User talk:Wehwalt

Welcome!

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

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

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

Re: Natalee Holloway

What common terms am I overlinking? It would be easier to fix the problem if you'd be more specific. Treybien 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, like murder. Also, that Tabloid TV edit was illconsidered. We probably should have linked to tabloid television, to avoid the redirect.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Juno

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

TFA

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

There's always next year. And there had been two other Royal Navy articles close in time to Royal Oak, this is at least a different navy.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Next year is the two hundredth anniversary of the War of the Fifth Coalition. — BillC ^talk 13:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Hey. Your name has been mentioned at WP:COIN#Simple Plan. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Wehwalt. See my recent edit summary on that page, which concerns one of your comments. Just wanted you to be aware. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Great job getting the Jena Six article up to FA standards. Your hard work is appreciated. Remember (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Replacing TFAR

I have no problem with your replacement, but I wish you would have included "Tyrone Wheatley" in your edit summary so I could figure what happened without taking ten minutes to find the diff.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the 60 day window is for things just like this. If I want to nominate these three bios in good faith, I obviously am not suppose to try to slip them in later after getting the first one approved. I notified everyone of my intent and understand clearly that Wheatley is a lower priority than the others. I scanned the diffs quickly and saw this and assumed you did. Apologies. I will have to take some more time with the diffs to see what happened. I saw the second oppose and have no problems with it however given my future intentions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather see you act above board, then some of the nominations we've seen recently which have not engaged on the template. I think you would have been better advised by waiting a couple of days until Augustus had had its day in the sun. I think that ticked off one or two people. I know that there were only a few days, but it would have looked better. Look, the Holloway article (in which I played a role) could have been nominated right after Jena Six was scheduled, but it would have looked bad. Instead, AuburnPilot, Kww, and myself are discussing the points, whether it should be run on her birthday, etc while letting other articles have that slot. There's no need to rush onto the nominations page, it just makes you a target for longer.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Number signs

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

Simple Plan

Just thought I'd let you know that the COI we were involved in is officially closed. I think we've both spent a lot of time and energy at the Simple Plan article these past couple of weeks and nothing constructive has come of it yet. I honestly feel that magazine reviews are reliable sources, and apparently you don't, which is fine. I could give a bunch of examples to support my view, and I'm sure you could too. The fact is we just don't agree on the matter, and that's cool. There's probably lots of evidence to support both our views. Since this is something we both feel pretty strongly about, I'm not sure how likely we are to reach an agreement. However, if you feel that you'd like to work toward one, then I'd be willing to try. Otherwise, I'll look for other projects to apply my energy to for now. Aurum ore (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

First, Talk:Simple Plan. Second, you're going in circles. Reviews aren't sources. -- Poe Joe (talk) 07:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Reviews are used as soueces on some articles. User Jac16888 said at the talk page that he thought the RS reference was worth including, however this isn't the place to discuss that. Right now I'm just asking whether you guys want to go on with the discussion. If not, that's fine, we can all focus on other projects. Aurum ore (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I see little likelihood that any of us would change our positions on this. Having taken three articles to FA with the help of other editors, I might know something about reliable sources by now. Any further discussion should be at Talk:Simple Plan, as Poe Joe notes, and I see no need for it. Especially since you don't seem to "get" WP:UNDUE.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

TFA/R categories

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

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

Natalee Holloway

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

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

All is for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds

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

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

Holloway

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

Review request

Thank you for your offer. If you can find time, could you look at Carsten Borchgrevink, currently a GAN, and perhaps do the GA review? Brianboulton (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will get to it within 48 hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lastnatalee.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lastnatalee.jpg, has been listed at 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. Ilse@ 12:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway

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

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

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

"The Aruban prosecutor's office reopened the case on February 1, 2008, after receiving video footage of Joran van der Sloot, under the influence of marijuana, making statements that Holloway died on the morning of May 30, 2005, and that her body was disposed." Doesn't make sense to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well then can you think of another way to resolve the issue of a preposition at the end of the sentence? Artichoker[talk] 02:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Never mind, it seems to be fixed. Artichoker[talk] 02:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

MOSDATE confusion

In case I forget to follow up with Tony, you might want to watch: [1] I think they really goofed that page, and it makes no sense to me at all now. They fiddle those MoS pages so often, one never knows what surprises await. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, Tony answered, and so after another MoS war, the upshot is that your dates are fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Slept through the war! Thanks Sandy.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Speer pronunciation

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

Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#November_15

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

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

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:Straylightpoughkeepsie.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Straylightpoughkeepsie.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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

Natalee Holloway, white slavery confession

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

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

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

Here is the diff: [2]. For one thing, "van der sloot give"? You also imply the interview took place on 11/25, when even Greta said it took place in July. All I did is clean up what you wrote, and made it mesh with the rest of the paragraph. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it."--Wehwalt (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Jogged my memory

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

Heh heh, watched. If only people would put all that effort and imagination into constructive things ...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

They all have easy to recognize topics (Mumia Abu-Jamal, Avatar Airbender, Xena stuff ...), so I've started to recognize them ... what a waste of time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

New delete Petar_Brzica article nomination

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

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

Talk

Would you mind joining the talk page at Rachel Corrie to explain why you deleted the external links posted by another editor there? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 15:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA

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

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

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

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

I've nominated you: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wehwalt. You need to follow the instructions at: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate#What to do if you are nominated by someone else. Good luck! My RfA was pretty rough, but I think you may have an easier time of it. DrKiernan (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Don't worry, General Custer, there's only a few Indians out there." :)--Wehwalt (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

My RFA question

Sorry if my FRA question is a bit heavy...it's the question's first public appearance so it may be a bit rough around the edges. :) Please take your time, it's rather open-ended. It truly is optional, though, and I won't hold it against your candidacy if you decline. Also, if I've written something unclear, don't hesitate to ask me about it... — Scientizzle 01:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it is cool. I was tired, just off an eight hour flight and hadn't slept well the previous two nights, and now I'm up at 2:30 a.m. which just goes to show, I guess. It's a fair question and I hope I've answered it comprehensively.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

HC Slovan Ústí nad Labem

Hello. Can you move HC Slovan Ústí nad Labem to HC Slovan Ústečtí Lvi please. This club was renamed. I can't find a page, where I can request a similar request. --VoletyVole (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried using the move tab on your browser? That is probably the simplest way of doing it. It is between "history" and "watch". I'll do it for you if you like, but once you learn, you'll know how.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't any "move tab" between "history and watch", and I don't know what you talk about. I am new here. Please can you do it for me. Maybe, I can learn later, and then I will know how. I have read these pages about "move"/moving pages, but I still don't understand I cannot move pages. --VoletyVole (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I am sorry for bothering you (specifically), it is nothing personal. I would like to ask everyone, but there are so many pages for these requets. --VoletyVole (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it got done. If it wasn't you who did it, and you still need to learn how, let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It is fine. Now I have a "move" button on the browser. It was not on the browser previously. Strange. --VoletyVole (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lichtdom.jpg)

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

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

Full confidence in you

I hardly ever a "Support" in a RFA, however I had have full and total confidence in you. Your Albert Speer article is the best I have seen on Wikipedia. I hope you let me know if there is a best way I can help you maintain it. (I tend to react more strongly than you do to some of the changes made to it!) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 06:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Especially with me up for RfA, I don't dare be seen to violate 3RR, can you look at the edits made and the discussion on the talk page about them? I'm really talking about Naur's edits to the Fuhrerbunker talk with Hitler and about the final paragraph in the Spandau section. Thanks for the praise. It is really nice of you.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Tomorrow, as I am over the hill now. Also, one strategy might be to let some of them go for a while, til the article's profile decreases from the main page exposure, then, in stages revert. I looked at some of the arguments on the talk page, and it will wear you out if you try to deal rationally with all of them, as they will keep coming. Sometimes, the more reasonable you are, the less rational those editors become! (In the end, I am determined that the article's integrity with be restored.) —Mattisse (Talk) 07:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I know, but you want to keep it as intact as possible for its day in the sun . . . still, that is sound advice. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

User name

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed deletion of The Priest and the Matador

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Priest and the Matador, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non notable song, per WP:SONG

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

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

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

Pending

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

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

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

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

Adminship

Congratulations, you are now an administrator! Your request for adminship had the support of a large majority of editors who commented, but there was some opposition, which I suggest you look through and consider whether you need to deal with any of the points raised. Now is the time to visit the Wikipedia:New admin school and, if you haven't already, to look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 11:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. I will look through the materials before making use of the tools and consider well the points raised against me.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well deserved. Good Luck to you. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, indeed! You clearly deserve this honour! Ecoleetage (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your support at the RfA!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!

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

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

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

Thanks, and thanks for your support and defense of me. We're having a wild party in the sandbox, you're invited! By the way, do you have a link to take me in the direction of those scripts?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Many congratulations on your promotion. --John (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and I appreciate the thoughtful edits you've made.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. While my stance was to oppose your request, I will still congratulate you on earning the tools. Best of luck and merry Christmas. Malinaccier P. (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it and thank you. A Happy New Year as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Congrats! As for those admin scripts, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts#Administrative. There's also User:Voice of All/UsefulJS and a few scattered scripts from other users that I keep in my monobook.js (CSD Autoreason, protection drop down, AfD closer). If you ever have any questions, you know my talk page and email are always open. - auburnpilot talk 14:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, AuburnPilot, you've been a rock through all of this. My delight is only tempered by all the drama of the process. However, that's in the past. "So if you made it/Just be glad that you did and stay there/If you ever feel loved or needed/Remember you're one of the lucky ones." Straylight Run, "The Perfect Ending".--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I was certainly happy to help where I could. As I said previously, that was one of the craziest RfAs I've had on my watchlist in quite some time. - auburnpilot talk 15:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Wonderful congratulations! Now I can contact you again without fear of derailing your admin process. I'm so sorry about that and so very glad that a misconceived interpretation did not cause fatal harm. Carry on with your wonderful articles and presence! (And Albert Speer made it TFA through, relatively intact, no?) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That would have been the silliest part of the process if not for the allegation that I could send disease through the internet. Yeah, Speer made it fine. And I've been repairing any problematic edits as you had suggested. Thanks for everything. You know you are now number 2 in edit count on the article, right?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't know. But there is nothing of which I could be more proud. I learned a lot seeing how you dealt with maintaining impartiality despite others attempt to do otherwise. And how to deal with outlandish suggestions gracefully. (Not that I am always able to accomplish that myself.) —Mattisse (Talk) 15:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise. Check out this link.[3] and of course select "en.wikipedia" and "Albert Speer".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Belated note

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

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

• co-editor--->. - auburnpilot talk 15:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

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

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

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

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

Of minor importance

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

Rachel Corrie

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

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

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

Simple Plan crystal singles

Two of the editors you have been having problems with, VANESSALOPEZ and MaxPerry, are listed in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MaxPerry. I don't follow the Simple Plan stuff. If you are having similar problems with other editors, you might want to look at their edit histories and see if they should be added.—Kww(talk) 23:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)