User talk:Wehwalt

Note:

If you are sending me an email, please do not leave a note here. If you are emailing me, you want it confidential, and by leaving a note here, you're letting people know that we've communicated on a confidential matter. Note also that I carry my iPhone much of the time and will notice the email probably before I notice the "you have new messages" banner. Many thanks.

Archives

1 2 3 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Call me crazy, but I may consider an RfA for myself in the near future (summer possibly). I was wondering if you could give me an opinion on if I should, before I make a fool out of myself on RfA, should I not be ready. I would use the tools mostly to block troubling vandals (WP:AIV), and fill requests at WP:RFPP. Though I would have access to these such tools, they will not change my Wikipedia editing, I will still continue to help and improve articles on the same basis as I do now. I have read through policies and believe I have a pretty good understanding of them. I would greatly appreciate an opinion. Thanks in advance. Connormah (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything disqualifying. My concerns would be lacks of building any particular article, a not hugely high edit count, and that you have only been editing here on a regular basis for less than a year (though I know your account goes back to 2006). I think you have a chance, though you will probably draw opposes. That's assuming there aren't any smoking guns, say gross incivility, or some serious conflict. Or being from Alberta, that makes it DOA right there. :) Seriously, I think you would have a decent shot, with those caveats, and if you tried and failed, you'd have an excellent chance in 4-6 months if you kept up this level of work.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I may butt in, Connormah, you might want to update your userpage, particularly the edit count. I almost discounted you as a worthy candidate because of that seemingly low edit count (2,000 probably wouldn't pass ever nowadays). :) Good luck with the proceedings! ceranthor 00:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I need to get that updated. Connormah (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wehwalt, I think I'll choose to wait a bit, and try to give it a stab in a couple months, after reading through things more throughly, and maybe even some successful RfAs. What type of edit count is generally considered acceptable nowadays in RfAs? Thanks again. Connormah (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't give you a number ... why not take the time and build a GA, in addition to your very worthy image work?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll definitely try, although, I don't view myself as a very strong writer, I guess you could define my editing style as a Wikignome. Would some people oppose, based on just that? Connormah (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some would. Maybe find someone to work with?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there is a shortage of admins currently, I've been noticing certain noticeboards (AIV, RFPP) being backlogged more often. Do you think I'd stand a chance if I self-nommed now? I'm currently working on a writing project (yes, a writing project!), also, but I feel I could help out, if I were to gain consensus in favor of promotion. What do you think? Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, borderline. I think that if you attract a lot of opposes, you withdraw and it won't be held against you, try again in the late spring. They can't hang you for trying.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll prepare one, but I won't transclude it until possibly Friday. Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you possibly look at George H. V. Bulyea? I've been trying to develop it, and would like to know if I'm going in the right direction (refs, sections...etc.). Thanks again. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could use more refs in there. Aside from that, I see a lot of niggling things, but no major problems. Try for paragraphs in the three to four sentence range. Later on, if you want, I'll make comments about the little things.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source I'm using is a compilation from multiple sources (newspaper clips, records, interviews, books), like Wikipedia. I've been citing the inline citations within the text. Is this the correct way to go at it? Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) You might want to check at WP:RS but I would be more inclined to source to the compilation. Citing to the newspapers and so forth because even if you gave the date and page number, few people would have access. Since the point is verifiability, I would think that the compilation would be more available.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for citing the compilation, how should I go about it? Page number, or the cited source withing the page number? I know, this is a bit confusing. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page number.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll get to it. Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I did that also. Just a dumb mistake on my part on the CSD criteria (reading it wrong), but no means have I memorized it. I think I'll leave this until expiry time, even if it's going to fail. I'll try again in June, I guess if this fails (which it will probably). Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how you cite references in that article, but you can add this to the fact that the Red Ensign partially covered the Maple Leaf flag during his funeral.

<ref>{{cite book | last = Archbold | first = Rick | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = I Stand For Canada; The Story of the Maple Leaf Flag | publisher = Macfarlane Walter and Ross | date = 2002 | location = Vancouver | pages = 147 | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = 155199108x }}</ref>

User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh thanks, I will. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to have the book for the past few years, figured it might have come in handy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The chief finally made it, just as I'm going to bed. Neville was the first Conservative politiciian I've ever supported in a long career of mild dissent. Now Diefenbaker makes it two. Go for the hat trick with Alex. Congrats anyway and I hope the wait was worth it. Brianboulton (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, many thanks for the praise and for the help. Remember, he was a Progressive Conservative, and to the left of his party. I am reading a bio of Home but am waiting for the major bio that came out after his death to arrive. I'll probably do him after Scalia. Meanwhile, party time in Prince Albert!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that "Progressive Conservative" was an oxymoron, like "working party" or "civil ehgineer". Brianboulton (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, the stock comparisons are "military intelligence" and "civil servant". Or "legal brief".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cotton brain from my cold, I'm not following what you're saying about the exception/exemption, so I moved our discussion down to the Discuss 12 section ... fill me in! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check it. Thanks.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten it. I need to read it carefully and will get back to you tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much :)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again. Thanks.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wehwalt, if you have a couple of minutes could you take a look at WP:AIN#Incident with User:Nothughthomas? I'm asking you since you seem to be an admin who isn't involved in the whole debacle, and I really don't want to engage User:Nothughthomas any more for fear of reigniting the drama. Thanks, XXX antiuser ^eh? 20:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm going to pass. I don't routinely deal with deletion policy, and while I know that there's a lot more to this than that, you should ask an admin who does more in that area.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks. XXX antiuser ^eh? 20:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you like to get articles to FA like I do, I would like some guidance when it comes to reference formatting. I know you have them split into two sections, which is fine. I personally do one, but it seems that my way is really despised. The article in question is Flag of Japan and just want to see what improvements you can make and what you can suggest for next time. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to a discussion where your way was deprecated?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it is shifting that way on the talk of the FAC page and I seen one user go on my previous FAC of this article "I cannot oppose for having a single section for references" but it felt like more are against it at FAC. As for the article itself, it is pretty much a one man job. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to take a few hints from the Dief article and, quite honestly, it will somewhat work for me. I am just not sure how to use that citation template to quote legislation and other items. However, it does wonders for books. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imatthew got your message. Hopefully he takes it to heart, despite the tone. I'll be keeping a close eye on this. If another incident does occur and you're not online, should I bring it to Tan's attn? Throwaway85 (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. Although apparently Imatthew did post something mildly objectionable on the user page, I'm inclined to let that go.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My, I am getting popular as a go-to admin. Half tempted to run again in December but realize now it would just take too much time away from article writing.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As much as Arbcom may appeal to the lawyer in you, would you really want to have to deal with this stuff every day? Throwaway85 (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would get heartily sick of seeing the stuff show up in my email inbox, and start to lose it at the inane discussions they must have. As I've said, the election result contented me, even with all the crap, I still got a majority of those expressing a preference.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D4D may well have been a blessing in disguise. Throwaway85 (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. I still would have unblocked, in retrospect, I just would have covered my butt better by consulting a bit more.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I still think that was the right move, and the backlash still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. I was actually surprised to see how many opposes you got based on your content contributions. Flattering, I suppose. Throwaway85 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may also capture something of its function... especially at higher PSI. :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 01:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, sticking with the plunger. Simple and expressive.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's hard to beat such elegant simplicity. (But a hard sell. :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 01:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ArbCom needs to suck it up. Maybe this would make a great April Fool's Day joke ...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I can't think of a more appropriate logo. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This all came from a discussion on Durova's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You and I are heading toward dispute resolution, Wehwalt, [1] though I hope it doesn't come to that. I won't put up with anyone trying to disrupt discussion I start for the hell of it, or posting hostile or snarky messages after mine because of some personal dislike. Please, either work with me constructively or leave me alone. I will do the same for you. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 13:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. I worked constructively with you on the al-Durrah article, and supported it until you made a last minute POV push before the article was promoted (in my view improvidently as there was one oppose and another editor was about to post concerns). I am an active participant at WT:FAC for obvious reasons, and could resent your implication I am opposing you for personal reasons, but I have a pretty thick skin. I do not think you have stated adequate reasons for your desire (you tell me it is not a proposal) and I think your persistence in it ill-advised. If my arguments are off-base, they will be disregarded by editors, if they are not, then all you are doing is trying to muzzle those you disagree with. I suspect that your commentary on them does nothing to help editors decide which is true. Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To advise you: I have closed the peer review and nominated at FAC. I realise that your peer review was incomplete; there was no wish to cut you off, but the existing comments were copious and from what you say, you were unlikely to raise anything of deep significance for the article's future promotion. I am anxious to move on to other things. Thank you for your review, and please feel free to raise any outstanding points at the FAC. FYI I have just about caught up with my own PR commitments, and Scalia is next on the list (what is it with you and these dyed-in-the-wool conservatives?) Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wehwalt, I note your two reversions in quick succession of another editor's posts concerning grievances,here and here. Whatever issues you may have, your actions do not seem to be consistent with those of an administrator and, indeed, a candidate for the office of arbitrator.

The community expects leadership in terms of constructively engaging with other editors about problems they may have with you and that you may have with them; specifically, we expect to see you assume good faith. I recall recent friction between you and this editor concerning an FAC, and I'm hoping to convince myself that your attitudes are professional and detached.

Please let me know if there's some way I can be of assistance (although RL work pressure is high at the moment). I would be pleased to know that you intend to sort the matter out by communicating with the editor. Tony (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony: Thank you for your concern and your offer of assistance, which I gratefully acknowledge. I do not believe any assistance is needed at this time. As you may be aware, removing comments from talk page is permitted, and in fact, after reversion, I let one set of comments stand and responded to them, as I am somewhat surprised you did not notice. I felt that SV's comments were inappropriate in tone in both sets of comments as assigning personal motives for my posts, however after some thought I let the second one stand to avoid just the concern you are making. You may recall your own sensitivity to a comment I made on Mattisse's talk page and your own reaction to it. My way is to not give people who are having some difficulty in engaging civilly space on my talk page. My talk page is indeed a place where people can come and ask for explanations. However, they need to do so civilly, or the posts will be rather summarily removed and not addressed until the editor posts in a civil manner, in which case they will certainly be addressed.

Now, getting back to SV's second post. You may want to review my response, and I am regretful you did not do so before posting. I am unaware of any friction regarding that user and my review at a FAC,. I am rather surprised, actually, to my mind I gave a good amount of my time to working constructively with the editor towards improving that article and eventually changed my vote from strong oppose to eventual weak support. Unhappily, the writer accepted a last minute invitation from another editor to POV push and I had to oppose, an action somewhat oddly characterized here in a post to the promoting delegate's page in which she stated that my actions had been "exhausting", which physical feeling unhappily is par for the course at FAC. Thank you again for your concern and, as this is your first post ever on my talk page, I bid you welcome.

By the way, there are no present candidates for arbitrator. At the present time I am giving the ArbCom any comments I feel to be appropriate as a member of the community and as an admin. Many thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to User_talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive_37#Apologies you had an interest in commmenting at FAC3 before it closed. FAC4 is getting long in the tooth.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wehwalt,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

• Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

• In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

• Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the Scott Brown concern of Flatterworld's, I can't seem to find a diff of any removal of material by me. I did, just a while ago, rewrite the patient rights paragraph to reflect what the amendment was all about, and I added appropriate citations. Please take a look when you have a chance and let me know if you think this will satisfy any concerns raised. thanks, Malke2010 02:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That I think is what was meant by both him and me. I just glanced at the diff frankly and did not see anything inappropriate or distorting in what you wrote. I felt that his revision was a bit verbose and I am starting to get concerned about bloat in this article, even though it is not that long. Yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the bloat and the accuracy. The revision that is currently there is the one I wrote last night. Is it too long? I can shorten it.Malke2010 01:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Justice
		Thanks for all the work you have done to improve Antonin Scalia. I was so impressed with your tireless editing that I was inspired to create this Barnstar for you. Great Work!   Best Regards, John -- JPMcGrath (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's very handsome! Thank you. I felt it was about time that I came back and did another law article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, but did you want to ask Raul to de-schedule it so you can wait for a specific date? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks. No, it is the anniversary of the Secret Speech. I suppose we could have waited until October for the 50th anniversary of the shoe banging, but that seems disrespectful somehow.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it's a good date then. The shoe banging would be funnier, but you're right about it being disrespectful. BTW, did I ever tell you how good that article is? If I didn't, I'm telling you now. If I did, I'm telling you again. :) I hope you're very, very proud of it. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am. I hope it will be well received by the community on the 25th.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speer

Guess what: I put the awards back, though in a subsection, AND WITH REFERENCES!!! Happy? Expatkiwi (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2010 (CST)

Nikita Khrushchev

It's still on Peer Review, dated September 08... time to remove it there?

I'm sort of puzzled by the state of the article - at times it reads apologetic to K. Two points from my own sphere that I suspect are now missing/distorted:

• K-housing. This is a case when it pays to set aside biographies and check sources on the subject itself; it seems that consecutive dilution of source info substantially distorted timing of events. The dates 1946-1950 in the article ("These structures were completed at triple the construction rate of Moscow housing from 1946–50, lacked elevators or balconies") are misleading; K. of that time had responsibilities to manage construction industry but no authority over construction policy and choice of architecture. It is true that the first campaign to introduce mass housing in Moscow (and Moscow alone) started in 1950, precisely the November 1950 builders' conference. But it did not get past feasibility studies and experiments - all resources were channeled to grand stalinist projects until K. grabbed national power and quite brutally enforced low-cost construction. The turning point was K's speech of Dec. 7, 1954 and then it took at least three years to deploy prefab concrete plants (again, in one city only; elsewhere the process extended into Brezhnev's reign). Moscow housing built in 1954-1957 is perhaps the highest point in construction quality ever reached in Russia but it is 100% stalinist architecture.
• K.'s anti-religious campaign of 1959-1964. Details and sources are in Russian cultural heritage register. I recommend the cited book by Yitzhak Brudny - a surprisingly spot-on analysis of time. NVO (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at those things more closely. Yes, the peer review should be closed, please feel free to do it if I don't get to it. Can you recommend a source on the construction matter?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I can only point to the ending chapters of meagerly sourced stalinist architecture. Tim Colton's Governing the Socialist Metropolis chapters 5-7 is quite good and available online. Cracraft and Rowland's Architectures of Russian identity: 1500 to the present provide good analysis but it's hidden on googlebooks. And of course K's own memoirs, search for the name Lagutenko [2], concrete [3] etc. NVO (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. I have the three volumes of K's memoirs. I am currently "on the road", I will do what you suggest in a week when I am home.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies

I am not having a good 'tech' day today ... I am trying to put the warning on the talk page of the editor who keeps deleting the mention of Mangum's latest arrest, without using the peoper procedure for doing so. Sorry to be such a bother. Duke53 | ^Talk 13:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Poly Pomona-related Jerry Voorhis article

• 
  Awarded to Wehwalt who significantly improved the Cal Poly Pomona-related article Jerry Voorhis and raised it to FA status.

--Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Visited the campus to take the images, looked very nice.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC query

Wehwalt, you recently mentioned (somewhere) that you had missed some of my closing notes on a FAC. Was that a random thing, or do you think most noms don't read through FACs once they close? I'm asking because I just left closing notes on two FACs, and I'm hoping I don't need to take another step to also notify nominators on user talk when I find minor items that should be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had not been reading closing notes. Basically, I didn't know you had left them. I now check. Maybe just leave a note on WT:FAC alerting those who do not know that you sometimes leave them that you do?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea ... I've left notes on all three I've read through today so far ... thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck

I see that Scalia is at FAC. Good luck! Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Emperor Meiji is next, but just getting under way.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

email

check it. Malke2010 23:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Will act accordingly. Amazing. As for Brown, wait until it cools down a bit, stability is a requirement. Hey, Khrushchev's on main page in 26 minutes! Should be a wild 24 hours. My highest profile article on main page.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, go ahead and nominate if you want. GA has been moving slower than honey at Arctic temperatures, especialy with the WikiCup qualifications wrapping up. Probably be a month until someone reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. So is there a check list I should use in going over the article first?Malke2010 00:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

main page in 20 minutes?

Congratulations! —mattisse (Talk) 23:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Should be an interesting 24!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed some strange little edits.... —mattisse (Talk) 00:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already? That was fast. I'll go take a look.Malke2010 00:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! I'll also keep an eye on it. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you know the answer

Hi, this edit to Pseudologia fantastica[4] in which a user named User:Epiphone85 added an image , an image that the same user uploaded today and which is not linked to any articles. What is to stop individuals from uploading the photo of, say, a classmate and introducing it into articles? Should the image be put up for deletion?

Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at Community de-adminship

I moved your comment under BQZip01's !vote, since you seemed to be referring to that and not to IzzyReal's !vote.

Link: Wikipedia:Community_de-adminship/RfC#Support

CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi Wehwalt, hope Nikita is going well for you. Since you're a legal guy, in America when someone is convicted of a crime but then appeals that conviction, the person is still convicted while on appeal, right? It doesn't get set aside unless the appeal succeeds. I ask this because there are questions over on the Meredith Kercher article. She was the young British student who was murdered in Italy, etc. Anyway, apparently the two people convicted of the murder are appealing. Are they still convicted, even while awaiting appeal? I ask because there are issues being raised over there about this appeal. And in the meantime, we have to adhere to WP:CRYSTAL in making current edits. Thanks for any info. Malke2010 01:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wehwalt, when you get around to it, would you put a comment about this on the Meredith Kercher talk page for the benefit of the editors there? Thanks.Malke2010 06:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what has been said over there is more comprehensive than what I could say. What is true for the US is not necessarily true for Italy, though it seems similar. Remember Kenneth Lay.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't remember. Is it true that while on appeal a person is then innocent? Does the conviction go away while on appeal?Malke2010 17:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The conviction is not final, certainly, and in many states the defendant may not suffer the collateral consequences of the offense. But for practical purposes, the presumption of innocence has very little part in the appellate process. An appellate court in the US will look to see if the prosecution established a prima facie case, and thereafter generally confine itself to matters of law. However, Italy, like many European jurisdictions, has a system in which the appellate court either hears the facts again or reweighs them, not quite sure which.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

You did it again! —mattisse (Talk) 00:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't nearly as hard as I thought! I've run into a bit of a dead end with Emperor Meiji, it is hard to separate him from his government, so I'm leaving that aside to thought and working on a Diefenbaker offshoot, Canadian federal election, 1957.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. (Ugh) Politics. —mattisse (Talk) 00:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]