Given your userpage header, you may be eligible for the WP:FOUR award.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 16:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 00:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have a few moments to spare from the dark side of Nixon and his dog, or just fancy a break from them, would you care to comment on the peer review page for Clements Markham? The article is pretty much my work alone, and is in need of some outside assessment. So I'd be grateful. Brianboulton ( talk) 11:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
That Ledbetter Supreme Court thing seems like it might be up your alley. Would you mind taking a stab at correcting that yourself?
Thanks for your Markham comments, which I am acting on. It's been a while since I did a GA review, but I'll certainly give the Checkers speech a go, within the next day or two, if someone doesn't pick it up first. I'll be very interested to see what you make of my distant forbear Matthew Boulton, when the time comes. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
This edit you made was very poor form. Not only are you unduly highlighting a lower end estimate that Morris himself revises in a later work, ignoring the talk page discussions on this issue, and failing to keep up to date with the new sources which put the matter to rest, but you also did not even bother to inform me or anyone else editing Lydda Death March as to what you have unilaterally decided to do. Please self-revert and explain youself on the discussion page for DYK, where I have riased the issue. Thanks. Tiamut talk 13:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thx Victuallers ( talk) 15:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It is screwed up now. Can you revert your edit? — Mattisse ( Talk) 00:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hy Wehwalt. I found the checkers speech article and had a look at it. Excellent work - but it seems like the only secondary sources used are about, or by, Nixon. Now that makes sense, of course, given that he made the speech, but as an MA history student who's done several essays in the area of Nixon (anti-communism mainly!) I've seen more sources that not only mention the speech, but examine it in quite some detail. As luck would have it, I can't remember any of them this morning, but I'm off to the Uni library today and I'll look some up. I apologize for the slightly rambling message, but I guess to sum it up, it would be - I think you need some more secondary sources in the article. Cheers, Skinny87 ( talk) 08:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 04:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Somehow, in constructing my FA userboxes, they ended up on your page; I have not a clue how to remove them and put them on mine. Do you know how? Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 04:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 08:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, both are in the public domain. Screen captures are derivatives of the original work; hence, they inherit the copyright—public domain due to no copyright notice, in this case. I have tidied up the information on both images and added a tag to recommend their move to Commons. Jappalang ( talk) 01:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting me in my recent RfA, which unfortunately did not pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, - down load ׀ sign! 03:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC) | ![]() |
Royal broil 14:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you semi-protected Borat several months ago. Would you consider lifting the semi to see if the spamming problem is gone now?-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 09:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Did you mean "agarot"? :) -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Louis Van Zelst at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Smallman12q (
talk)
16:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have invited comments for this file at commons:Commons talk:PD files#File:Nixon while in US Congress.jpg. Jappalang ( talk) 08:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
For your findings of fact, proposals, etc, you need to title your headers. They currently all read "Template". لenna vecia 13:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know - Ive placed Tropical cyclone up but i do not have any time to make up a blurb before the weekend Jason Rees ( talk) 20:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Larry King said tonight that Nixon was just not likable as a person, but that he was very aware of manipulating the press. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 17:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
United States Senate election in California, 1950 at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
AdmiralKolchak (
talk)
00:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, it is kind of hard to explain the issue with the signature
I hope that is a clear explanation of my thoughts. Jappalang ( talk) 09:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not germane to anything but they are called
Agorot and not Arogot. Arugot are flowerbeds :)
Warm regards,
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk
11:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Jamie ☆ S93 18:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 12:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I've replied in the DYK nom
Chzz ► 21:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I uploaded it did I? I thought I scanned it and sent it to you or possibly someone else. I'll try and find someone with an art quality scanner. Fainites barley scribs 14:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my
"RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (
Ceoil,
Noroton and
Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read
Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
![]() |
You added a reference named "melvyn" to United States Senate election in California, 1950 without an actual reference; it's causing an error message in the reference section. Ntsimp ( talk) 21:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
-- PFHLai ( talk) 05:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Is there a list laying around that details the points awarded for this, that, and the other in regards to TFA requests?
Cheers-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Quick Question - is their something in the rules of TFA that says the picture must be in the article nominated or can it be any image associated with the article? Thanks Jason Rees ( talk) 23:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 02:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It looks like you blocked me a while back [1], which is why YellowMonkey left you a talk page note. You should have blocked User:Keegaṇ. The point was to illustrate the subtleties of usernames and imitation. No worries, I laughed a little, it's not the first time [2]. Happy editing to you. Keegan talk 06:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt , I could not understand what you ment in the comment you made for this DYK nomination? Thank you-- Mbz1 ( talk) 23:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I just saw Checkers speech was promoted to FA! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Giants27 15:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey. You put this article on hold about a month ago. Doesn't look like anything's happened with it since, so you might as well fail it. Wizardman 15:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Giants27 09:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Mifter ( talk) 23:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Wehwalt, being familiar with the Holloway case, do you have time to review the merge/notability issues raised at Talk:Esperanza Fire#Merge Opinion? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 09:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:2052.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. ww2censor ( talk) 00:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Wehwalt, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I removed the speedy deletion tag from Natalee Holloway (film)- because: While the plot is a copyvio, the rest of the content is ok, so I just removed the plot Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions, please let me know. decltype ( talk) 13:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and support throughout the process. I've got my seatbelt fastened. User:Shoemaker's Holiday has "retired" from Wikipedia, although I think he'll be back someday. In the meanwhile, he won't be able to help. We'll see how it goes. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
You locked {{ Infobox MLB player}} back in January. I think it's time to unlock it or at least change the protection settings to semi-protection. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 21:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Per a request at RFPP, I've re-protected it as it is a high-risk template as it is used on over 7,500 pages. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 19:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I left a question for you on the requests talk page. -- RelHistBuff ( talk) 09:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought O 77 and 78 were pretty good. :) Enigma msg 05:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Apologies I did not get to this, but I did close a related one. Cirt ( talk) 23:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you using English spelling? The guy is English but I detect some American spelling. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 00:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 02:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
What books are you reading? I looked around that there really aren't that many on Khrushchev. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 18:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Roy Aleksandrovich Medvedev. Then there seems to be a book by Taubman, a book by his son Sergei, and two volumes of his memoirs. I have them all on order, used of course.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
If you have so many banstars then you should Know that it is correct to throughly check all references to any artical or section of article.
I see that you must not have checked out the ref I cited of real video footage of a speech By Obama addressing his Racial profile.
here is the ref again "Barack Obama, Obama Speech: 'A More Perfect Union', time In video when quot said 3min52sec to 3min59sec. Youtube posting of CNN video footage, March 18, 2008 located at web address http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU." so my advice is read it, watch it, know it, learn it and think about a citation before you ever revert a cited article/section again-- Antiedman ( talk) 12:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Check references first before reverting
If you have so many banstars then you should Know that it is correct to throughly check all references to any artical or section of article.
I see that you must not have checked out the ref I cited of real video footage of a speech By Obama addressing his Racial profile.
here is the ref again "Barack Obama, Obama Speech: 'A More Perfect Union', time In video when quot said 3min52sec to 3min59sec. Youtube posting of CNN video footage, March 18, 2008 located at web address http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU." so my advice is read it, watch it, know it, learn it and think about a citation before you ever revert a cited article/section again--- Antiedman ( talk) 12:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It's been promoted. Thanks for all your help! Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. I don't think that my contributions have been so great as to count me out of the vote. The rejigging of the intro is much better. I'm on a semi-colon blitz. I hate them!
Amandajm ( talk) 13:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I know, but I'm not sure how to deal with your point. If I was ever taught the exact proper use, that knowledge is long gone, and I'd like a few more eyes on that point. I hope you'll support but in addition raise the issue.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Packaging is everything, so I decided to call this bit of canvassing "not canvassing". Wehwalt, you and a couple of others are the ones most likely to disagree with my 5 points at Wikipedia_talk:Rfa#Comment by Damian ... so this is an invitation to come do your worst. Or shock me by supporting, either way :) - Dank ( push to talk) 17:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The Powerhouse has a superb collection of model steam engines. I could play with them all day. However, because the building os an old powerstation, there is plenty of room for a large display of big engines. Most of them are in working order. One of the most interesting parts of the display are six small industrial engines all together in a group, and of extreme diversity, yet using the same basic principal. The oldest one was left abandoned at the top of a gold mine shaft, was completely grown-over by a blackberry bush, and not discovered until a fire went through the paddock.
These guys, Boulton, Watt, Wedgwood and co, along with Joseph Banks and others, were part of the movement to abolish the slave trade. Wedgwood produced a series of little medallions (very small) which were sold to promote their ideas. They show a tiny kneeling figure of a slave in chains. At least one that I have seen is in one of Boulton's settings.
Another interesting point is that many of these well-known industrialists and engineers had no university training. They were inelligible, being chapel-men rather than church-men. The Courtaulds and their Taylor associates (who installed the steam engines in the Courtauld factories) were in the same boat. Amandajm ( talk) 02:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
As you may be aware, the peer review process is struggling at the moment, as more articles are being nominated without a concomitant increase in reviewers. At present the process is over-reliant on the goodwill of a tiny number of editors (notably Ruhrfisch and Finetooth); articles are sometimes waiting many days for review, and often have to be dealt with rather hurriedly. As someone with a great deal of article-building experience, your help in reducing the backlog and keeping the process moving would be much appreciated. Would it be possible for you to commit to doing, say, one peer review a week? If you and a few others would do this on a more or less regular basis, it would make a significant difference (and you can always avoid my articles, which tend to be a bit long). Brianboulton ( talk) 10:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
How about reviewing this for Good article - Morse v. Frederick - Supreme Court free speech case? Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 18:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the IP is actually Shoemaker. I think the IP address is the library he uses that has the Rollins and Witts book. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 13:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I am so sorry that I got overwhelmed with improving the article to meet your standards, but I sincerely appreciate your assistance and suggestions, and I am sorry if I wasted your time. I have created both featured articles and lists, but I will think twice about trying to get an article I am not a primary author of to GA or FA status. Mostly, I found this article overwhelming because I do not have a background with law or court cases. Regardless, this was a learning experience. Keep up the great work, and we'll see if any one else tries to improve the article in the near future. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 00:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
That glass of wine. All done! Congratulations! Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 22:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there.
I was skimming the reliable sources noticeboard (for my sins), and noticed you mentioning that one of the problems you've found with Liberty Bell is the lack of "serious" sources on the topic. If you're interested in tracking down a copy, I seem to recall there's some decent material, on both the bell and its myths, in Peter de Bolla's Fourth of July: and the founding of America, published a couple of years back. Shimgray | talk | 20:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, let me know where that shuffleboard thing is, I've been meaning to learn how to do that. I think I threw out my shoulder on that last round of horse shoes ... lol. ;) — Ched : ? 23:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Not at all. I replied on his, and we kept it in a section. Give him credit ... he's pissed as all hell, he feels like his entire country is being deemed inconsequential, but he's staying polite.— Kww( talk) 00:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I've replied to your valedictory comment at the BN. No reply required; I'm just letting you know to make sure you spot it amidst the confusion. Cheers — Dan | talk 21:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Wehwalt, thanks for your input at WP:BN. Your points were strong. AdjustShift ( talk) 22:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Wehwalt, thanks for the breath of fresh air. I am just a little sensitive about comments from that person, but now I realize I was just being baited. So thank you for for stepping in. This is why I would be no good at politics. Thanks! (Back to Moscow.) — Mattisse ( Talk) 20:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to waste time on the FA of the day suggestion page. I missed that Alzheimer's had been run already. I was hoping purely out of self interest that a health related FA would run on that date as I am doing an outreach presentation for health educators that day. Thought it was worth a shot. I got practice editing at least =-). Jennifer Riggs ( talk) 02:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can see from the history, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development has seen neither vandalism nor edit-warring. What's the rationale for protection? Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 00:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I largely agree with you on point 5, but think some sort of group is needed to facilitate this sort of thing at arms length from ArbCom, in order to address the concerns people have about scope creep. I have a proposal here that I think addresses all objections, and your input (pro or contra) would be valuable. → ROUX ₪ 16:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
...for your recent comment and suggestion on my talkpage. I regret that my wording touched off such a large-scale reaction, but I appreciate your efforts to see both sides of the issue. I believe that the situation has been resolved and look forward making more...useful...contributions in the future. Doc Tropics 18:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone moved Yarlung Tsangpo River (which I created) to Yalu Tsangpo River, Yarlung Tsangpo Canyon to Yalu Tsangpo River, Talk:Yarlung Tsangpo Canyon to Talk:Yalu Tsangpo Canyon and Talk:Yarlung Tsangpo River to Talk:Yalu Tsangpo River. I did some referencing for both articles and there is no justification for changing the name. This was already done once and moved back. (See Talk:Yalu Tsangpo River.) Wikicommons uses Yarlung_Zangbo. The change is not the preferred spelling. This may be one of those ethnic spelling issues. This is an apparently new user who did not discuss on the article talk page. How to handle? Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 19:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you remove your well-intentioned comment from Giano's talk page? I believe it will have the opposite effect of what you intend. Jehochman Talk 20:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Mmm - Milk! | |
A tall, cool glass of milk just for you! Milk somehow promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a glass of milk, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Enjoy!
|
Mmmm. Jehochman Talk 21:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Can you point me to the prior consensus discussion about including this sub-section? If there's already a community consensus on this issue that seems reasonable, it doesn't need to be re-addressed. Djma12 ( talk) 16:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the DYK, do NOT discuss it at Talk:Barack Obama. There is so much fighting there that even ArbCom had to get involved. Please honor my request. The DYK can be discussed by the normal DYK people, who are calmer and are DYK experts. User F203 ( talk) 23:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Although I normally ask first, I've removed your comments from the talk page and ask that you leave it off. Look at that talk page and you will see extremism and fighting. If you or other DYK editors think it is a bad hook, that process is ok with me. I just don't want Obama extremists (extremists on either side) to infect and poison DYK. User F203 ( talk) 23:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec x 2 on my own talk page yet):Why not take it to the DYK talk page first then and get reaction?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
If you oppose that the article exists, let me know and nominate it for AFD. I will not get mad. The same thing goes with the Gaza articles. I have read about extremists hounding other editors. I do not want to be hounded so I do not edit Gaza or related articles. User F203 ( talk) 23:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Solution: I will nominate the article for AFD. If the DYK people hate the DYK and/or the AFD people kill it, it's ok with me. User F203 ( talk) 23:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
See, an editor with an agressive sounding name "KingofBattle" is already fighting in Talk:Barack Obama even after 10 minutes. Please work with me and don't let the infection begin! Please. User F203 ( talk) 23:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
User:QueenofBattle has persisted in putting your comments back in order to create a huge fight (canvassing fight). You kindly said you're sorry. Please block him if Queen persists in putting the comments back. In the mean time, I have entered an AFD to address your merger concerns. User F203 ( talk) 23:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Block is no longer necessary. I was afraid that Queen of Battle would live up to her name and battle. Her Royal Highness seemed to be on a revert edit war.
My predictions are correct. There have been edit conflicts and controversy that do not exist in Wikipedia except in Gaza articles and Barack Obama. I no longer care if the article is deleted because I have written down the addresses of the buildings and can visit them myself if ever in Honolulu.
Thank you for your kind demeanor. Others are more agressive and less welcoming. User F203 ( talk) 23:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Flame Barnstar | |
Thanks for your calm and deliberate actions, combined with a gentle mix of light-heartedness and civility, in light of the events of July 21 and 22, 2009. QueenofBattle ( talk) 15:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC) |
How is Taubbman Nikita Khrushchev going? I am disappointed with the book, as so far it has not explained anything. In fact, I get the ideea that the author doesn't know. Perhaps I m not far enough along. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 02:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I made an edit to {{ ElectionsCA}} to include the article in a new section. This would seem like a logical place to put it. Good luck with the article. – Zntrip 17:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
For an experienced editor who works hard in improving articles on Wikipedia. Thank you for the detailed peer review. Tbo 157 (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC) |
Happy to. Thanks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Since you are adding the material back in, how about following BRD and discussing it on the article talk page? It is not perfectly acceptable to use here, as 1) the police report is disputed, and 2) Controversial subjects require careful use of secondary sources to determine what is important and what is not. Choosing to use a primary source like a police report here, is extremely problematic, and sets up a situation where editors are determining the importance of the content rather than the sources themselves. Instead of reverting, please take it to the talk page. I've already commented on talk about this. Viriditas ( talk) 10:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
From WP:PRIMARY: *
Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.
Accordingly, since a mainstream newspaper (the Globe) has published this primary source, it is perfectly OK to use it, as long as we don't interpret it. I hope this clears this up for you.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I've replied over there.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
When the physical damage finally healed, Gates' right leg was left two inches shorter, and he "walks with the aid of a cane".
WikiProject Alternate History is currently holding a roll call, which we hope to have annually. Your username is listed on the members list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active within the project. If you still consider yourself an active editor, please add your name back to the Active members list. You can also list yourself as a Supporter if you feel you cannot dedicate the time necessary to be an active member.
Please also see the Project talk page for more information concerning this Call Out. Zombie Hunter Smurf ( talk) 13:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Your actions show how poison has infected WP. I am not blaming you but merely commenting on the poisonous atmosphere of WP.
I wrote an article about Obama's Hawaii homes. Everybody liked it. Nobody said it was garbage. Those who visit Hawaii will be able to see exactly where each structure is located.
However, once you placed a notice on Talk:Barack Obama, all hell broke loose. That talk page is the Wikipedia equivalent of the Nevada Nuclear Test Site or downtown Baghdad. Explosions all over the place.
This shows that WP is indeed a reflection of the world. There is no one WP. There is the WP war zone (like Iraq), WP obscure zone (like Gozo Island), and other WP zones. Once you enter the WP war zone, prepare to get your leg blown off. That's too bad. User F203 ( talk) 15:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. If I do write it, I may have to write it in the sandbox first until it reaches a critical mass. There is much to write about his boyhood places in Hawaii. I have read many articles, including a front page Wall Street Journal article about his friend who asked Obama for money since he lost his job. It can be much more than a list of addresses. I think I might try that in a couple of weeks. That kind of article has to reach a certain quality upon starting it, unlike some stubs. I think the subject is interesting in part because he moved around. A person who lived in one house would not have enough information to have an article. It would simply read "Person A lived in his boyhood home in Topeka until he left for college. End of article". User F203 ( talk) 03:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 18:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Sort of tricky wording the paragraph but I believe that I've made it NPOV. For instance, Obama makes a charge against the police, the police refutes it by pointing out that he did not have all the facts (Obama also admitted he didn't have all the facts). It is also Obama's opinion that both the officer and Gates overreacted. This will go on the arrest talk page. GoldDragon ( talk) 04:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Wewalt, first thank you to invite me to add some points to the English lemma. As far as I can estimate, the two lemmata use a completely different approach. I will summarize some points on the user site, I assume its not being done by some copy paste and translating, but it might be worth while to compare. Youre comments a are warmely welcome. BR -- Polentario ( talk) 18:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Helen Gahagan Douglas1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- NW ( Talk) 01:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned Khrushchev to my brother, who knows Russian history like the back of his hand, and he emotonally started reeling off names and dates of all Khrushchev's bloody acts. I think the way to go about this is not to minimize any of that, but in additions show the contradictions in his character, the animal will to survive in a chaotic political environment, the humiliating moments, the pitfalls of having no education when mingling with the world sophisticated political elite. Plus Khrushchev was operating under a primitive fear, as those at his official level were not only being tortured and shot, but so were their wives and children, at the time he was purging. I hope I don't sound like I am defending the man, but he was a human being. And he had more dimensions than a Charles Manson. — Mattisse ( Talk) 13:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, can you check my point tally here? Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Some sentences I just don't understand, like: "In early April, polls gave Nixon some chance of winning the Democratic primary, securing his election." How did early April polls giving Nixon "some chance" secure his election? — Mattisse ( Talk) 15:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm letting you know that I've complained to the two FAC delegates about your behaviour at Mattisse's talk page. Tony (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt. I've observed the events at your latest FAC, and I wanted to say that I understand your frustration. Heck, any nominator does—very few articles sail through there without a hitch. However, as a busy FAC reviewer myself, I must defend Tony's method of providing representative issues and asking for the article as a whole to be treated. I've seen this scenario unfold probably 500 times. When an article has many problems, it's just not possible for reviewers to provide an exhaustive list. Anyone who believes it is so has not spent any significant time reviewing FACs. The reason we can't do it is that if an article is a ways away from FA standard, it is not the reviewer's job to bring it up to standard. The article should be withdrawn and worked on. If it is close to standard, most of us will list the issues and polish it up. I'm not commenting on the events that ensued after Tony's review, as they are not really my business, but I urge you to understand Tony's method and to treat his opposition as actionable. -- Andy Walsh (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
? → ROUX ₪ 05:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion moved from Sandy's talk page to here on prompting of others. Ottava Rima ( talk) 14:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Lets discuss at WT:TFAR because I can see this getting drawn out across our two talk pages and I don't realy understand the issue.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 03:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Thought Saturday nite was the returned time! I did work on the article some and plan to work on it more, if that's OK, to remove the "casual" language, reduce the quotes etc. What do you think? Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 12:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Found a hotspot for a few minutes am now on plane. Can only edit a new section . Tonight will email you a fascinating doc I found re Chotiner if your email will handle attachments. Nixon was as confused about him as we are. Thanks for the Senate edits keep up good work. Wehwalt ( talk) 12:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Wehwalt. No need to respond while you're traveling (I've intentionally avoided owning a Blackberry so I don't have to be connected to the internet in my free moments). I'm just finding time to weigh in on the recent kerfuffle, although I was keeping an eye on it as it was unfolding. I did see Karanacs and your efforts to defuse the situation and get focus back on the article. In my (long) experience with Tony, he simmers down as quickly as he simmers up, and he strikes an oppose when issues are addressed. Since Karanacs has handled things quite nicely, there's only one thing I would add at this point ... if I recall correctly (and I may not :), you were one of the editors who offered help to Mattisse during her ArbCom. I hope in the future you'll think twice about making posts to her talk page (or anywhere, in fact) about other editors that may lead her back to the behaviors that caused some of the problems to begin with or cause her to think that such posts are a good norm; it appears (from a mile-high view) that what caused Tony's initial concern was your first post to Mattisse that personalized the issue, and an apology in that regard may help defuse matters further. (Perhaps I noticed this aspect of the issue because you have made similar posts about me to her talk page in the past; my nature is to overlook such posts, but I can understand that may not be the case for other editors, e.g.; Tony.) The article issues will be resolved sooner or later, but I'm concerned that people who offered to mentor Mattisse not lodge less than exemplary comments about other editors on her talk page, as that may tend to confuse the situation with respect to her own sanctions and desirable behavior. I appreciate your subsequent efforts to get the FAC back on track. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there a baseball fathers-and-sons article? I couldn't find one offhand. It's an interesting topic, especially as it seems to be an increasing phenomenon as time goes by. There weren't very many early ballplayers who had kids that were also ballplayers. But there are a lot of them nowadays. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 08:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
In case you're wondering, I haven't forgotten about it; it's just that whenever I have some time to do another thorough go-through, you or Matisse seem to be in the middle of one already. One of these days I'll find some time where edit conflicts aren't a problem, make a few copyedits, and likely register my support. Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you check your July 29 sig at Dwarf planet on TFAR. It seems to be malplaced.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 22:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Before you sink lots of effort into creating an article, can I ask: what is Levitt's notability beyond his involvement in the eponymous case? - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 16:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) That's fine. I think that the default in this case is with Levitt being notable, since I have a fair number of articles specifically about Levitt. I probably won't get much done in the article tonight, but will finish the remainder of his career over the next several days. However, I certainly do see your point. Any one thing that he did can be attacked, we are merely arguing about the totality.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest talking with Ruslik0 ( talk · contribs) about him.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 19:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The English language includes these words precisely to avoid phrasings like "he resented the Democratic candidate for governor James Roosevelt". If you want to switch it back, I won't object, but it might be worth noting that I'm from outside the States, and seem to manage fine with it (I'd never heard of a "franked envelope" before today, though). Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
My pleasure; I hope it's promoted. Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 06:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Do you mind if we keep the entire speech up for at least for a a few more weeks? I am the one who added it in the first place. See, not one mainstream source has the entire speech. Yes, there are sources which carry parts of the speech but not the whole thing. So I spent about 30 minutes watching the tape, typing out what I heard, getting all of the names exactly right, etc. I figured that since no other outlet has a transcript of the speech, people will come to Wikipedia for it. Also, these are the only words we've heard from the two journalists, so this speech is highly valuable. I know about Wikisource, but I feel the Wikipedia article would benefit from having the full speech. -- Tocino 20:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Did you read the interview of Gates? It was added to provide balance per WP:EL by giving Gates version vis-a-vis the police arrest report and dispatch radio transcript.
Do you know about WebCite? I've just starting using it for new articles where my references are web links that may rot. In reviewing GAs I found articles that used them. Very nice. — Mattisse ( Talk) 21:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
As do I and bugs. Please indicate your perception his comment doesn't apply rather than remove it. ↜Just M E here , now 15:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Quite a story. Does this mean there will be a "series" on New York politics? A question: Do you use any of those bookmarking services, such are listed at the bottom of that article, such as Digg, el.icio.us etc.? Wondering they are useful, or just another way of building up a big useless collection. — Mattisse ( Talk) 21:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Any idea what happened to cause this spike?— Kww( talk) 22:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Saw your note here. Just FYI on the Noll book, the only real discussion of Lincoln (from what I can recall) comes at the very end in chapter 21, and the material about the second inaugural is fairly brief (maybe 10 pages or so), but Noll is a major scholar (of American evangelicalism, not Lincoln) so it could well be worth including, and there probably are not many works out there that consider the theological context and ramifications of the speech as effectively as Noll does (at least that was my thinking on reading it). I actually thought I had added a bit to the article about Noll's claim that the speech was one of the few "sacred texts" in American history, but apparently I decided not to do that for some reason.
The rest of Noll's tome is fairly rough sledding if you're not all that interested in the minutiae of 18th and 19th century American Protestantism. I personally liked it and got quite a lot of it (particularly in the early chapters relating the so-called "collapse of the Puritan canopy"), but it was not one of the more popular texts among my fellow grad students in our first year course on historiography. :-)
Anyhow like I said I'd be happy to pull that book off the shelf and lend a hand if and when you get deep into article revisions, but no worries if you dig into it yourself and find worthwhile stuff to include. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Albert Levitt at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --
Dylan
620 (
contribs,
logs)
help us!
14:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.
There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #8. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know.
-- User:Nbahn 04:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
When you wrote, "at least 3P.M.," did you mean no later than 3P.M. or no earlier than 3P.M.?
--NBahn (
talk)
03:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
For your keen eye on removing vandalism which was over one year old in the article, Kennel, I award you this barnstar for meeting the challenge set on WP:reward Ottawa4ever ( talk) 20:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC) |
well done :) Ottawa4ever ( talk) 20:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for hoping that I would be able to convince you to switch to neutral (and that you are willing to let DGG have his say). I still hope to do so (and even switch to support if possible). Me and DGG just had a great productive conversation (we spent over an hour over emails) as a result of this me contacting him. I'll let him clarify first, and then hopefully I'll be able to address your concerns. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Now the crux of your concerns at the time were that I lacked a nomination statement, and that you couldn't tell what I learned since the last RfA. Since then I've made one, and answered several new questions. Did the statement/answers I answered made a general good impression/is there something unclear / something that made a bad impresssion? Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
08:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you take a quick look at the deleted contributions of Kiel friendly ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I've noticed a couple, and I get the impression that he is contributing a number of things that wind up deleted as reposts of previously deleted material. If he's a newbie, forgiving one or two is easy. If there's a pile, it's a sign that he probably isn't really a newbie.— Kww( talk) 13:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
* 01:25, 15 August 2009 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . File:Touchmyhand.jpg ({{Information |Description = |Source = http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_C_ZWrP400rY/SlixFGpqqSI/AAAAAAAAA4I/KReBPYtmyp0/s320/TOUCHMYHANDdavidarchuleta.jpg |Date = |Author = |Permission = |other_versions = }}) * 12:46, 14 August 2009 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . File:Touch my hand.jpg ({{Information |Description = |Source = |Date = |Author = |Permission = |other_versions = }}) * 06:36, 11 August 2009 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Graffiti (Chris Brown album) (deleted 29 Jul 2008 at 16:14) * 06:35, 11 August 2009 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Graffiti (Chris Brown album) (deleted 29 Jul 2008 at 16:14) * 06:35, 11 August 2009 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Graffiti (Chris Brown album) (deleted 29 Jul 2008 at 16:14) (←Created page with '"Graffiti" is the fourth studio album by the Pop singer, Chris Brown still labeled by Zomba/Jive which will be releasing soon.') -- Wehwalt ( talk) 03:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations, California's 12th congressional district election, 1946 is now a Good Article. I'll just echo Happyme22's sentiments in that it's a great read. Let me know if I need to tweak any related pages or templates. I've removed it from WP:GAN, listed it at Wikipedia:Good articles#Political events, and placed a GA template on the article talk. - Optigan13 ( talk) 02:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on getting teh article to GA. I had a look at today's featured article Matthew Boulton too. It is very well written. Tbo 157 (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm becoming overwhelmed by this Khrushchev book. Too much awful detail. What was the source of Stalin's power over all these people surrounding him? How could a nation function at all, never mind at war, with Stalin sleeping late and forcing everyone to get drunk at night? And there is the story of Khrushchev's daughter-in-law, Liuba (Lyonia's widow) who was arrested in 1943 and sent to various labor camps, released in 1948, then exiled in Kazakhstan for five years. And the strange tale of her son, Tolya, sent to multiple orphanages where he was starved, and at one point '"lived" in a railroad station ventilation shaft'.
The horrors of collectivization and the peasants—I always hate reading about that. There are various articles on WIkipedia about this people or that people, now numbering only 1,000, and their horrible stories about being moved from living mountain rural life to becoming corn plantations field hands on the flat lands, stripped of their personal possessions and denied their own language.
Khrushchev? He was a Ukrainian first. — Mattisse ( Talk) 18:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Re the death of Leonid Khrushchev. "Our" book does give the reminiscences of Leonid's fellow pilot who said that Leonid's plane disintegrated. — Mattisse ( Talk) 22:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know. You might want to try Tompson's book, it is much shorter and goes less afield.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Interesting addition to the article, that Khrushchev had sex with Stalin's wife and Stalin. (I haven't reached that part in the book yet.) I have become fascinated with all the intrigue going on after Stalin's death. Now the book's detail stands it in good stead. In fact, I want to know more! — Mattisse ( Talk) 16:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I read it as Stalin's wife!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Please check out the recent disagreement at the Talk:Gilbert and Sullivan page and my talk page (where the editor admits WP:OR). What do you think should be done? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 10:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It occurs to me that the point of Ryan striking out seven fathers and sons is a good illustration of the longevity of his career. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
|
Four Award | |
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on United States Senate election in California, 1950. |
-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 21:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Wehwalt, hope you're well. I noticed this morning the "oppose" at Jake's RfA, and a corresponding ANI thread. I certainly hope that MR. IP will retract his humor (?), but something does tickle my thoughts on this. While I'm hesitant to actually mention names, there does seem to be an air of familiarity between the [who] that was attacked in the Village Pump post, and the "oppose in RfA". I recall a recently banned editor who has had multiple monikers over the years which had similar interests. Nothing I could hang my hat on of course, but just wondered if that thought had crossed your mind as well. Cheers and best. — Ched : ? 13:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Per this edit [10] please note that there is a discussion on the talk page. The content you restored is disputed as non-neutral and unencyclopedic, among other things, and seems to be subject to an edit war. I suggest you self-revert lest you become a party to that edit war. If you wish to participate as an admin you may want to caution the parties to stop reverting and reach consensus first before adding disputed content... or as an editor, please join the discussion page to explain why you think the content does or does not belong in the article. Your edit summary pointing out simply that the content is sourced is not really a viable reason to add or delete disputed content. Thanks, Wikidemon ( talk) 22:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Wehwalt, you claimed that there was an "inappropriate deletion of sourced material". Please show me exactly where and what source supports the statement of "Obama's apparent siding with Gates". Viriditas ( talk) 00:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it's just my browser, but they all look like Spanish beginning-of-a-sentence upside-down question marks. Smallbones ( talk) 22:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for dealing with the point about User:TTKK which I raised at ANI. I agree with everything you said: we are dealing with a well-intentioned and useful group of editors, and don't want to antagonise them. That is why I made a point of saying "Probably you were not aware ..." and also inviting them to set up separate accounts. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
For the support on the admin board :) i appreciate it. -- Ashish -g55 23:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me the idea of reading the Khrushchev biography. I am thoroughly enjoying it and admire Taubman's writing. He gets around mentioning Khrushchev's name too much nicely. Even though on a subliminal level, I already knew what he is saying. Still, I admire his presentation. The POV seems well supported. — Mattisse ( Talk) 01:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It is very odd that Nixon's resignation is not really discussed anywhere. Nixon Resignation is redirected to Watergate scandal where the actual resignation becomes lost in the shuffle. Even Richard Nixon doesn't highlight it. I was looking for a link "President Nixon's 1974 resignation" in your California congressional article, but I can't find anything. — Mattisse ( Talk) 16:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you confirm the points at [11]? Thanks, Dabomb87 ( talk) 12:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the points are OK. We had discussions last fall and a plane is not a train. Am on blackberry so can only edit by adding new section. Wehwalt ( talk) 13:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I
I
Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
— Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I was pleased to support the FA nom. I do think the third paragraph of the Lead could use a little expansion. All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, he and the archbishop struggled through together. No more archbishops for me, but no doubt more to come in the Dicky saga. The 1962 election for governor of California surely beckons... Brianboulton ( talk) 23:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The California Star | |
Thanks for all the work on 12th congressional 1946, et al. - Optigan13 ( talk) 00:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC) |
Sorry I couldn't help out more. - Optigan13 ( talk) 00:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on the FA! A minor thought: I disagree with the way the ellipses are handled at the end of sentences. The MOS says: "Put a space on each side of an ellipsis, except that there should be no space between an ellipsis and ... sentence-final punctuation ... following the ellipsis". So I think there should just be four dots immediately following the last word of the sentence. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a shame. He is clearly an extremely capable writer. I might say he has created what appears to be a legitimate article in Ebenezer Howard. I suspect he might have such a love for Teh Hoaxing, however, that rehabilitation is more than unlikely. Crafty ( talk) 03:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Actually, I have no idea who this editor is. Jack1956 ( talk) 06:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I was the one who posted the sentence you just removed that had a Twitter link to it. Well, on the Simple Plan homepage, I found a link to what they said was Pierre Bouvier's official Twitter account. Now, if it's his personal account, don't you think that his word is more reliable than anything? Why did you take that down? Seriously? -- Zzguitar14 ( talk) 20:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad it was promoted; sorry I didn't return, but as you said, I din't oppose it anyway. Cheers. Tony (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 18:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Four Award | |
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on California's 12th congressional district election, 1946. |
-- Dylan 620 ( contribs, logs) help us! 22:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
you have email.. John Vandenberg ( chat) 10:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
User:Wehwalt has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I think a lot of editors (including me) have found it hard to consider some hard-and-fast rule about size in FACs. The Khrushchev article is big, and there are no daughter articles, I see. But I'm fine personally with that size. Just as long as you can defend it as in summary style throughout. I guess it comes down to explaining the greater level of detail in one or two potential daughter articles. Images: could do with a good audit WRT location and size. Tiny is no longer in vogue. Looks like a promising candidate. Tony (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see Cosmo the archbishop on the main page. I don't think I've ever seen a modern archbishop as TFA, though I think some of Ealdgyth's ancient ones have been there. Cosmo's birthday is 31 October; unfortunately it is only his 145th, no nice round number. The 100th anniversary of his enthronement as Abp of York was earlier this year, but the article wasn't written then; there are no other key dates coming up soon, and no round numbers at all. So, how many points would Cosmo earn if he was nominated for 31 October as (a) a recent promotion, (b) a fresh topic and (c) a 145th birthday boy? Advice welcome. You might also have an answer to a query I have posted on the TFA talkpage. Regards, Brianboulton ( talk) 23:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 4, 2009 - I added the only free image (cropped) I could find, not sure if there is a better one out there, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Pretty sure anyway. I did try a re-wording, thinking yours is too long, but I'm not sure I like it any better. All the best, Smallbones ( talk) 22:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
unblocke me
He was a peasant and the Bolsheviks disdained peasants. They were mostly well-educated and of the intelligentsia. It seems to me that Khrushchev rose through the system by a combination of his ability to actually accomplish tasks (having a stellar working knowledge of how-to) and the party's proclivity to centralize in Moscow, hence moving Khrushchev to the center of power relatively early on. Seems like a flute in the system, and his astute working of the system, that put him at the top, and his "insecurity" seems in many ways to be justified. — Mattisse ( Talk) 18:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to take the article through MILHIST's A-class review after wp:biography's peer review if you would like additional comments. :-) — Ed (talk • contribs) 17:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Good work on the article, but you added <ref name = "hosp"/> to the article and it is causing a cite error. 75.69.0.58 ( talk) 13:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure that Taubman says that Leonid's wife, Liuba Khrushcheva, was not released until 35 years later. — Mattisse ( Talk) 16:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It's your article but I think "mild liberalization" is a meaningless term in this context. What does it denote, Obama-lite? — Mattisse ( Talk) 20:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
( this one) It's not a matter of what I'd like to see done, disruptive behaviour is called disruptive for a reason. Besides, I'm sure there's a way to deal with anon users, it's not like it's the first time an IP causes trouble on some low-visibility pages. Just today, there are at least two other notices on AN/I about unregistered users.-- 93.45.135.178 ( talk) 04:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For your excellent article contributions to a wide range of subjects. Keep up the good work! – Juliancolton | Talk 04:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC) |
Hi Wehwalt. I've made a slight change to one of the history paragraphs in City of London School after someone quite rightly pointed out that it didn't make sense. Could you have a look over it when you have time to see if my new additions make sense. Thanks. Tbo 157 (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I've got a DYK nomination in for September 25 for The Ne'er-do-Weel. Any idea about the status? It's been sitting for a long time. Thanks for any info. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Chotinermemo.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Chotinermemo.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Chotinermemo.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 15:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
What is the deal with all the sudden vandalism? — Mattisse ( Talk) 22:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd seriously consider undoing your unblock. Whilst Slrubenstein's was technically the first wheel-warring action, there was considerable discussion beforehand (whether consensus was achieved is doubtful, though). However, your unblock without consultation would definitely be seen as wheel-warring should this go any further. Black Kite 23:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments, I will reply at AN/I Slrubenstein | Talk 08:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
"I think I've allowed ample time for consultation, but have not heard from the reblocking admin" - this was an hour or so after your re-block. I blocked around midnight my time, and went to sleep. Give a guy enough time to sleep and wake up. Fifteen hours or even one day is ample time to get feedback, not one hour. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Your reasoning is naive or absurd. To call one a spade is to assault one with a racial epithet. This is a separate matter from calling a shovel a spade or using the phrase "a spade is a spade." No one would be offended if one called a certain kind of shovel a spade, and I agree with you that there is nothing offensive about the phrase "to call a spade a spade" (and i have no problem with any user using this phrase). But it does not logically follow that therefore using "spade" to address someone is also innocent. It is not. It is a racial slur. Maybe you did not know that before. Now you do. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Mifter ( talk) 00:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
So Why 12:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Don't forget Halloween ... we need your help Victuallers ( talk) 18:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
If you have any moments to spare from Nikita or Nixon or whatever is your current project, or just feel like a change of scenery, could you look at Nansen's Fram Expedition, now at peer review, and perhaps leave a comment? Brianboulton ( talk) 20:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you got a pix of Khrushchev's grave. Did you get any other pix of Novodevichy graves?
If so, please consider adding them to the gallery on that page. Smallbones ( talk) 02:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
{{User0|Giants27 15:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Biography Barnstar | |
For your efforts correcting biography articles and substantial contributions to DYK, this is truly merited Ottawa4ever ( talk) 21:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC) |
I would have given you an anti vandlaism award but ive done so already for that challenge i believe. I think this award though is more just for the work youve been doing but consider it just the same as if it were for anti vandalism as well. I will make note though on reward board that you met the challenge twice. Good keen eye. Keep up the good work Ottawa4ever ( talk) 21:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Um, I thought we agreed to let it go? [12] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
If you block one party for edit warring, you should block the other side as well. ChrisO was not edit warring with himself. Three reverts is not an entitlement. Be fair, or you'll be overturned. Jehochman Talk 00:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey dude. I asked NuclearWarfare ( talk · contribs) and Zscout370 ( talk · contribs) on Skype to do an image review of the article, and they found many problems. Could you look over all the images that are in the article? Many are nominated for deletion, including your photo of the grave because Russia does not have freedom of panorama ( commons:Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama#Former_Soviet_Union). Apologies, — Ed (talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for being unbiased. The level of partisanship was really disgusting. As what I can see a neutral admin, I urge you to review my contribution to the article of contention and tell me if I violated any of the wikipedia guidelines. Because as far as I can see (see also my comment on talkpage), I did not. Thank you.-- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 19:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Also the other two users asked for a pardon of their block. One of them has been here since 2005! and had never done anything wrong! His record is (or was) clean till now. The normal procedure would have been a lock on the article, Rfc and Mediation. Not an indefinite block for content dispute. However, if I go to adress this injustice it will be a waste of my time and I do not have the time to do so. But you as a neutral person can see the damage this does to wikipedia's image. What is interesting was that another admin tried to keep my block based on "copy right violation" (which I addressed and several admins agreed it was not). The second admin said: "Decline reason: "The block is fully justified by your disruptive editing and refusal to acknowledge the problem." None of them gave me a good reason. I might be wrong, but my feelings tell me that they were proxying and etc. This is some serious corruption and I think this is sort of corruption will hurt Wikipedia's long term image much more than anything else. Anyhow, I thank you for your neutrality and that is why I invited you (if you feel like or have the time) to let me know if I had made any mistakes in that article that warranted an indefinite ban. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 21:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Also despite what ChrisO says about me, I have a Ph.D., I review journals and even articles from Encyclopedias that have to do with humanities. I am a scholar myself and would never support fringe theories. All sorts of ugly accusations are made against me. I will be on a wiki break, so if you have time (it is up to you of course), I would ask you to review my contribution (note there has been some bad feelings between me and ChrisO before) and see if it merited an indefinite block by that admin. Either way I wish you the best and I'll be on a partial or more break. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 22:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
You truly are the ONE admin with a brain, heart and courage. Thank you. Arad ( talk) 20:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC) |
Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing |
I am pretty sure you are wayching TFAR, but I have a point query for you.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 16:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Rjanag and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, -- Epeefleche ( talk) 22:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, As you know, User:ChrisO previously broke WP:3rr in the article Human Rights. However, I have followed procedure per the discussion in ANI before and I called for an RfC on the inclusion of a source (Talbott). I stated clearly:"I think following dispute resolution, it would be good to seek an RfC. As I said, I will abide with an RfC. However the RfC should not be a character assassination. Rather it should be a well intentioned RfC on wether Talbott is a reliable source for this article. I believe he is, and you do not believe he is. If other users judge it is not, then I will abide by their opinion."
However he reverted my talk page discussion [13] and a rational was not given! This is really because of the 2 minute 3rr that a user can give themselves the right to revert the discussion of others. Had I done that, it would have been a permanent ban. I can't even find the discussion I initiated which talked about why he got favorable treatment (the archiver did not bother to archive it!) and instead as you recall, I got replies: "Nepaheshgar should know this is not a law but a guideline..". However as you noticed, the main point was why should some users get favorable treatment? I do not feel like making a report in ANI on why my talk discussion was r.v.'ed, because I believe I will get banned again like I did last time. I am not sure what to do except leave wikipedia. I am trying to follow procedure by calling for RfC and instead my discussion gets reverted. And again if report this to ANI, I will be blocked probably like last time! And I noticed that my discussion on 3rr and favorable treatment was removed! If no action is taken, I will take a longer leave (I took a 5 day leave already before restarting the discussion). Thank you. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 02:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your input when you can get to this. Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you please contact me in regards to the 3 Hikers in Iran Nlinds ( talk) 15:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Nlinds
Nice to see my edits being recognised :P. The Factories Act, curiously enough, is already on my to-do list! I've got the sourcing, so I'll bump it up the list a bit. The other two I'll need to find sourcing on, but if I can get it, I'll write it :). Anything else in that area that pops up, give me a poke. I'm halfway through a Bonar Law rewrite, and there's stuff there that concern's Neville's brother, father and early achievements, so message me if you'd like me to take a looksee - ditto if you need a GAN, PR or FAC comment. Ironholds ( talk) 19:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I assume you follow Raul's talk? (Comment without prejudice to Raul's discretion in Main Page scheduling :) Just to let you know to follow 3 article proposals within 3 days at TFA.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 10:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi: I did a review of Neville Chamberlain, and it is currently on hold due to lack of citations in certain sections. Other than that, the article was amazing and a pleasure to read. I learned a fair bit from it, and feel I do know the man better. Keep up the good work! Ray Talk 17:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Did he or did he not graduate? Smallbones ( talk) 00:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
N.B. My late father was named Franklin Kay in Lane's honor in 1930, 9 years after his death. So it would appear that Lane's efforts were well remembered in California. Shir-El too 17:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I would say just remove the coinsite.com links (not a reputable source) and take the whole thing to FAR (I already have an article listed at FAR, so I can't do another one right now). It is terribly short on sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
We are behind with giving out DYK awards. My idea is to give out some awards and deputise them to give out some more awards. Do you think that might work? Victuallers ( talk) 11:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The 50 DYK Medal | |
This to celebrate your contribution Wehwalt. Some really interesting articles - so many biographies and an occasional non bio You are certainly laying down the law with your contribution. Can I just tell you that the 100 award is a great shade of gold! So don't let me deter you from going on to a century. Thanks again from me and the wiki. Victuallers ( talk) 11:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC) |
As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 19:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I have asked Tim riley to take a look at the article. When he's done (this weekend?) I'll take a look. He actually knows what he's talking about, whereas all I can do is proofread. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I do believe that the site is reliable. It has many autographs of world politicians. Then again, if you could find me another source image, eg. a book/letter from himself, I'd be more than happy to retrace another one. Connormah ( talk) 23:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you particpated in some way on the Mattisse case or the associated clarification discussion.
A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Mattisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.
For the Arbitration Committee, Manning ( talk) 03:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
<Karanacs puts on a reviewer hat and hides the FAC delegate hat under the bed.> Hi Wehwalt, I saw this [14] and wanted to quickly point out my experience. I found the Khruschev article to be very well-written and it flowed very well. However, in my first reading I never got to the foreign policy section; I generally don't have a short attention span, but by the time I got halfway through the domestic policy sections I was tired and had to go do something else. If the article hadn't been so beautifully written I would have likely gotten tired before that. Our average reader probably does not have as long an attention span as I or some of the reviewers. You may want to reflect on whether any of the early life/domestic stuff could be spun off into another article to ensure that readers do get to focus on the foreign policy stuff. A great example of a recent article which essentially implemented more of a summary size during its FAC nom is Inner German border.</takes of reviewer hat and unearths FAC delegate hat - ew, must dust under bed>
That said, as an FAC delegate my personal opinion is worthless and won't be counted whatsoever. I'd like to see the opinions of some of the other reviewers on the length, and if they agree with you then I'll accept that consensus says this criterion has been satisfactorily met. From what I've seen, you care more about article quality than pretty stars, and I just wanted to give you something to think about. Karanacs ( talk) 18:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt, I look forward to your ArbCom candidacy. The more content editors we can get on there, the better! ceran thor 01:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to spoil the love-in here, but what exactly is " I would have voted to desysop all of them, or at least required them to face a new RfA to keep the tools. Friendship is a great thing, but that friendship was a huge COI with their duties as admins." supposed to mean? Neither myself or MZMcBride were sysops at the time; while I can't speak for MZMcBride I've never seen the slightest evidence that he's a "friend of the_undertow/Law" ( zero edits to the_undertow's talk page, zero edits to Law's talk page), and by no possible definition could you consider me a friend since my interaction with him was and is pretty much nil. Are you believing whatever you've been told on IRC without bothering to check for yourself, misremembering evidence to suit your particular agenda, or just plain lying in the hope that nobody will bother to check? There may be a fourth alternative but I sure as hell can't think of one, and none of the first three are traits Arbcom members ought to have. – iride scent 20:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Your answer to the question about content/conduct here is, well, kind of short, so I'll ask you to make a clarification: You don't think the committee should do any of the things I mentioned, that is, sanction editors who violate content policies or establish procedures for binding content resolution (for example, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia, which was initiated by the committee)? That's how I'm reading it; am I right or have a misread you? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Glad to see you are running for Arbcom. From all my interactions with you, you have come across as a great and fair editor and administrator and I hope you get it. Cheers. Remember ( talk) 14:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I've found a letter signed by Khrushchev. Would you like my to insert the signature into the article? Connormah ( talk) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.
There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. --NBahn ( talk) 04:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Ben says to say hi, and also how disappointed he will be if William Speirs Bruce doesn't make the main page on 30 November. He is considering an encyclical on a new method of allocating points for TFA nominees. On other matters, many congratulations on the Khrushchev article - a big success in every sense of the word. Can you briefly fill me in on the revised Chamberlain strategy? Brianboulton ( talk) 22:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a quick look at the acts - I've been rather distracted with uni work, so haven't really made much in a while. Still, I'll see what I can do :).
I signed up to review this article for GA, but I removed myself from the sign up, as I have lost my legs recently. What do you think? I would do it if you helped me. Best always, — Mattisse ( Talk) 23:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of deleting the first two questions (1a and 1b) that I put to you on the "Questions for the candidate" page, along with the resulting discussions. The reason I deleted the material was mainly because, although I obviously think the edits in question were poor ones, I can't quite convince myself that it was entirely fair to single out a couple of bad edits from your editing history when I haven't really had time to do as thorough an analysis of your contributions as I would like. Also I was a little concerned that that part of the discussion might detract from what I consider to be the more substantial questions regarding your resistance to recusal and what I see as a lack of experience in dispute resolution.
You are of course, fully entitled to restore the deleted material if you so choose (as long as you restore it in its entirety) as it included both my questions and your responses. At this point I've done what I felt ought to be done on my own part, so whether or not you choose to restore is of little consequence to me. Regards, Gatoclass ( talk) 06:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Stellar work, my friend. May your work outlast your hopefully (un)successful ArbCom candidacy. ;) Best, ceran thor 22:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
[[Image:Turducken quartered cross-section.jpg|center|thumb|280px|Happy Thanksgiving!]] {{clear}} I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 07:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Happy Thanksgiving, Wehwalt! I see how it is. You're going to be a big, powerful arbitrator and forget about all the little people to whom you've promised editorial work on trivial entertainment subjects. Ah well, I must go and eat a huge amount of turkey now (having the big celebration today). I'll be passed out on Tryptophan, red wine and high calorie desserts, so I won't worry about it. :-p -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Derrell Robertson at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Materialscientist (
talk)
00:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
⇌ Jake Wartenberg 08:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, Wehwalt. I have been inactive on Wikipedia for quite some time, so I hadn't noticed your work. It deserves congratulation. It would also seem that our research interests overlap in some places--at least partially. One of those overlaps is on the issue of this politician. As one of the primary composers of the Luisa Moreno article, Jack Tenney appeared on my radar screen as her primary adversary and the man who ultimately caused her deportation. Since there was no article yet on him, I added him to my to-do list and promptly forgot about him.
The other day, I happened across Wikipedia in my net-surfing and thought I'd check my list, and I was elated to discover that you had created the Tenney article, for which I thank you. Since it did not include any of the concrete results of his anti-communist crusading, I added in the tidbit about Moreno's deportation. I was a bit surprised to see that it was removed--haphazardly at first glance, since I didn't see any reason why anyone would doubt it. But since it was removed for not being sourced, I gladly added the citation of the Griswold del Castillo text.
Now, I wanted to talk to you about this, because I am a pleasant person who despises the often-nasty disputes that arise from differences of opinion or practice concerning the creation of WP articles, and I find open and frank discussion the best way to avoid them. The issue of deportation is often unclear to those people who are not familiar with immigration issues. There are several ways people can be deported, and being "offered voluntary" deportation is one of them. In such cases, individuals have deportation orders and are prohibited from being in the country, but rather than being physically removed by an official agency, they take the responsibility of relocating upon themselves. It is technically referred to as a "voluntary" deportation, but they are still being expelled from the country by official means. So it is still a deportation. I think this it is important to show that Tenney's actions created consequences for people such as Moreno. Otherwise, his anti-communism is nothing but talk.
I also wanted to discuss this anti-Communism as practiced by Tenney. If you read the article from the Journal of San Diego History that I referred to, the author talks about how Tenney used anti-communism to advance his political career. In fact, it talks about how had been fairly liberal until he realized who was buttering his bread--the anti-union agricultural interests. It also goes into his defense of the San Diego-area military establishment against accusations of discrimination by Moreno and others.
I think this aspect of Tenney's political career is important and, if not included, creates an incomplete picture of who this person was. It may not be flattering, but it is true. I would prefer it if we could work together to create a good article rather than removing one another's contributions without any discussion.
How does that sound?-- Rockero ( talk) 22:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
For answering my questions; regarding this - could you link me to specific cases (or better, specific FoFs)? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Do not use lynching metaphors when discussing the mass murder of minorities in relation to a user who alledges they would "die for dixie." Refactor post haste plz. Hipocrite ( talk) 16:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Wehwalt, would you be willing to do the following:
Since you are the one to have unblocked, I think you should be willing to do some of the necessary work. What do you say? Jehochman Talk 16:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I voted for you. I hope you win. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 04:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for starting that AN/I thread in regards to the sockpuppet investigation. I appreciate admins who ensure that editors are given a fair shake, and not just dismissed out of hand. I also appreciate your recusal from the situation, as it kept everything above board and ensured that the matter was dealt with as cleanly as possible. All in all, very fairly and professionally handled. Kudos. Throwaway85 ( talk) 02:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.
It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew talk at 03:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Given your userpage header, you may be eligible for the WP:FOUR award.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 16:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 00:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have a few moments to spare from the dark side of Nixon and his dog, or just fancy a break from them, would you care to comment on the peer review page for Clements Markham? The article is pretty much my work alone, and is in need of some outside assessment. So I'd be grateful. Brianboulton ( talk) 11:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
That Ledbetter Supreme Court thing seems like it might be up your alley. Would you mind taking a stab at correcting that yourself?
Thanks for your Markham comments, which I am acting on. It's been a while since I did a GA review, but I'll certainly give the Checkers speech a go, within the next day or two, if someone doesn't pick it up first. I'll be very interested to see what you make of my distant forbear Matthew Boulton, when the time comes. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
This edit you made was very poor form. Not only are you unduly highlighting a lower end estimate that Morris himself revises in a later work, ignoring the talk page discussions on this issue, and failing to keep up to date with the new sources which put the matter to rest, but you also did not even bother to inform me or anyone else editing Lydda Death March as to what you have unilaterally decided to do. Please self-revert and explain youself on the discussion page for DYK, where I have riased the issue. Thanks. Tiamut talk 13:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thx Victuallers ( talk) 15:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It is screwed up now. Can you revert your edit? — Mattisse ( Talk) 00:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hy Wehwalt. I found the checkers speech article and had a look at it. Excellent work - but it seems like the only secondary sources used are about, or by, Nixon. Now that makes sense, of course, given that he made the speech, but as an MA history student who's done several essays in the area of Nixon (anti-communism mainly!) I've seen more sources that not only mention the speech, but examine it in quite some detail. As luck would have it, I can't remember any of them this morning, but I'm off to the Uni library today and I'll look some up. I apologize for the slightly rambling message, but I guess to sum it up, it would be - I think you need some more secondary sources in the article. Cheers, Skinny87 ( talk) 08:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 04:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Somehow, in constructing my FA userboxes, they ended up on your page; I have not a clue how to remove them and put them on mine. Do you know how? Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 04:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 08:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, both are in the public domain. Screen captures are derivatives of the original work; hence, they inherit the copyright—public domain due to no copyright notice, in this case. I have tidied up the information on both images and added a tag to recommend their move to Commons. Jappalang ( talk) 01:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting me in my recent RfA, which unfortunately did not pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, - down load ׀ sign! 03:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC) | ![]() |
Royal broil 14:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you semi-protected Borat several months ago. Would you consider lifting the semi to see if the spamming problem is gone now?-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 09:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Did you mean "agarot"? :) -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Louis Van Zelst at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Smallman12q (
talk)
16:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have invited comments for this file at commons:Commons talk:PD files#File:Nixon while in US Congress.jpg. Jappalang ( talk) 08:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
For your findings of fact, proposals, etc, you need to title your headers. They currently all read "Template". لenna vecia 13:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know - Ive placed Tropical cyclone up but i do not have any time to make up a blurb before the weekend Jason Rees ( talk) 20:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Larry King said tonight that Nixon was just not likable as a person, but that he was very aware of manipulating the press. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 02:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 17:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
United States Senate election in California, 1950 at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
AdmiralKolchak (
talk)
00:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, it is kind of hard to explain the issue with the signature
I hope that is a clear explanation of my thoughts. Jappalang ( talk) 09:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not germane to anything but they are called
Agorot and not Arogot. Arugot are flowerbeds :)
Warm regards,
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk
11:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Jamie ☆ S93 18:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 12:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I've replied in the DYK nom
Chzz ► 21:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I uploaded it did I? I thought I scanned it and sent it to you or possibly someone else. I'll try and find someone with an art quality scanner. Fainites barley scribs 14:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my
"RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (
Ceoil,
Noroton and
Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read
Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
![]() |
You added a reference named "melvyn" to United States Senate election in California, 1950 without an actual reference; it's causing an error message in the reference section. Ntsimp ( talk) 21:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
-- PFHLai ( talk) 05:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Is there a list laying around that details the points awarded for this, that, and the other in regards to TFA requests?
Cheers-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Quick Question - is their something in the rules of TFA that says the picture must be in the article nominated or can it be any image associated with the article? Thanks Jason Rees ( talk) 23:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 02:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It looks like you blocked me a while back [1], which is why YellowMonkey left you a talk page note. You should have blocked User:Keegaṇ. The point was to illustrate the subtleties of usernames and imitation. No worries, I laughed a little, it's not the first time [2]. Happy editing to you. Keegan talk 06:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt , I could not understand what you ment in the comment you made for this DYK nomination? Thank you-- Mbz1 ( talk) 23:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I just saw Checkers speech was promoted to FA! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Giants27 15:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey. You put this article on hold about a month ago. Doesn't look like anything's happened with it since, so you might as well fail it. Wizardman 15:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Giants27 09:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Mifter ( talk) 23:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Wehwalt, being familiar with the Holloway case, do you have time to review the merge/notability issues raised at Talk:Esperanza Fire#Merge Opinion? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 09:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:2052.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. ww2censor ( talk) 00:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Wehwalt, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I removed the speedy deletion tag from Natalee Holloway (film)- because: While the plot is a copyvio, the rest of the content is ok, so I just removed the plot Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions, please let me know. decltype ( talk) 13:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and support throughout the process. I've got my seatbelt fastened. User:Shoemaker's Holiday has "retired" from Wikipedia, although I think he'll be back someday. In the meanwhile, he won't be able to help. We'll see how it goes. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
You locked {{ Infobox MLB player}} back in January. I think it's time to unlock it or at least change the protection settings to semi-protection. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 21:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Per a request at RFPP, I've re-protected it as it is a high-risk template as it is used on over 7,500 pages. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 19:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I left a question for you on the requests talk page. -- RelHistBuff ( talk) 09:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought O 77 and 78 were pretty good. :) Enigma msg 05:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Apologies I did not get to this, but I did close a related one. Cirt ( talk) 23:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you using English spelling? The guy is English but I detect some American spelling. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 00:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 02:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
What books are you reading? I looked around that there really aren't that many on Khrushchev. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 18:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Roy Aleksandrovich Medvedev. Then there seems to be a book by Taubman, a book by his son Sergei, and two volumes of his memoirs. I have them all on order, used of course.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
If you have so many banstars then you should Know that it is correct to throughly check all references to any artical or section of article.
I see that you must not have checked out the ref I cited of real video footage of a speech By Obama addressing his Racial profile.
here is the ref again "Barack Obama, Obama Speech: 'A More Perfect Union', time In video when quot said 3min52sec to 3min59sec. Youtube posting of CNN video footage, March 18, 2008 located at web address http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU." so my advice is read it, watch it, know it, learn it and think about a citation before you ever revert a cited article/section again-- Antiedman ( talk) 12:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Check references first before reverting
If you have so many banstars then you should Know that it is correct to throughly check all references to any artical or section of article.
I see that you must not have checked out the ref I cited of real video footage of a speech By Obama addressing his Racial profile.
here is the ref again "Barack Obama, Obama Speech: 'A More Perfect Union', time In video when quot said 3min52sec to 3min59sec. Youtube posting of CNN video footage, March 18, 2008 located at web address http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU." so my advice is read it, watch it, know it, learn it and think about a citation before you ever revert a cited article/section again--- Antiedman ( talk) 12:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It's been promoted. Thanks for all your help! Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. I don't think that my contributions have been so great as to count me out of the vote. The rejigging of the intro is much better. I'm on a semi-colon blitz. I hate them!
Amandajm ( talk) 13:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I know, but I'm not sure how to deal with your point. If I was ever taught the exact proper use, that knowledge is long gone, and I'd like a few more eyes on that point. I hope you'll support but in addition raise the issue.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Packaging is everything, so I decided to call this bit of canvassing "not canvassing". Wehwalt, you and a couple of others are the ones most likely to disagree with my 5 points at Wikipedia_talk:Rfa#Comment by Damian ... so this is an invitation to come do your worst. Or shock me by supporting, either way :) - Dank ( push to talk) 17:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The Powerhouse has a superb collection of model steam engines. I could play with them all day. However, because the building os an old powerstation, there is plenty of room for a large display of big engines. Most of them are in working order. One of the most interesting parts of the display are six small industrial engines all together in a group, and of extreme diversity, yet using the same basic principal. The oldest one was left abandoned at the top of a gold mine shaft, was completely grown-over by a blackberry bush, and not discovered until a fire went through the paddock.
These guys, Boulton, Watt, Wedgwood and co, along with Joseph Banks and others, were part of the movement to abolish the slave trade. Wedgwood produced a series of little medallions (very small) which were sold to promote their ideas. They show a tiny kneeling figure of a slave in chains. At least one that I have seen is in one of Boulton's settings.
Another interesting point is that many of these well-known industrialists and engineers had no university training. They were inelligible, being chapel-men rather than church-men. The Courtaulds and their Taylor associates (who installed the steam engines in the Courtauld factories) were in the same boat. Amandajm ( talk) 02:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
As you may be aware, the peer review process is struggling at the moment, as more articles are being nominated without a concomitant increase in reviewers. At present the process is over-reliant on the goodwill of a tiny number of editors (notably Ruhrfisch and Finetooth); articles are sometimes waiting many days for review, and often have to be dealt with rather hurriedly. As someone with a great deal of article-building experience, your help in reducing the backlog and keeping the process moving would be much appreciated. Would it be possible for you to commit to doing, say, one peer review a week? If you and a few others would do this on a more or less regular basis, it would make a significant difference (and you can always avoid my articles, which tend to be a bit long). Brianboulton ( talk) 10:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
How about reviewing this for Good article - Morse v. Frederick - Supreme Court free speech case? Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 18:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the IP is actually Shoemaker. I think the IP address is the library he uses that has the Rollins and Witts book. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 13:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I am so sorry that I got overwhelmed with improving the article to meet your standards, but I sincerely appreciate your assistance and suggestions, and I am sorry if I wasted your time. I have created both featured articles and lists, but I will think twice about trying to get an article I am not a primary author of to GA or FA status. Mostly, I found this article overwhelming because I do not have a background with law or court cases. Regardless, this was a learning experience. Keep up the great work, and we'll see if any one else tries to improve the article in the near future. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 00:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
That glass of wine. All done! Congratulations! Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 22:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there.
I was skimming the reliable sources noticeboard (for my sins), and noticed you mentioning that one of the problems you've found with Liberty Bell is the lack of "serious" sources on the topic. If you're interested in tracking down a copy, I seem to recall there's some decent material, on both the bell and its myths, in Peter de Bolla's Fourth of July: and the founding of America, published a couple of years back. Shimgray | talk | 20:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, let me know where that shuffleboard thing is, I've been meaning to learn how to do that. I think I threw out my shoulder on that last round of horse shoes ... lol. ;) — Ched : ? 23:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Not at all. I replied on his, and we kept it in a section. Give him credit ... he's pissed as all hell, he feels like his entire country is being deemed inconsequential, but he's staying polite.— Kww( talk) 00:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I've replied to your valedictory comment at the BN. No reply required; I'm just letting you know to make sure you spot it amidst the confusion. Cheers — Dan | talk 21:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Wehwalt, thanks for your input at WP:BN. Your points were strong. AdjustShift ( talk) 22:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Wehwalt, thanks for the breath of fresh air. I am just a little sensitive about comments from that person, but now I realize I was just being baited. So thank you for for stepping in. This is why I would be no good at politics. Thanks! (Back to Moscow.) — Mattisse ( Talk) 20:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to waste time on the FA of the day suggestion page. I missed that Alzheimer's had been run already. I was hoping purely out of self interest that a health related FA would run on that date as I am doing an outreach presentation for health educators that day. Thought it was worth a shot. I got practice editing at least =-). Jennifer Riggs ( talk) 02:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can see from the history, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development has seen neither vandalism nor edit-warring. What's the rationale for protection? Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 00:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I largely agree with you on point 5, but think some sort of group is needed to facilitate this sort of thing at arms length from ArbCom, in order to address the concerns people have about scope creep. I have a proposal here that I think addresses all objections, and your input (pro or contra) would be valuable. → ROUX ₪ 16:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
...for your recent comment and suggestion on my talkpage. I regret that my wording touched off such a large-scale reaction, but I appreciate your efforts to see both sides of the issue. I believe that the situation has been resolved and look forward making more...useful...contributions in the future. Doc Tropics 18:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone moved Yarlung Tsangpo River (which I created) to Yalu Tsangpo River, Yarlung Tsangpo Canyon to Yalu Tsangpo River, Talk:Yarlung Tsangpo Canyon to Talk:Yalu Tsangpo Canyon and Talk:Yarlung Tsangpo River to Talk:Yalu Tsangpo River. I did some referencing for both articles and there is no justification for changing the name. This was already done once and moved back. (See Talk:Yalu Tsangpo River.) Wikicommons uses Yarlung_Zangbo. The change is not the preferred spelling. This may be one of those ethnic spelling issues. This is an apparently new user who did not discuss on the article talk page. How to handle? Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 19:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you remove your well-intentioned comment from Giano's talk page? I believe it will have the opposite effect of what you intend. Jehochman Talk 20:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Mmm - Milk! | |
A tall, cool glass of milk just for you! Milk somehow promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a glass of milk, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Enjoy!
|
Mmmm. Jehochman Talk 21:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Can you point me to the prior consensus discussion about including this sub-section? If there's already a community consensus on this issue that seems reasonable, it doesn't need to be re-addressed. Djma12 ( talk) 16:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the DYK, do NOT discuss it at Talk:Barack Obama. There is so much fighting there that even ArbCom had to get involved. Please honor my request. The DYK can be discussed by the normal DYK people, who are calmer and are DYK experts. User F203 ( talk) 23:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Although I normally ask first, I've removed your comments from the talk page and ask that you leave it off. Look at that talk page and you will see extremism and fighting. If you or other DYK editors think it is a bad hook, that process is ok with me. I just don't want Obama extremists (extremists on either side) to infect and poison DYK. User F203 ( talk) 23:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec x 2 on my own talk page yet):Why not take it to the DYK talk page first then and get reaction?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
If you oppose that the article exists, let me know and nominate it for AFD. I will not get mad. The same thing goes with the Gaza articles. I have read about extremists hounding other editors. I do not want to be hounded so I do not edit Gaza or related articles. User F203 ( talk) 23:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Solution: I will nominate the article for AFD. If the DYK people hate the DYK and/or the AFD people kill it, it's ok with me. User F203 ( talk) 23:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
See, an editor with an agressive sounding name "KingofBattle" is already fighting in Talk:Barack Obama even after 10 minutes. Please work with me and don't let the infection begin! Please. User F203 ( talk) 23:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
User:QueenofBattle has persisted in putting your comments back in order to create a huge fight (canvassing fight). You kindly said you're sorry. Please block him if Queen persists in putting the comments back. In the mean time, I have entered an AFD to address your merger concerns. User F203 ( talk) 23:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Block is no longer necessary. I was afraid that Queen of Battle would live up to her name and battle. Her Royal Highness seemed to be on a revert edit war.
My predictions are correct. There have been edit conflicts and controversy that do not exist in Wikipedia except in Gaza articles and Barack Obama. I no longer care if the article is deleted because I have written down the addresses of the buildings and can visit them myself if ever in Honolulu.
Thank you for your kind demeanor. Others are more agressive and less welcoming. User F203 ( talk) 23:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Flame Barnstar | |
Thanks for your calm and deliberate actions, combined with a gentle mix of light-heartedness and civility, in light of the events of July 21 and 22, 2009. QueenofBattle ( talk) 15:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC) |
How is Taubbman Nikita Khrushchev going? I am disappointed with the book, as so far it has not explained anything. In fact, I get the ideea that the author doesn't know. Perhaps I m not far enough along. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 02:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I made an edit to {{ ElectionsCA}} to include the article in a new section. This would seem like a logical place to put it. Good luck with the article. – Zntrip 17:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
For an experienced editor who works hard in improving articles on Wikipedia. Thank you for the detailed peer review. Tbo 157 (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC) |
Happy to. Thanks.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Since you are adding the material back in, how about following BRD and discussing it on the article talk page? It is not perfectly acceptable to use here, as 1) the police report is disputed, and 2) Controversial subjects require careful use of secondary sources to determine what is important and what is not. Choosing to use a primary source like a police report here, is extremely problematic, and sets up a situation where editors are determining the importance of the content rather than the sources themselves. Instead of reverting, please take it to the talk page. I've already commented on talk about this. Viriditas ( talk) 10:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
From WP:PRIMARY: *
Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.
Accordingly, since a mainstream newspaper (the Globe) has published this primary source, it is perfectly OK to use it, as long as we don't interpret it. I hope this clears this up for you.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I've replied over there.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
When the physical damage finally healed, Gates' right leg was left two inches shorter, and he "walks with the aid of a cane".
WikiProject Alternate History is currently holding a roll call, which we hope to have annually. Your username is listed on the members list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active within the project. If you still consider yourself an active editor, please add your name back to the Active members list. You can also list yourself as a Supporter if you feel you cannot dedicate the time necessary to be an active member.
Please also see the Project talk page for more information concerning this Call Out. Zombie Hunter Smurf ( talk) 13:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Your actions show how poison has infected WP. I am not blaming you but merely commenting on the poisonous atmosphere of WP.
I wrote an article about Obama's Hawaii homes. Everybody liked it. Nobody said it was garbage. Those who visit Hawaii will be able to see exactly where each structure is located.
However, once you placed a notice on Talk:Barack Obama, all hell broke loose. That talk page is the Wikipedia equivalent of the Nevada Nuclear Test Site or downtown Baghdad. Explosions all over the place.
This shows that WP is indeed a reflection of the world. There is no one WP. There is the WP war zone (like Iraq), WP obscure zone (like Gozo Island), and other WP zones. Once you enter the WP war zone, prepare to get your leg blown off. That's too bad. User F203 ( talk) 15:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. If I do write it, I may have to write it in the sandbox first until it reaches a critical mass. There is much to write about his boyhood places in Hawaii. I have read many articles, including a front page Wall Street Journal article about his friend who asked Obama for money since he lost his job. It can be much more than a list of addresses. I think I might try that in a couple of weeks. That kind of article has to reach a certain quality upon starting it, unlike some stubs. I think the subject is interesting in part because he moved around. A person who lived in one house would not have enough information to have an article. It would simply read "Person A lived in his boyhood home in Topeka until he left for college. End of article". User F203 ( talk) 03:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 18:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Sort of tricky wording the paragraph but I believe that I've made it NPOV. For instance, Obama makes a charge against the police, the police refutes it by pointing out that he did not have all the facts (Obama also admitted he didn't have all the facts). It is also Obama's opinion that both the officer and Gates overreacted. This will go on the arrest talk page. GoldDragon ( talk) 04:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Wewalt, first thank you to invite me to add some points to the English lemma. As far as I can estimate, the two lemmata use a completely different approach. I will summarize some points on the user site, I assume its not being done by some copy paste and translating, but it might be worth while to compare. Youre comments a are warmely welcome. BR -- Polentario ( talk) 18:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Helen Gahagan Douglas1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- NW ( Talk) 01:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned Khrushchev to my brother, who knows Russian history like the back of his hand, and he emotonally started reeling off names and dates of all Khrushchev's bloody acts. I think the way to go about this is not to minimize any of that, but in additions show the contradictions in his character, the animal will to survive in a chaotic political environment, the humiliating moments, the pitfalls of having no education when mingling with the world sophisticated political elite. Plus Khrushchev was operating under a primitive fear, as those at his official level were not only being tortured and shot, but so were their wives and children, at the time he was purging. I hope I don't sound like I am defending the man, but he was a human being. And he had more dimensions than a Charles Manson. — Mattisse ( Talk) 13:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, can you check my point tally here? Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Some sentences I just don't understand, like: "In early April, polls gave Nixon some chance of winning the Democratic primary, securing his election." How did early April polls giving Nixon "some chance" secure his election? — Mattisse ( Talk) 15:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm letting you know that I've complained to the two FAC delegates about your behaviour at Mattisse's talk page. Tony (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt. I've observed the events at your latest FAC, and I wanted to say that I understand your frustration. Heck, any nominator does—very few articles sail through there without a hitch. However, as a busy FAC reviewer myself, I must defend Tony's method of providing representative issues and asking for the article as a whole to be treated. I've seen this scenario unfold probably 500 times. When an article has many problems, it's just not possible for reviewers to provide an exhaustive list. Anyone who believes it is so has not spent any significant time reviewing FACs. The reason we can't do it is that if an article is a ways away from FA standard, it is not the reviewer's job to bring it up to standard. The article should be withdrawn and worked on. If it is close to standard, most of us will list the issues and polish it up. I'm not commenting on the events that ensued after Tony's review, as they are not really my business, but I urge you to understand Tony's method and to treat his opposition as actionable. -- Andy Walsh (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
? → ROUX ₪ 05:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion moved from Sandy's talk page to here on prompting of others. Ottava Rima ( talk) 14:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Lets discuss at WT:TFAR because I can see this getting drawn out across our two talk pages and I don't realy understand the issue.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 03:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Thought Saturday nite was the returned time! I did work on the article some and plan to work on it more, if that's OK, to remove the "casual" language, reduce the quotes etc. What do you think? Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 12:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Found a hotspot for a few minutes am now on plane. Can only edit a new section . Tonight will email you a fascinating doc I found re Chotiner if your email will handle attachments. Nixon was as confused about him as we are. Thanks for the Senate edits keep up good work. Wehwalt ( talk) 12:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Wehwalt. No need to respond while you're traveling (I've intentionally avoided owning a Blackberry so I don't have to be connected to the internet in my free moments). I'm just finding time to weigh in on the recent kerfuffle, although I was keeping an eye on it as it was unfolding. I did see Karanacs and your efforts to defuse the situation and get focus back on the article. In my (long) experience with Tony, he simmers down as quickly as he simmers up, and he strikes an oppose when issues are addressed. Since Karanacs has handled things quite nicely, there's only one thing I would add at this point ... if I recall correctly (and I may not :), you were one of the editors who offered help to Mattisse during her ArbCom. I hope in the future you'll think twice about making posts to her talk page (or anywhere, in fact) about other editors that may lead her back to the behaviors that caused some of the problems to begin with or cause her to think that such posts are a good norm; it appears (from a mile-high view) that what caused Tony's initial concern was your first post to Mattisse that personalized the issue, and an apology in that regard may help defuse matters further. (Perhaps I noticed this aspect of the issue because you have made similar posts about me to her talk page in the past; my nature is to overlook such posts, but I can understand that may not be the case for other editors, e.g.; Tony.) The article issues will be resolved sooner or later, but I'm concerned that people who offered to mentor Mattisse not lodge less than exemplary comments about other editors on her talk page, as that may tend to confuse the situation with respect to her own sanctions and desirable behavior. I appreciate your subsequent efforts to get the FAC back on track. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there a baseball fathers-and-sons article? I couldn't find one offhand. It's an interesting topic, especially as it seems to be an increasing phenomenon as time goes by. There weren't very many early ballplayers who had kids that were also ballplayers. But there are a lot of them nowadays. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 08:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
In case you're wondering, I haven't forgotten about it; it's just that whenever I have some time to do another thorough go-through, you or Matisse seem to be in the middle of one already. One of these days I'll find some time where edit conflicts aren't a problem, make a few copyedits, and likely register my support. Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you check your July 29 sig at Dwarf planet on TFAR. It seems to be malplaced.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 22:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Before you sink lots of effort into creating an article, can I ask: what is Levitt's notability beyond his involvement in the eponymous case? - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 16:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) That's fine. I think that the default in this case is with Levitt being notable, since I have a fair number of articles specifically about Levitt. I probably won't get much done in the article tonight, but will finish the remainder of his career over the next several days. However, I certainly do see your point. Any one thing that he did can be attacked, we are merely arguing about the totality.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest talking with Ruslik0 ( talk · contribs) about him.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 19:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The English language includes these words precisely to avoid phrasings like "he resented the Democratic candidate for governor James Roosevelt". If you want to switch it back, I won't object, but it might be worth noting that I'm from outside the States, and seem to manage fine with it (I'd never heard of a "franked envelope" before today, though). Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
My pleasure; I hope it's promoted. Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 06:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Do you mind if we keep the entire speech up for at least for a a few more weeks? I am the one who added it in the first place. See, not one mainstream source has the entire speech. Yes, there are sources which carry parts of the speech but not the whole thing. So I spent about 30 minutes watching the tape, typing out what I heard, getting all of the names exactly right, etc. I figured that since no other outlet has a transcript of the speech, people will come to Wikipedia for it. Also, these are the only words we've heard from the two journalists, so this speech is highly valuable. I know about Wikisource, but I feel the Wikipedia article would benefit from having the full speech. -- Tocino 20:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Did you read the interview of Gates? It was added to provide balance per WP:EL by giving Gates version vis-a-vis the police arrest report and dispatch radio transcript.
Do you know about WebCite? I've just starting using it for new articles where my references are web links that may rot. In reviewing GAs I found articles that used them. Very nice. — Mattisse ( Talk) 21:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
As do I and bugs. Please indicate your perception his comment doesn't apply rather than remove it. ↜Just M E here , now 15:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Quite a story. Does this mean there will be a "series" on New York politics? A question: Do you use any of those bookmarking services, such are listed at the bottom of that article, such as Digg, el.icio.us etc.? Wondering they are useful, or just another way of building up a big useless collection. — Mattisse ( Talk) 21:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Any idea what happened to cause this spike?— Kww( talk) 22:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Saw your note here. Just FYI on the Noll book, the only real discussion of Lincoln (from what I can recall) comes at the very end in chapter 21, and the material about the second inaugural is fairly brief (maybe 10 pages or so), but Noll is a major scholar (of American evangelicalism, not Lincoln) so it could well be worth including, and there probably are not many works out there that consider the theological context and ramifications of the speech as effectively as Noll does (at least that was my thinking on reading it). I actually thought I had added a bit to the article about Noll's claim that the speech was one of the few "sacred texts" in American history, but apparently I decided not to do that for some reason.
The rest of Noll's tome is fairly rough sledding if you're not all that interested in the minutiae of 18th and 19th century American Protestantism. I personally liked it and got quite a lot of it (particularly in the early chapters relating the so-called "collapse of the Puritan canopy"), but it was not one of the more popular texts among my fellow grad students in our first year course on historiography. :-)
Anyhow like I said I'd be happy to pull that book off the shelf and lend a hand if and when you get deep into article revisions, but no worries if you dig into it yourself and find worthwhile stuff to include. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Albert Levitt at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --
Dylan
620 (
contribs,
logs)
help us!
14:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.
There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #8. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know.
-- User:Nbahn 04:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
When you wrote, "at least 3P.M.," did you mean no later than 3P.M. or no earlier than 3P.M.?
--NBahn (
talk)
03:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
For your keen eye on removing vandalism which was over one year old in the article, Kennel, I award you this barnstar for meeting the challenge set on WP:reward Ottawa4ever ( talk) 20:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC) |
well done :) Ottawa4ever ( talk) 20:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for hoping that I would be able to convince you to switch to neutral (and that you are willing to let DGG have his say). I still hope to do so (and even switch to support if possible). Me and DGG just had a great productive conversation (we spent over an hour over emails) as a result of this me contacting him. I'll let him clarify first, and then hopefully I'll be able to address your concerns. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Now the crux of your concerns at the time were that I lacked a nomination statement, and that you couldn't tell what I learned since the last RfA. Since then I've made one, and answered several new questions. Did the statement/answers I answered made a general good impression/is there something unclear / something that made a bad impresssion? Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
08:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you take a quick look at the deleted contributions of Kiel friendly ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I've noticed a couple, and I get the impression that he is contributing a number of things that wind up deleted as reposts of previously deleted material. If he's a newbie, forgiving one or two is easy. If there's a pile, it's a sign that he probably isn't really a newbie.— Kww( talk) 13:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
* 01:25, 15 August 2009 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . File:Touchmyhand.jpg ({{Information |Description = |Source = http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_C_ZWrP400rY/SlixFGpqqSI/AAAAAAAAA4I/KReBPYtmyp0/s320/TOUCHMYHANDdavidarchuleta.jpg |Date = |Author = |Permission = |other_versions = }}) * 12:46, 14 August 2009 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . File:Touch my hand.jpg ({{Information |Description = |Source = |Date = |Author = |Permission = |other_versions = }}) * 06:36, 11 August 2009 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Graffiti (Chris Brown album) (deleted 29 Jul 2008 at 16:14) * 06:35, 11 August 2009 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Graffiti (Chris Brown album) (deleted 29 Jul 2008 at 16:14) * 06:35, 11 August 2009 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Graffiti (Chris Brown album) (deleted 29 Jul 2008 at 16:14) (←Created page with '"Graffiti" is the fourth studio album by the Pop singer, Chris Brown still labeled by Zomba/Jive which will be releasing soon.') -- Wehwalt ( talk) 03:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations, California's 12th congressional district election, 1946 is now a Good Article. I'll just echo Happyme22's sentiments in that it's a great read. Let me know if I need to tweak any related pages or templates. I've removed it from WP:GAN, listed it at Wikipedia:Good articles#Political events, and placed a GA template on the article talk. - Optigan13 ( talk) 02:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on getting teh article to GA. I had a look at today's featured article Matthew Boulton too. It is very well written. Tbo 157 (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm becoming overwhelmed by this Khrushchev book. Too much awful detail. What was the source of Stalin's power over all these people surrounding him? How could a nation function at all, never mind at war, with Stalin sleeping late and forcing everyone to get drunk at night? And there is the story of Khrushchev's daughter-in-law, Liuba (Lyonia's widow) who was arrested in 1943 and sent to various labor camps, released in 1948, then exiled in Kazakhstan for five years. And the strange tale of her son, Tolya, sent to multiple orphanages where he was starved, and at one point '"lived" in a railroad station ventilation shaft'.
The horrors of collectivization and the peasants—I always hate reading about that. There are various articles on WIkipedia about this people or that people, now numbering only 1,000, and their horrible stories about being moved from living mountain rural life to becoming corn plantations field hands on the flat lands, stripped of their personal possessions and denied their own language.
Khrushchev? He was a Ukrainian first. — Mattisse ( Talk) 18:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Re the death of Leonid Khrushchev. "Our" book does give the reminiscences of Leonid's fellow pilot who said that Leonid's plane disintegrated. — Mattisse ( Talk) 22:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know. You might want to try Tompson's book, it is much shorter and goes less afield.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Interesting addition to the article, that Khrushchev had sex with Stalin's wife and Stalin. (I haven't reached that part in the book yet.) I have become fascinated with all the intrigue going on after Stalin's death. Now the book's detail stands it in good stead. In fact, I want to know more! — Mattisse ( Talk) 16:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I read it as Stalin's wife!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Please check out the recent disagreement at the Talk:Gilbert and Sullivan page and my talk page (where the editor admits WP:OR). What do you think should be done? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 10:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It occurs to me that the point of Ryan striking out seven fathers and sons is a good illustration of the longevity of his career. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
|
Four Award | |
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on United States Senate election in California, 1950. |
-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 21:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Wehwalt, hope you're well. I noticed this morning the "oppose" at Jake's RfA, and a corresponding ANI thread. I certainly hope that MR. IP will retract his humor (?), but something does tickle my thoughts on this. While I'm hesitant to actually mention names, there does seem to be an air of familiarity between the [who] that was attacked in the Village Pump post, and the "oppose in RfA". I recall a recently banned editor who has had multiple monikers over the years which had similar interests. Nothing I could hang my hat on of course, but just wondered if that thought had crossed your mind as well. Cheers and best. — Ched : ? 13:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Per this edit [10] please note that there is a discussion on the talk page. The content you restored is disputed as non-neutral and unencyclopedic, among other things, and seems to be subject to an edit war. I suggest you self-revert lest you become a party to that edit war. If you wish to participate as an admin you may want to caution the parties to stop reverting and reach consensus first before adding disputed content... or as an editor, please join the discussion page to explain why you think the content does or does not belong in the article. Your edit summary pointing out simply that the content is sourced is not really a viable reason to add or delete disputed content. Thanks, Wikidemon ( talk) 22:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Wehwalt, you claimed that there was an "inappropriate deletion of sourced material". Please show me exactly where and what source supports the statement of "Obama's apparent siding with Gates". Viriditas ( talk) 00:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it's just my browser, but they all look like Spanish beginning-of-a-sentence upside-down question marks. Smallbones ( talk) 22:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for dealing with the point about User:TTKK which I raised at ANI. I agree with everything you said: we are dealing with a well-intentioned and useful group of editors, and don't want to antagonise them. That is why I made a point of saying "Probably you were not aware ..." and also inviting them to set up separate accounts. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
For the support on the admin board :) i appreciate it. -- Ashish -g55 23:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me the idea of reading the Khrushchev biography. I am thoroughly enjoying it and admire Taubman's writing. He gets around mentioning Khrushchev's name too much nicely. Even though on a subliminal level, I already knew what he is saying. Still, I admire his presentation. The POV seems well supported. — Mattisse ( Talk) 01:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It is very odd that Nixon's resignation is not really discussed anywhere. Nixon Resignation is redirected to Watergate scandal where the actual resignation becomes lost in the shuffle. Even Richard Nixon doesn't highlight it. I was looking for a link "President Nixon's 1974 resignation" in your California congressional article, but I can't find anything. — Mattisse ( Talk) 16:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you confirm the points at [11]? Thanks, Dabomb87 ( talk) 12:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the points are OK. We had discussions last fall and a plane is not a train. Am on blackberry so can only edit by adding new section. Wehwalt ( talk) 13:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I
I
Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
— Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I was pleased to support the FA nom. I do think the third paragraph of the Lead could use a little expansion. All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, he and the archbishop struggled through together. No more archbishops for me, but no doubt more to come in the Dicky saga. The 1962 election for governor of California surely beckons... Brianboulton ( talk) 23:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The California Star | |
Thanks for all the work on 12th congressional 1946, et al. - Optigan13 ( talk) 00:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC) |
Sorry I couldn't help out more. - Optigan13 ( talk) 00:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on the FA! A minor thought: I disagree with the way the ellipses are handled at the end of sentences. The MOS says: "Put a space on each side of an ellipsis, except that there should be no space between an ellipsis and ... sentence-final punctuation ... following the ellipsis". So I think there should just be four dots immediately following the last word of the sentence. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a shame. He is clearly an extremely capable writer. I might say he has created what appears to be a legitimate article in Ebenezer Howard. I suspect he might have such a love for Teh Hoaxing, however, that rehabilitation is more than unlikely. Crafty ( talk) 03:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Actually, I have no idea who this editor is. Jack1956 ( talk) 06:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I was the one who posted the sentence you just removed that had a Twitter link to it. Well, on the Simple Plan homepage, I found a link to what they said was Pierre Bouvier's official Twitter account. Now, if it's his personal account, don't you think that his word is more reliable than anything? Why did you take that down? Seriously? -- Zzguitar14 ( talk) 20:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad it was promoted; sorry I didn't return, but as you said, I din't oppose it anyway. Cheers. Tony (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 18:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Four Award | |
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on California's 12th congressional district election, 1946. |
-- Dylan 620 ( contribs, logs) help us! 22:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
you have email.. John Vandenberg ( chat) 10:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
User:Wehwalt has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I think a lot of editors (including me) have found it hard to consider some hard-and-fast rule about size in FACs. The Khrushchev article is big, and there are no daughter articles, I see. But I'm fine personally with that size. Just as long as you can defend it as in summary style throughout. I guess it comes down to explaining the greater level of detail in one or two potential daughter articles. Images: could do with a good audit WRT location and size. Tiny is no longer in vogue. Looks like a promising candidate. Tony (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see Cosmo the archbishop on the main page. I don't think I've ever seen a modern archbishop as TFA, though I think some of Ealdgyth's ancient ones have been there. Cosmo's birthday is 31 October; unfortunately it is only his 145th, no nice round number. The 100th anniversary of his enthronement as Abp of York was earlier this year, but the article wasn't written then; there are no other key dates coming up soon, and no round numbers at all. So, how many points would Cosmo earn if he was nominated for 31 October as (a) a recent promotion, (b) a fresh topic and (c) a 145th birthday boy? Advice welcome. You might also have an answer to a query I have posted on the TFA talkpage. Regards, Brianboulton ( talk) 23:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 4, 2009 - I added the only free image (cropped) I could find, not sure if there is a better one out there, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Pretty sure anyway. I did try a re-wording, thinking yours is too long, but I'm not sure I like it any better. All the best, Smallbones ( talk) 22:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
unblocke me
He was a peasant and the Bolsheviks disdained peasants. They were mostly well-educated and of the intelligentsia. It seems to me that Khrushchev rose through the system by a combination of his ability to actually accomplish tasks (having a stellar working knowledge of how-to) and the party's proclivity to centralize in Moscow, hence moving Khrushchev to the center of power relatively early on. Seems like a flute in the system, and his astute working of the system, that put him at the top, and his "insecurity" seems in many ways to be justified. — Mattisse ( Talk) 18:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to take the article through MILHIST's A-class review after wp:biography's peer review if you would like additional comments. :-) — Ed (talk • contribs) 17:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Good work on the article, but you added <ref name = "hosp"/> to the article and it is causing a cite error. 75.69.0.58 ( talk) 13:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure that Taubman says that Leonid's wife, Liuba Khrushcheva, was not released until 35 years later. — Mattisse ( Talk) 16:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It's your article but I think "mild liberalization" is a meaningless term in this context. What does it denote, Obama-lite? — Mattisse ( Talk) 20:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
( this one) It's not a matter of what I'd like to see done, disruptive behaviour is called disruptive for a reason. Besides, I'm sure there's a way to deal with anon users, it's not like it's the first time an IP causes trouble on some low-visibility pages. Just today, there are at least two other notices on AN/I about unregistered users.-- 93.45.135.178 ( talk) 04:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For your excellent article contributions to a wide range of subjects. Keep up the good work! – Juliancolton | Talk 04:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC) |
Hi Wehwalt. I've made a slight change to one of the history paragraphs in City of London School after someone quite rightly pointed out that it didn't make sense. Could you have a look over it when you have time to see if my new additions make sense. Thanks. Tbo 157 (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I've got a DYK nomination in for September 25 for The Ne'er-do-Weel. Any idea about the status? It's been sitting for a long time. Thanks for any info. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Chotinermemo.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Chotinermemo.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Chotinermemo.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 15:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
What is the deal with all the sudden vandalism? — Mattisse ( Talk) 22:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd seriously consider undoing your unblock. Whilst Slrubenstein's was technically the first wheel-warring action, there was considerable discussion beforehand (whether consensus was achieved is doubtful, though). However, your unblock without consultation would definitely be seen as wheel-warring should this go any further. Black Kite 23:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments, I will reply at AN/I Slrubenstein | Talk 08:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
"I think I've allowed ample time for consultation, but have not heard from the reblocking admin" - this was an hour or so after your re-block. I blocked around midnight my time, and went to sleep. Give a guy enough time to sleep and wake up. Fifteen hours or even one day is ample time to get feedback, not one hour. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Your reasoning is naive or absurd. To call one a spade is to assault one with a racial epithet. This is a separate matter from calling a shovel a spade or using the phrase "a spade is a spade." No one would be offended if one called a certain kind of shovel a spade, and I agree with you that there is nothing offensive about the phrase "to call a spade a spade" (and i have no problem with any user using this phrase). But it does not logically follow that therefore using "spade" to address someone is also innocent. It is not. It is a racial slur. Maybe you did not know that before. Now you do. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Mifter ( talk) 00:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
So Why 12:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Don't forget Halloween ... we need your help Victuallers ( talk) 18:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
If you have any moments to spare from Nikita or Nixon or whatever is your current project, or just feel like a change of scenery, could you look at Nansen's Fram Expedition, now at peer review, and perhaps leave a comment? Brianboulton ( talk) 20:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you got a pix of Khrushchev's grave. Did you get any other pix of Novodevichy graves?
If so, please consider adding them to the gallery on that page. Smallbones ( talk) 02:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
{{User0|Giants27 15:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Biography Barnstar | |
For your efforts correcting biography articles and substantial contributions to DYK, this is truly merited Ottawa4ever ( talk) 21:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC) |
I would have given you an anti vandlaism award but ive done so already for that challenge i believe. I think this award though is more just for the work youve been doing but consider it just the same as if it were for anti vandalism as well. I will make note though on reward board that you met the challenge twice. Good keen eye. Keep up the good work Ottawa4ever ( talk) 21:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Um, I thought we agreed to let it go? [12] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
If you block one party for edit warring, you should block the other side as well. ChrisO was not edit warring with himself. Three reverts is not an entitlement. Be fair, or you'll be overturned. Jehochman Talk 00:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey dude. I asked NuclearWarfare ( talk · contribs) and Zscout370 ( talk · contribs) on Skype to do an image review of the article, and they found many problems. Could you look over all the images that are in the article? Many are nominated for deletion, including your photo of the grave because Russia does not have freedom of panorama ( commons:Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama#Former_Soviet_Union). Apologies, — Ed (talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for being unbiased. The level of partisanship was really disgusting. As what I can see a neutral admin, I urge you to review my contribution to the article of contention and tell me if I violated any of the wikipedia guidelines. Because as far as I can see (see also my comment on talkpage), I did not. Thank you.-- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 19:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Also the other two users asked for a pardon of their block. One of them has been here since 2005! and had never done anything wrong! His record is (or was) clean till now. The normal procedure would have been a lock on the article, Rfc and Mediation. Not an indefinite block for content dispute. However, if I go to adress this injustice it will be a waste of my time and I do not have the time to do so. But you as a neutral person can see the damage this does to wikipedia's image. What is interesting was that another admin tried to keep my block based on "copy right violation" (which I addressed and several admins agreed it was not). The second admin said: "Decline reason: "The block is fully justified by your disruptive editing and refusal to acknowledge the problem." None of them gave me a good reason. I might be wrong, but my feelings tell me that they were proxying and etc. This is some serious corruption and I think this is sort of corruption will hurt Wikipedia's long term image much more than anything else. Anyhow, I thank you for your neutrality and that is why I invited you (if you feel like or have the time) to let me know if I had made any mistakes in that article that warranted an indefinite ban. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 21:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Also despite what ChrisO says about me, I have a Ph.D., I review journals and even articles from Encyclopedias that have to do with humanities. I am a scholar myself and would never support fringe theories. All sorts of ugly accusations are made against me. I will be on a wiki break, so if you have time (it is up to you of course), I would ask you to review my contribution (note there has been some bad feelings between me and ChrisO before) and see if it merited an indefinite block by that admin. Either way I wish you the best and I'll be on a partial or more break. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 22:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
You truly are the ONE admin with a brain, heart and courage. Thank you. Arad ( talk) 20:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC) |
Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing |
I am pretty sure you are wayching TFAR, but I have a point query for you.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 16:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Rjanag and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, -- Epeefleche ( talk) 22:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, As you know, User:ChrisO previously broke WP:3rr in the article Human Rights. However, I have followed procedure per the discussion in ANI before and I called for an RfC on the inclusion of a source (Talbott). I stated clearly:"I think following dispute resolution, it would be good to seek an RfC. As I said, I will abide with an RfC. However the RfC should not be a character assassination. Rather it should be a well intentioned RfC on wether Talbott is a reliable source for this article. I believe he is, and you do not believe he is. If other users judge it is not, then I will abide by their opinion."
However he reverted my talk page discussion [13] and a rational was not given! This is really because of the 2 minute 3rr that a user can give themselves the right to revert the discussion of others. Had I done that, it would have been a permanent ban. I can't even find the discussion I initiated which talked about why he got favorable treatment (the archiver did not bother to archive it!) and instead as you recall, I got replies: "Nepaheshgar should know this is not a law but a guideline..". However as you noticed, the main point was why should some users get favorable treatment? I do not feel like making a report in ANI on why my talk discussion was r.v.'ed, because I believe I will get banned again like I did last time. I am not sure what to do except leave wikipedia. I am trying to follow procedure by calling for RfC and instead my discussion gets reverted. And again if report this to ANI, I will be blocked probably like last time! And I noticed that my discussion on 3rr and favorable treatment was removed! If no action is taken, I will take a longer leave (I took a 5 day leave already before restarting the discussion). Thank you. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 02:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your input when you can get to this. Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you please contact me in regards to the 3 Hikers in Iran Nlinds ( talk) 15:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Nlinds
Nice to see my edits being recognised :P. The Factories Act, curiously enough, is already on my to-do list! I've got the sourcing, so I'll bump it up the list a bit. The other two I'll need to find sourcing on, but if I can get it, I'll write it :). Anything else in that area that pops up, give me a poke. I'm halfway through a Bonar Law rewrite, and there's stuff there that concern's Neville's brother, father and early achievements, so message me if you'd like me to take a looksee - ditto if you need a GAN, PR or FAC comment. Ironholds ( talk) 19:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I assume you follow Raul's talk? (Comment without prejudice to Raul's discretion in Main Page scheduling :) Just to let you know to follow 3 article proposals within 3 days at TFA.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 10:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi: I did a review of Neville Chamberlain, and it is currently on hold due to lack of citations in certain sections. Other than that, the article was amazing and a pleasure to read. I learned a fair bit from it, and feel I do know the man better. Keep up the good work! Ray Talk 17:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Did he or did he not graduate? Smallbones ( talk) 00:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
N.B. My late father was named Franklin Kay in Lane's honor in 1930, 9 years after his death. So it would appear that Lane's efforts were well remembered in California. Shir-El too 17:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I would say just remove the coinsite.com links (not a reputable source) and take the whole thing to FAR (I already have an article listed at FAR, so I can't do another one right now). It is terribly short on sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
We are behind with giving out DYK awards. My idea is to give out some awards and deputise them to give out some more awards. Do you think that might work? Victuallers ( talk) 11:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The 50 DYK Medal | |
This to celebrate your contribution Wehwalt. Some really interesting articles - so many biographies and an occasional non bio You are certainly laying down the law with your contribution. Can I just tell you that the 100 award is a great shade of gold! So don't let me deter you from going on to a century. Thanks again from me and the wiki. Victuallers ( talk) 11:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC) |
As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 19:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I have asked Tim riley to take a look at the article. When he's done (this weekend?) I'll take a look. He actually knows what he's talking about, whereas all I can do is proofread. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I do believe that the site is reliable. It has many autographs of world politicians. Then again, if you could find me another source image, eg. a book/letter from himself, I'd be more than happy to retrace another one. Connormah ( talk) 23:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you particpated in some way on the Mattisse case or the associated clarification discussion.
A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Mattisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.
For the Arbitration Committee, Manning ( talk) 03:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
<Karanacs puts on a reviewer hat and hides the FAC delegate hat under the bed.> Hi Wehwalt, I saw this [14] and wanted to quickly point out my experience. I found the Khruschev article to be very well-written and it flowed very well. However, in my first reading I never got to the foreign policy section; I generally don't have a short attention span, but by the time I got halfway through the domestic policy sections I was tired and had to go do something else. If the article hadn't been so beautifully written I would have likely gotten tired before that. Our average reader probably does not have as long an attention span as I or some of the reviewers. You may want to reflect on whether any of the early life/domestic stuff could be spun off into another article to ensure that readers do get to focus on the foreign policy stuff. A great example of a recent article which essentially implemented more of a summary size during its FAC nom is Inner German border.</takes of reviewer hat and unearths FAC delegate hat - ew, must dust under bed>
That said, as an FAC delegate my personal opinion is worthless and won't be counted whatsoever. I'd like to see the opinions of some of the other reviewers on the length, and if they agree with you then I'll accept that consensus says this criterion has been satisfactorily met. From what I've seen, you care more about article quality than pretty stars, and I just wanted to give you something to think about. Karanacs ( talk) 18:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt, I look forward to your ArbCom candidacy. The more content editors we can get on there, the better! ceran thor 01:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to spoil the love-in here, but what exactly is " I would have voted to desysop all of them, or at least required them to face a new RfA to keep the tools. Friendship is a great thing, but that friendship was a huge COI with their duties as admins." supposed to mean? Neither myself or MZMcBride were sysops at the time; while I can't speak for MZMcBride I've never seen the slightest evidence that he's a "friend of the_undertow/Law" ( zero edits to the_undertow's talk page, zero edits to Law's talk page), and by no possible definition could you consider me a friend since my interaction with him was and is pretty much nil. Are you believing whatever you've been told on IRC without bothering to check for yourself, misremembering evidence to suit your particular agenda, or just plain lying in the hope that nobody will bother to check? There may be a fourth alternative but I sure as hell can't think of one, and none of the first three are traits Arbcom members ought to have. – iride scent 20:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Your answer to the question about content/conduct here is, well, kind of short, so I'll ask you to make a clarification: You don't think the committee should do any of the things I mentioned, that is, sanction editors who violate content policies or establish procedures for binding content resolution (for example, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia, which was initiated by the committee)? That's how I'm reading it; am I right or have a misread you? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Glad to see you are running for Arbcom. From all my interactions with you, you have come across as a great and fair editor and administrator and I hope you get it. Cheers. Remember ( talk) 14:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I've found a letter signed by Khrushchev. Would you like my to insert the signature into the article? Connormah ( talk) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.
There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. --NBahn ( talk) 04:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Ben says to say hi, and also how disappointed he will be if William Speirs Bruce doesn't make the main page on 30 November. He is considering an encyclical on a new method of allocating points for TFA nominees. On other matters, many congratulations on the Khrushchev article - a big success in every sense of the word. Can you briefly fill me in on the revised Chamberlain strategy? Brianboulton ( talk) 22:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a quick look at the acts - I've been rather distracted with uni work, so haven't really made much in a while. Still, I'll see what I can do :).
I signed up to review this article for GA, but I removed myself from the sign up, as I have lost my legs recently. What do you think? I would do it if you helped me. Best always, — Mattisse ( Talk) 23:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of deleting the first two questions (1a and 1b) that I put to you on the "Questions for the candidate" page, along with the resulting discussions. The reason I deleted the material was mainly because, although I obviously think the edits in question were poor ones, I can't quite convince myself that it was entirely fair to single out a couple of bad edits from your editing history when I haven't really had time to do as thorough an analysis of your contributions as I would like. Also I was a little concerned that that part of the discussion might detract from what I consider to be the more substantial questions regarding your resistance to recusal and what I see as a lack of experience in dispute resolution.
You are of course, fully entitled to restore the deleted material if you so choose (as long as you restore it in its entirety) as it included both my questions and your responses. At this point I've done what I felt ought to be done on my own part, so whether or not you choose to restore is of little consequence to me. Regards, Gatoclass ( talk) 06:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Stellar work, my friend. May your work outlast your hopefully (un)successful ArbCom candidacy. ;) Best, ceran thor 22:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
[[Image:Turducken quartered cross-section.jpg|center|thumb|280px|Happy Thanksgiving!]] {{clear}} I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 07:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Happy Thanksgiving, Wehwalt! I see how it is. You're going to be a big, powerful arbitrator and forget about all the little people to whom you've promised editorial work on trivial entertainment subjects. Ah well, I must go and eat a huge amount of turkey now (having the big celebration today). I'll be passed out on Tryptophan, red wine and high calorie desserts, so I won't worry about it. :-p -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Derrell Robertson at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Materialscientist (
talk)
00:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
⇌ Jake Wartenberg 08:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, Wehwalt. I have been inactive on Wikipedia for quite some time, so I hadn't noticed your work. It deserves congratulation. It would also seem that our research interests overlap in some places--at least partially. One of those overlaps is on the issue of this politician. As one of the primary composers of the Luisa Moreno article, Jack Tenney appeared on my radar screen as her primary adversary and the man who ultimately caused her deportation. Since there was no article yet on him, I added him to my to-do list and promptly forgot about him.
The other day, I happened across Wikipedia in my net-surfing and thought I'd check my list, and I was elated to discover that you had created the Tenney article, for which I thank you. Since it did not include any of the concrete results of his anti-communist crusading, I added in the tidbit about Moreno's deportation. I was a bit surprised to see that it was removed--haphazardly at first glance, since I didn't see any reason why anyone would doubt it. But since it was removed for not being sourced, I gladly added the citation of the Griswold del Castillo text.
Now, I wanted to talk to you about this, because I am a pleasant person who despises the often-nasty disputes that arise from differences of opinion or practice concerning the creation of WP articles, and I find open and frank discussion the best way to avoid them. The issue of deportation is often unclear to those people who are not familiar with immigration issues. There are several ways people can be deported, and being "offered voluntary" deportation is one of them. In such cases, individuals have deportation orders and are prohibited from being in the country, but rather than being physically removed by an official agency, they take the responsibility of relocating upon themselves. It is technically referred to as a "voluntary" deportation, but they are still being expelled from the country by official means. So it is still a deportation. I think this it is important to show that Tenney's actions created consequences for people such as Moreno. Otherwise, his anti-communism is nothing but talk.
I also wanted to discuss this anti-Communism as practiced by Tenney. If you read the article from the Journal of San Diego History that I referred to, the author talks about how Tenney used anti-communism to advance his political career. In fact, it talks about how had been fairly liberal until he realized who was buttering his bread--the anti-union agricultural interests. It also goes into his defense of the San Diego-area military establishment against accusations of discrimination by Moreno and others.
I think this aspect of Tenney's political career is important and, if not included, creates an incomplete picture of who this person was. It may not be flattering, but it is true. I would prefer it if we could work together to create a good article rather than removing one another's contributions without any discussion.
How does that sound?-- Rockero ( talk) 22:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
For answering my questions; regarding this - could you link me to specific cases (or better, specific FoFs)? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Do not use lynching metaphors when discussing the mass murder of minorities in relation to a user who alledges they would "die for dixie." Refactor post haste plz. Hipocrite ( talk) 16:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Wehwalt, would you be willing to do the following:
Since you are the one to have unblocked, I think you should be willing to do some of the necessary work. What do you say? Jehochman Talk 16:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I voted for you. I hope you win. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 04:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for starting that AN/I thread in regards to the sockpuppet investigation. I appreciate admins who ensure that editors are given a fair shake, and not just dismissed out of hand. I also appreciate your recusal from the situation, as it kept everything above board and ensured that the matter was dealt with as cleanly as possible. All in all, very fairly and professionally handled. Kudos. Throwaway85 ( talk) 02:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.
It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew talk at 03:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)