do them all before the end of the millennium.  :) -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I will join the project, if you don't mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Good Article reviewer Gary expressed a concern about the article Juno (film) on Talk:Juno (film)/GA1, that a whole lot of information is cited from screenwriter Cody Diablo's blog, which is now defunct. The Internet Archive does not turn out any cache. Please take a look and help me, thanks! Chimeric Glider (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that I chose a case to support a proposed change?? That is lunacy. I saw a good editor, entitled to Wikipedia's gratitude for his edits, being treated as if he were a vandal. I objected. Then someone cited the policies in support of the way he was treated. I was shocked. I could only think they should be embarrassed to realize that their policies had led to this outcome. I still don't understand why they're not. I can understand how the policies could have led an inattentive admin to mistake that user's edits for spam, but I still don't understand how someone could sympathize with that admin's actions after they realize the nature of the edits. I never noticed or cared about these policies until this case came along. I did not decide to say anything about the policies and then choose a case. Rather the policies came to my attention because of the case.

user:jamesfranklingresham's edits were good and I have awarded him a barnstar for them. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read all the discussion, and I still think the user would have been better off with a discussion, at least on Talk:Spam, before beginning his work. As it was, he left himself open under WP:DUCK. As for the barnstar, that and three euro will get you a cup of coffee. If you really want to continue this, can we take it back to the talk page? There are limits to how much I want my user talk page cluttered up.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God, yet another attorney on Wikipedia! ;) Seriously, sorry for missing your reference to the "bad law" adage. That discussion had become such a mess I didn't see it, but obviously a lesson from law school that was right on target. Have a good one and see you around. — Satori Son 21:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam isn't my usual area, that is why, but an article I help maintain, ZIP Code was getting spammed . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to imagine such a lesson having missed the mark worse than this one. If a law requires racial segregation on passenger train cars, and the test case is the black passenger riding in the white car, then Satori and Wehwalt would have said I'd chosen a bad case, since I should have chosen a white guy riding the white car. To me that makes no sense. The case a person considered a "spammer" under the rules of those who say content should be ignored, but whose content was unobjectionable. Why would that be a bad choice? Wehwalt says some people don't find the content unobjectionable, but he, and they, waited a long time to say that; it hadn't yet occurred to them when they claimed I made a poor choice (although of course I didn't make any choice in the matter at all). Michael Hardy (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to go through the factual errors in your statement. But: In your campaign, the facts were against you, the rules were against you, and your style, which skates close to downright offensive, only made things worse. Move on in a constructive manner, please, if you like, but in any event, move on.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I qualify, so long as you really class me as a major contributor.
Kww (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are fourth in the number of edits, behind me, AuburnPilot, and Dystopos, according to [8]. However, given the fact that Dystopos has basically dropped off the face of the earth as far as this article is concerned, I would say that you qualify. To say nothing of extensive participation on talk page, and co-nomination and a lot of work when we went for FA. I'd say shoot for October 21, and if that fails, we wait until next May 30. I'm working on getting William IV of the United Kingdom as TFA on August 21, so I will have experience of the process.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you reinstated the section on the threat incident of 2007. I'm wondering if we should delete it. Such incidents regularly happen, and I don't think we should allow our standard to be whether or not it made the Bergen Record. Just because it is verifiable doesn't make it worth having in the article . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I can understand your concern, but this event was significant enough to trigger broad news coverage, including the source provided. Alansohn (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

???? Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the instructions. We are only allowed to have five nominations on the page. If Dwarf Planet has more points than another nomination, you can replace it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved info from Draka to the The Domination that wasn't there already (per our discussion on the talk page). There wasn't that much actually, both articles are exactly the same. Should I move to delete Draka or would you like to do it? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a redirect.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really thought Draka should have been the survivor, but I don't think it matters.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad. I thought you wanted Domination to be the survivor, but rechecking the talk page I see I was mistaken. But if you don't think it matters, it should be good for now. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey if you are interested I have created an Alternate History WikiProject. I hope to see you there. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done actually for the moment. I just wanted to fix the references section. Good luck. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across a reference to the Times archive here. Have you got a link? It sounds intriguing. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 21:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just go to www.nytimes.com and run a search.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The actual title the article for Life Is Not a Waiting Room has changed multiple times based on various rules and regulations on wiki. My changes to Senses Fail were based on these actions, and not absolutepunk or Buddy. The previous links on the Senses Fail page were redirects, and I changed them to the exact title of the page (which happened to only be the capitalization of "is") the maintain consistency. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Does it matter how they designate it then?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, wikipedia has a seemingly never ending list of standards and rules. Apparently one of these is to capitalize "is" in article titles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Capitalization for more information). I wasn't really involved in the naming of the article, I just felt that other pages shouldn't have to be redirected to get to Life Is Not a Waiting Room. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind telling me when the last time there was an airline flight or terrorist hijacking Featured Article on the main page? [9] -- Veggy (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 30, D.B. Cooper.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... didn't see them as similar, but okay. -- Veggy (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not funny anymore, Wehwalt, no matter how many smilies you attach. Either take my word for it and AGF, or stop lodging the veiled implications/accusations/whatever they are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I have, but you're, again, talking about changing the rules in the middle of the game. That is at least the second time on the William article. I did not say that was not good faith, it may simply be your view of the best interests of WP. Not for me to say. It may all be very well for you to say that you are here as an ordinary editor, but in the month I've been here, I've seen you act in a very unilateral manner, and the removals of Warsaw and Tibet were just the latest. Who says you can remove from the template in the name of "they won't make it"! Well, maybe they will! Maybe they'll get another point from a rookie nominator, and hang on with two! It is very well to say you are here as an ordinary editor but you are not acting that way. You are telling the community, to a considerable extent, which articles it should put forward (your drive for the Fires to be the next on the page for example). If you are an ordinary editor, engage as an ordinary editor. Don't dictate, advocate. Think about the difference. And if you want to write me off for not AGF on that, well, whatever, but that is my honest opinion. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But that's how you're coming across to me. I don't speak for anyone else.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not talking about changing rules in the middle of the game, nor have I ever. Stop making false claims and failing to AGF. You clearly are imputing some motive to my participation there; no matter how many times I answer your veiled accusations and implications, you have continued to fail to respect AGF. If you want Warsaw and Tibet back in the template; put them back, no problem. When the template reaches 60, no one will read it, and there are already multiple 3- and 4-point requests that overtake those two. Please do not again accuse me of false motives; it doesn't sit well from someone who is hanging on to a spot on the page, tooth and nail, preventing other articles from getting one, while I have no interest in any article on the page, now or in the future. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCK. I'm sorry we aren't able to see eye to eye on this. A nominator is allowed to advocate for his article, I believe, and I've made several proposals that would cost William a point, so please watch accusations. I prefer to let people reverse their own edits; it is one way to show good faith. I'll work together with you were it is possible, but I'm also going to voice my disagreements. I hope that you choose to handle it as one editor to another.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree all you want; stay within AGF, period. Any editor who can't do that on Wiki eventually finds themselves in dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about not too veiled accusations. Now I'm starting to get annoyed. With all due respect, Sandy, I'd rather take an uninvolved third party's judgment on that. All I've said here is WP:SPADE. I think a fair reader of this section could figure out which of the two of us is engaging civilly.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I reviewed your GA nom for Jena Six and I think it's GA worthy. I left my notes on the talk page for you, along with stuff to fix before an FA nom. Good luck! Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. Thank you! It will take some work, as I think I'm the last active editor on this article, but I'll start work on it and hopefully recruit someone.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link. 2:40 for the first video. It's confirmed. -- Poe Joe (Talk) 18:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I indicated my support. I'm not sure, but shouldn't the last sentence of the "Mychal Bell proceedings" section be: "He agreed to testify against any of the others who went to trial." I didn't note it in the FAC because it was too insignificant (and again because I was unsure). -- Poe Joe (Talk) 04:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they haven't gone to trial yet! I think "go to trial" is the more natural usage. Thanks for your support!--Wehwalt (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion here. Would you kindly weigh in? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source is given as the author, who originally uploaded it, correct? I'm not sure what other source information they would need. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the situation has been resolved. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... in looking at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Law? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me by only three minutes: took me a while to remove references from the lead paragraph to make it look presentable for TFA requests. I had already removed my request by the time I got your message. Something tells me it will be back in pretty soon. :-) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can't run Islam, as Sandy said, it was TFA last year.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently removed information I had contributed to the Simple Plan article. I realize this information may not support the most popular viewpoint but it was backed up by several reliable sources, so I'm curious why it was removed. You will notice that many bands have several genres listed in their infobox, for instance many grunge bands are also labeled as heavy metal. These labels are often controversial however as long as reliable sources are provided they are not removed. Aurum ore (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are picking and choosing phrases, often referring to SP's early works, in an effort to show they are emo. The overwhelming opinion is that they are pop punk.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also, next time, please put your comments in the simple plan talk page. -- Poe Joe (Talk) 16:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Poe Joe. Given the discussions on genre that have taken place, unilateral changes should not be made re genre. Talk it out. The article will still be here next week. There's time for discussions.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I brought them up here, because Wehwalt was the one who reverted my edit. I didn't realize that there was a specific page for this discussion or else I would have brought it up there first, and for that you have my apologies. Aurum ore (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to do it on the article talk page, where more people are looking and can participate.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused here... what did you mean by "run it up the flagpole" on FAC? I might not have understand clearly, could you clarify what you meant? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant you decided to see if it would get support in a FAC, which unfortunately it didn't. Clearly, you have put a lot of work into it, in a way it is TOO comprehensive. I'd help out myself except I hate the Patriot Act with a passion and would not be the best person to help. However, my comments were all designed to be constructive.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I think I might have taken that the wrong way. I appreciate your constructive criticism :-) Tbsdy lives (talk) 06:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. The three times I've been through FAC (once uncredited), I was really pulling my hair sometimes. It can be a difficult time. It can be hard to stay cool.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC never used to be this hard, and I've managed to get about 6 articles to FA status. Or it could be that I haven't submitted in quite a while... or it could be that I wrote an article on an area I've never looked at before: U.S. law and culture! Anyway, thanks for your kind comments - Tbsdy lives (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for reverting your edit. At first glance I thought you said Sylvia BROWNE, not Sylvia Plath, and I assumed it was vandalism. Glad you ignored me and even sourced it, thanks. :) burnte (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are right, I needed to tighten it up. It's all good.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]