User talk:Wehwalt

Rachel Corrie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marvelous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair use rationale for File:1610c.jpg

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

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

TFAR date

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

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

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

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

Rfa/Suntag

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

Rollback

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

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

Thanks

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

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

Happy New Year!

A cat to ease all of your troubles		Happy New Year!
		Hey there, Wehwalt! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;) Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh. Best wishes, neuro(talk) 01:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Roux's rfa

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

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

Prods

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dune Skateboards

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

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

Rudolf Wolters

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYK for Rudolf Wolters

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

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

Oliver Lundquist

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

DYK for Oliver Lincoln Lundquist

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

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

Deletion of Ethics in small scale societies

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

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

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

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

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

Seth Sabal

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

Speer

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block note

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

That vandal from the other night

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

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

Rudolf Wolters

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

Stale complaint

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

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

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

indef block of IP?

Hi, I noticed that you'd indefinitely blocked contributions. I think that might have been an error on your part, since IPs generally aren't indef. blocked except in exceptional circumstances, so I'm letting you know. Thanks for all your hard work! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Kanonkas RFA

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

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

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

Wiki Unbais Editor

Dear Wehwalt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LOL,ROF, coughing

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

Subtle barnstar of good humor

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

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

DYK for Woodes Rogers

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

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

Unlock, please

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stone-cold sobering

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

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

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

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

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

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

curious edit

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

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

the new Rachel Corrie

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

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

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

Woodes Rogers

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

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

Woodes Rogers ⋅

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kanonkas

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Itsmejudith

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

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