User talk:Wehwalt

Hammer. Nail. Door.

	Wikipedia Reformation
	Glad to know you. Alarbus (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It is good to know you too, and good to have my allusions recognized!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. NB: many miss allusions; pictures help them tag along. Alarbus (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for "amore e studio elucidandae", compare "beginning enlightenment" on my user page", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice! Well, you have to start somewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I just added on top. And brought "He was despised" back a few days ago, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That is really nice. And you saw what Alarbus and I are discussing ... I've been meaning to renovate my user page for some time, it's much too boasty right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

My personal Liberty Bell (see below): top of my talk :) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

More Luther: Aus tiefer Not schrei ich zu dir, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

How well deserved: your latest FA star for a murdered one! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, he was murdered just like a Shakespearean character ... and by an assassin. I like your Liberty Bell.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

My latest Man of Sorrows, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Man of Constant Sorrow -- Dianna (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

For anyone not getting that, they are playing off what my name means in the original German. Perhaps so, but there are joys now and then.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring not to your name but first to the sorrows of others, our sorrows being only the consequence. He was despised, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I changed the dedication to the second to last Man of Sorrows, appr for Good Friday (he doesn't like the colours of the other, not good for the blind, I keep working on it, see Passion on my talk), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer review?

Hi. I see you need a peer review of Assassination of William McKinley. I'm interested in doing it. Would you consider reviewing an article of mine? Smith Act trials of communist party leaders is the article ... it is super interesting. The PR is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Smith Act trials of communist party leaders/archive1. --Noleander (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I missed this buried behind another orange bar. I'll get right on this today.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Siegmund

I thought of the name change from Wehwalt to Siegmund when I nominated this (on the Main page now) and added it to my personal memories, remembering Die Walküre, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

That is where my name comes from, specifically from Hunding's call "Wehwalt! Wehwalt!" near the end of Act II. When I took a tour of the Festspielhaus 20 years ago, I sang it quietly to myself from the stage. And I saw it live in Bayreuth in 1990 and 1996 (when I went in 2005, it was a year without a Ring).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A Ring here, a gem there: are you watching a precious article, seeing the latest dramatic news? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw, thanks to you. How terrible.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

For an uplift look at this gallery: Düsseldorf school of painting including a familiar one, artist on the Main page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

How dismal. :)--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

2401 (hits yesterday for the inspirational people under oppressive conditions), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Passion: He was despised --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Uglow 1992

Uglow 1992 in Matthew Boulton is either an undefined work or a typo for Uglow 2002. Please fix-up as appropriate. I moved it pretty far along. Alarbus (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. Will get on it today.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You also might want to look at Shoenfeld 2001 vs Shoenfeld 1997 in Ashford v Thornton, which I' just peeked at. And I'm seeing two ISBNs for Dyer 1997 in there. Laters, Alarbus (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Dan Leno - FAC

Hi. Ssilvers and I have listed Leno at FAC and we would really appreciate your comments here. Being a frequent visitor to FAC, we would be very interested to hear your thoughts on the article if you have the time. Many thanks! -- Cassianto (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Right now I honestly don't. I have a limited amount of time at home before departing on a month's trip and I'm begrudging time not spent writing. I will at least look over the article, but I can't commit to a review.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey that is fine. Time is very precious I know, so any way you can assist, even if it is simply a quick read, would be very much appreciated. -- Cassianto (talk) 08:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on listing 140 defendants?

Thanks for all the great comments on the Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders article... I'm gradually working my way through them: the article is getting much better. Do you have a moment to comment on a suggestion made at Talk:Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_Party_leaders#More_on_other_trials? Another editor suggested listing all 140+ second-tier defendants in the article, which doesn't seem quite right to me (plus, I dont think any secondary sources list them all). Furthermore they suggest creating 12 new top-level == sections, one for each second-tier trial, which I think would run afoul of the MOS. --Noleander (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think both sound like bad ideas, as you point out. I'll look over there and see what is going on sometime today.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Article that could use your help

The article Shooting of Trayvon Martin I think could use some attention from an experience editor to deal with a various issues. I don't know if you want to get involved in such a heated issue, but I think your expertise could help. Remember (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll look in, but time is in short supply for me right now. I have, however, been biting my tongue on the current AN thread.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

thank you thank you thank you

thanks for your peer review of Smith Act trials of communist party leaders. You said all the things that were bothering me but that I wasn't knowledgeable enough to present clearly as you did. I failed it on its first GA, under its old name but I struggled with my objections. So thanks for pointing out the problems of tone and POV so well, and being so nice about it! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

One tries. You are welcome. It's hard to give criticism around here, you have to be incredibly tactful. But it can be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I heard an author a few days ago on NPR describing his biography of J. Edgar Hoover. (Can't find the book, but it is relatively recent as he described having access to information not previously available.) He said that Hoover was not all that interested in going after the Communist Party - he was much more interested in getting the mob - but did so because Truman put pressure on him. Do you know anything about this? MathewTownsend (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I've never really studied Hoover, I'm afraid. I've mostly seen the political side, in the Nixon articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Zhirinovsky's ass

This is entertaining; makes a nice section header, too. Don't miss the talk page, with 3, count'em, 3 requested move discussions. (noticed this on WP:Great Dismal Swamp. Best, Alarbus (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, made my day! (I found out just yesterday that who did that first here did it the day after my first year. I try to follow the example, you know, also makes a nice section header.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Best wishes, Gerda. Buck 11:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For producing a huge number of excellent articles, most of which I read in detail and enjoyed; sorry I missed a few. Cheers, David — Buck 12:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Neighbours again

I see that once again we are neighbours at FAC, as I have just nominated Carmen alongside the sad McKinley threnody (I assume that the main presidential article has been raised to the Pantheon?). The articles have a common theme: both their main subjects die violently. Anyway, the lady has been much worked on, and you should find her in good fettle, if you care to put your opera hat on for a moment. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It has, making McKinley/Hobart the first elected President/Vice President pair to make it there (Nixon/Ford is also there, but that was not an elected pairing). I will take pleasure in supporting the lady of the tobacco factory.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Smith Act trials PR: second pass

I've finished implementing the suggestions you made at the PR, so I'd like to take you up on your offer to make another pass through the Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders‎ article. The PR is here. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Tomorrow most likely. I don't intend to be productive today.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

McK FA

Congrats! It was fun working with you, and I'm really happy with how the article turned out. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

And to you. It went very well.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Your phenomenal assistance with a complex article, Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders, demonstrated what good encyclopedia writing is all about. Thanks! Noleander (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• I second this. Extremely well deserved. A brilliant peer review! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you both.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a hello

I'm sitting in a coffee shop trying to get my eyesight back after a couple hours of skimming an unindexed newspaper looking for the Amazon bookstore topic I've been working on on and off. It amuses me how much actually digging for sources cuts down my precious edit count. I found a new source article from 1985 but the newspaper was bound in really big volumes and the little library's xerox was too small to copy more than the very bottom of the article. It couldn't reach the middle of the article at all. :-( I might have to go back and hand copy it. (I'd have done it today, but I found it just as the library was closing.)

I'm about ready to call a halt on finding sources for the Mexican comic book article and start reading. Not really sure what I'll find since I haven't read any of them before. Cloveapple (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering what had happened to you, Cloveapple! Yes, I've had similar newspaper experiences Read, and see where you are. Check bibliographies.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I (usually) can't edit from work so my editing time is sometimes limited and that dratted real life thing was also taking up my time. I might be working some overnight shifts in the near future. Ironicly that will give me more time to read or edit. I'll be sure to check the bibliographies as I read. Cloveapple (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If there's anything on JSTOR, I can email it to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind offer. I'm lucky in that I can access JSTOR and ProQuest through my local public library. If you ever need anything on ProQuest let me know.

I'm working the overnight shift tonight and tomorrow so I'm hoping to get some solid reading time in. (Amusingly, my boss pointed out to me that I could do wiki work on the nightshift. We just had somebody quit so I think he was hoping that would entice me to pick up some nights. Other people he offers cheesecake. What does it say about you when your employer offers editing time as an incentive?! :-D ) I'm starting a sandbox listing the sources I have so far and the potential sources suggested by bibliographies. I've made the decision to just use English sources as my Spanish is rusty enough to make long reading a difficult chore. Cloveapple (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Reference desk

Please see the message I have posted on the Ref desk talk page regarding one of your responses: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Copyright_on_coins. --Tango (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Reference question

Hi Wehwalt, at the Rosenberg FAC Nick-D and Brianboulton asked about the citation style I used in the Notes section (using the harvnb instead of the sfn). Alarbus told me to do it that way, but I can't recall why. Do you know what the merits of that approach are? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I've emailed you.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation! Mark Arsten (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And indeed things got uglier

Hello, Wehwalt. I tried to say hi to Alarbus and noticed that he was blocked. What happened? --Lecen (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably it is best that I email you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It must have been really bad. Please, send the e-mail. --Lecen (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This is something I don't understand. Why get rid of a productive, helpful editor, when there's so many that do nothing but post on the pages of others? Is there no hope? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

He put this up as a sign of hope, also see Hammer. Nail. Door.. (Also see in his user's history that he retired as this user, there was no need to make the page ugly, if you ask me, it shows our readers too well what a caring group we are.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a question of powers being.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I would also be very interested in the back-story here if it wouldn't be too much of an imposition to forward that email along to my account as well. While I am a bit familiar with a few of the current elements involved, I suspect there's a great deal of history that I'm woefully unaware of. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  13:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Charts

Do you know where I could ask for help formatting a chart? I looked at graphics lab, but it seemed more about images. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No, never had one made.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll try the village pump. I'm trying to work List of Presidents of the United States up to FL, but my chart/table skills are limited. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Coemgenus, I recommend you to ask User:RexxS. Regards.--GoP_T^CN 11:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, GreatOrangePumpkin, I'll leave him a note. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

IP protection

I have an IP who is reverting perfectly well-sourced material on Cambodia, now doing so without so much as an argument. Can you semi-protect it for me? or is it possible for me to do without admin privileges?
~ Iloveandrea (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. 600,000 is too high, and Hitchens is not a statistician. What is the reason to include that piece of information?--GoP_T^CN 13:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No claim is made, neither by Hitchens nor by me, that the 600,000+ estimates are his. The 600,000 is not Hitchens' estimate, and I linked to the page of the book, so anyone can read and immediately verify. I'm more than happy to remove any perceived ambiguity from the language the article uses if that is what you recommend. But I think this is beside the point: I repeat my argument, made on the talk page, about Wikipedia editors precluding readers forming their own judgment on such matters by removing acceptably-sourced material. If you want to put in a source that criticises the high estimates, you're welcome to, of course. As it is, I reiterate my talk-page point, that the higher estimates should be allowed to see daylight. The Kiernan-Owen source states that the lower estimates, the only ones that were previously mentioned in the article, are too low. Including higher ones seems fair enough; though, as I said, do add a source that is critical of the higher estimates if you wish.
~ Iloveandrea (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I feel like there is a content issue that needs to be worked out by those more knowledgeable in the subject area than me.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel Fauré again

Sorry about this, but I've put Gabriel Fauré up for a second peer review, but am now more or less Wiki-less until 12 April as I'm about to be away in the countryside at the ancestral shack, where broadband has yet to penetrate. If, despite my abandoning my post, you could find time and disposition to look at the much-expanded article and add such comments as occur to you, I'd be most grateful. There is, as I need hardly say, no rush whatever. – Tim riley (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Nixon

Was just about to revert myself before you did, I agree, there's plenty of info in the article the link isn't needed. --WGFinley (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a big deal, it just seems kind of silly, and may strike the informed reader as odd.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Assassination

Hi,

Looks like you've got your three supports. (I saved the assassination picture - could have used it last week - on the assumption the Assassination of William McKinley would be coming along for Featured content this week!) Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

We shall see, but thanks for holding it back. Thanks for your work on the article, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I know you're superstitious! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Paranoid, I think the word is!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I Almost Forgot...

In regards to this and this - please don't. Please do not again dismiss me as a "tormenter" or someone that needs to have some "editing to do". Don't make me... dig. Because I will. Cheers... Doc talk 09:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Dig away. I have nothing to hide. My identity is available from a google search and I can't think what else you could dig about. With respect to Jack, it's pretty much all out there. Make of it what you will.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Your identity? Like your RL identity?! You've definitely got me all wrong, methinks... Doc talk

Well, what do you propose to dig about?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Just don't think I'm one to be dismissed so easily. I'm here to protect and improve the wiki, and that's the deal with me. Doc talk 10:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As you wish.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever seen The Princess Bride? A classic, and a classic quote... Doc talk 10:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think the father line in Return of the Jedi far superior.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I... think you mean The Empire Strikes Back, right? Speaking of "space operas", I prefer Spaceballs: "I'm a mog: half man, half dog. I'm my own best friend!" Doc talk 11:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah so, they all run together in my mind. Concur on Spaceballs, utter classic. Possibly Mel Brooks's best, "comb the desert".--Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)