User talk:Gwynand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Archive 1

Fuck you 212.251.164.73 (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that into consideration. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Requesting an Editor Review 2 Cool argument! 3 Rfb participation thanks 4 WBOSITG's RfA 5 My RfA 6 RFA 7 Thanks 8 We talked about this one prior... 9 Signature 10 RE:Your RfA participating 11 Archiving 12 Baseball uniform 13 Are you planning on writing a co-nom? 14 My Recent Rfa 15 Reply 16 Comments at User talk:Steve Crossin 17 Thanks! 18 A quick note to you... 19 Regarding your message 20 User:SDLexington 21 The first thank you (part b) 22 Re: Prima Fascist discussion 23 Potential RFA fixes 24 Accent 25 You... 26 Absolutley 27 Bill Simmons 28 Re:Admin 29 Apparently... 30 My RfA 31 RFA withdrawal 32 Just for current/future reference 33 Thankyou

[edit] Requesting an Editor Review

Hi, you opposed my last RFA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gary King a few weeks ago. I have decided to open an Editor Review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Gary King so I could receive a new assessment for my recent activity on Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take the time to look over my recent contributions and point out areas where I could improve. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cool argument!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I don't know if we share the same conclusions yet, but who cares. :-) You've been saying some utterly sane things at [1] --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Gwynand.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the after closure discussion regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. Once again, thank you for your participation. -- Avi (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WBOSITG's RfA

Congrats!Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 21:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hi Gwynand; I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk 21:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

Hey Gwynand. Your oppose was made very clearly, and I understood it completely. I was just responding to your "nit-picky" statement. As for withdrawing, I'm going to stay in it until the bitter end, and receive all the constructive criticism I can from the experience. Happy editing, Mastrchf (^t/_c) 00:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw your comment on Dloh's talk, saying there was a "half-oppose" due to it. Heh. I just wanted to absolutely clarify. As for staying in.... yes, you seem like you have a good head on your shoulders and won't get all worked up no matter what happens. Many a user in fact can't. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

He was really starting to bug me. I even tried to get an admin invovled. Anyways, about the sig. The "Simon" is my name and it's just there to greet people. The KSK are my links. But you're right, simple sigs are good too.SimonKSK 17:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes arguments can be really tough... but once I saw the edit regarding the gun etc... then it can immediately be brought to a place like WP:ANI. Things like that are quite intolerable, especially when the user then doesn't really acknowledge it as a mistake. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I laughed when I saw he changed it. Maybe he thought he can get me blocked. The whole thing was very funny.SimonKSK 17:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We talked about this one prior...

Just so you know, you had this one right I'm afraid. Like watching a car wreck. I never did go back and switch, glad I didn't. Time to move along! (Or as the clerk at the DMV says....Next! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how in some RfAs you can sort of just sense when the rails fall off. Especially interesting in one like that, where the candidate has some great qualities and has already garnered significant support. That copyvio issue came up and man it was basically done there. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 21:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

I am going to restyle it tomorrow morning. asenine ^{say what?} 22:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's good to see I'm only dealing with the most serious issues on wikipedia, commenting on signatures that have a shade of blue that is bright... Yeah, I'm not sure you aren't too far from a great sig though, maybe contrast or darker, but it does look quite cool. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Your RfA participating

If you have noticed, I have read all RFAs before posting my comments. I usually read all of them before replying to them at one go. Hope that this helps. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

I've never tried it, so I don't know, sorry. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball uniform

That article needs plenty of work, for sure. We're slowly working on it. But more hands would be helpful. I've got to be careful not to make it look too much like my article on nicknames. There is some crossover (and common reference materials) but it's not quite the same subject. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll look further into... I've had the itching to get into some more article building recently. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are you planning on writing a co-nom?

Fritz is ready to go. If you'd like, write a quick co-nom so we can go live with it. For your convenience: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fritzpoll. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dangit, just saw it. I swear it wasn't just there....your work like magic:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hah, funny timing. Spent a while writing that, then even longer taking a ton of stuff out. I agree, I think this baby is ready to go live. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Identical timestamps for my note to you, and your co-nom statement edit. No one can accuse us of being socks :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't be more right Gwynand. I mean Keeper. :) Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Recent Rfa

Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Hi there. Thanks for the question that you asked me on my administrator coaching page. I have replied to the comment that you left on that page. Cheers, Razorflame 19:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it. I also noticed Keeper's long message to you. I would take that advice very seriously, everything he says is accurate and would help you.

The intent of my question was to draw out how much you really desire to become an admin. I have to say I agree with Keeper. Edit the best way you know how... and if somewhere down the road, a solid editor wants to nominate you for admin, then go for it. As for having a specific date, after specific edit counts, I just don't think that is a great idea anymore. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I also do not believe that having a specific number of edits is beneficial. I have actually disregarded that information mostly because it was outside of my comfort area (although I was serious about writing articles). I won't actually create 1 article a day, but I will create at least 1 article every couple of days because I really like creating articles. I wanted a general idea as to when someone thought that I should have an RfA, no more, no less. Cheers, Razorflame 20:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments at User talk:Steve Crossin

Your comments about me at Steve's talk page were very flattering. Thanks. Useight (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I am confident enough in my memory of an editor that I feel comfortable slinging around endorsements of them on talk pages. You are one of the few. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 02:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. Look forward to seeing you at our forum ;) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A quick note to you...

I just wanted to say, regardless of the eventual outcome, thanks very much for the co-nom on my RfA - if I hadn't known you were at least considering it, there's no way I'd have gone ahead with it. That said, it is rather nerve-wracking, and there are another five days left...well, I'm going to say thank you anyway :-P Fritzpoll (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your message

Hi there. I just saw your message that you left Balloonman, and I would just like to point out a major mistake that you wrote. Though I did say that I would never try there again, that was actually not the case. The reason why I said this was because I was hoping people would pick up on the other meaning that I was trying to get at, which was that I would wait for someone to nominate me for adminship over there. I did not come over here to try to get adminship just because I failed 6 RfA's. Actually, I came over here because I saw a lot of vandalism that I could revert and I wanted to help out. It just happened to become so much more than that. Cheers, Razorflame 19:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Razor, I made no major mistake. This is what you posted over on simple: "I am withdrawing from this RfA. I will not try again." That read as "I won't run again". Doesn't talk about nominations at all. You were just nominated there again I see, are you going to accept that nomination? Sorry, I see that was a few days old, already closed by someone. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read this. Cheers, Razorflame 20:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I skimmed that, thanks for showing. I hope you wait a minimum of six months there as well to even accept a nomination from someone. You have great intentions all around, but so many things you do make it appear that you really just want to be an admin, somewhere. I know you keep telling everyone that's not the case, but the concern is more how it looks. You look willing to wait 6 months here, so that should be a good start. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 20:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My current admin target established by my admin coach and me is September of this year, because I've already gotten 2 months of activity here. Over there, there is no set time. I am simply waiting for someone from a very special list of users to nominate me (Lights, Gwib, Tygrrr, Creol, EchoBravo, Eptalon, Vector, or Cometstyles). Cheers, Razorflame 20:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

September sounds good. But here is a warning... en.wikipedia user's will see your failed attempts over at simple. You already have 6. If you notch up a 7th or 8th over there, each time it effectively will "reset" your wait time over here. The running too often thing is usually seen as the ultimate power hunger thing on en.wikipedia, and people here won't care that you've been doing it over on simple, it will still be considered power hunger. Just keep that in mind. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 20:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The most likely outcome will be that I probably won't become an administrator over on the Simple English Wikipedia until after September, so I should be fine. Cheers, Razorflame 20:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:SDLexington

Hi Gwynaud, this user is disrupting other editers although im quite sure its not intentional. He/she obviously has some issues and i think we need to be extra sensitive around this. The editer has been accused of trolling, i dont want the editer to get hurt if its not his/her fault. I think you know what im trying to say, could you help keep an eye on this. Yours --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 01:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is not intentional. I think the issue, the only issue, is SDLexington's age. I will do what I can to help her be able to contribute here on wikipedia, but that can only go so far. I will keep an eye on this. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 04:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is just age, still i think we both agree that her actions arent malicious. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 13:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The first thank you (part b)

Hy Gwynand - in case you don't know, my RfA ended successfully this afternoon. I wanted to thank you very much both for the co-nomination, and also the discussions that you held elsewhere (I saw you cropping up on a few talkpages) in response to comments at the RfA. As I said to Keeper (who got the part a of this message), I didn't expect to succeed, but your willingness to co-nom me given your exacting standards at RfA was a confidence-booster sufficient to accept the nomination. I hope that I can, in time, justify your confidence in me. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! To prove your gratitude, you have to block any user I ask of you. :). But seriously, I'm happy that an editor like you is now in the admin ranks. Be wary of the opposition and their reasoning when you go forward, though I don't agree with opposing over it, it was definitely a valid concern. If you feel inexperienced in a certain area, remember to take a step back, read up on it, keep a cool a head, and ask for advice. Good luck to you!Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I will do! (the stepping back thing, not the blocking thing :) ) Fritzpoll (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Prima Fascist discussion

The policy is tricky - I guess it comes down to whether or not you think the account is going to be disruptive, and whether it is appropriate to guess that ahead of time. On the other hand, looks like another overreaction to Kurt, in my opinion - what do you think? Fritzpoll (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's tricky, but do read the policy I linked to. Whoever made Prima Fascist (who also won't reveal their other account), did so to avoid scrutiny when mocking Kurt and making those votes in the RfAs. I think its clear cut in that regard. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to participate over at AN/I over this. In this particular case, the editor has said they plan to edit normally on this account, and not just participate at RfA. Further, they have agreed not to participate at RfA using both accounts (I know you don't think this in any case, but it needs to be said), in which case they are not avoiding scrutiny of their edits, because they are openly operating this as an alternative account, and the account's edits can be scrutinised independently of the "main" account. The issue only raises its head if they are editing improperly on the new account (personal attacks at Kurt would be an example), at which point community scrutiny would probably necessitate forcing the issue of exposing the main account. I agree that this situation is not the ideal hoped for by our policies, but I don't see it as violating them yet Fritzpoll (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly is tough. But I'll have to disagree on that same point, if someone wants to create an account to vote in RfAs a certain way (a way that would ceratainly cause problems if an established account did it), then this is avoiding scrutiny. Its like If I, Gwynand, really want to get a point off about Kurt in certain RfAs, but know people will take issue with me if I do it, so I just make another account to make those votes. It would be avoiding scrutiny on my part, and thats what I see here. BTW, thanks for coming here to discuss... pretty cool you are an admin now. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it means we can get into a rambling discussion if necessary without clogging up AN/I! It kinda depends on how exactly the account makes the interaction I suppose. To be honest, I've not looked all that deeply at the edits Prima has made to RfAs opposing Kurt - if they violate our established civility policies, then the account should be outed because, as you say, scrutiny is being avoided: if the established account goes to RfA, for instance, this piece of 'evidence' (that's how it feels at RfA!) would be missing for editors to make a judgement call. I was working from the premise that if this account is simply an alternate account for editing as well as RfA, then provided the RfA stuff was not inappropriately worded, etc. then it wouldn't be so bad. The obstinant stance the guy is taking towards a six-month RfA ban, however, is not encouraging...the admin bit is kinda cool, just got to start using it (per my latest on Keeper's talkpage) Fritzpoll (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Potential RFA fixes

If any more ideas pop into your head regarding any theoretical way to fix RFA, feel free to add them to my newly-created page here. Useight (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accent

It's English, Northern. StewieGriffin! • Talk 18:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you be interesting in subscribing. Subscribe here. StewieGriffin! • Talk 18:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, what do you mean by subscribing? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Good to know that stewie reads my page....:-) Hi Stewie. I enjoyed your radio program, but I won't be subscribing just yet. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah nevermind, I see that Gwynand asked on your newly revived talkpage. I've done a bit of advertising for you Stewei, nonetheless. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Subscribing means getting it every day (unless you state otherwise). StewieGriffin! • Talk 18:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean you would just post a message on my talk page that it is ready? If that's the case, I probably won't officially subscribe, but I'll still listen to it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, however, I could do a weekly digest if you subscribe. StewieGriffin! • Talk 21:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

← By the way, you can "subscribe" without receiving delivery now - Wikipedia:Radio Wikipedia#Listeners who do not require delivery. I'm sure a lot of people would prefer to just keep the page watchlisted to see when new episodes were available, so this will help get an idea of the listenership regardless of if they want their talk page updated or not. xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 02:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You...

Need to run for RfA. I just read your comment in mine and it was one of the best RfA comments I've ever seen. You'd be better than I'll ever be. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that's a given :P naerii - talk 02:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

But more seriously: Both Keeper and I have suggested this in the past, but I believe she's holding off due to a low-ish edit count. naerii - talk 02:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both. DHMO, comments like that (not appreciating my oppose, but an oppose in general), certainly eases worries I may have about a candidate I opposed being promoted. I've opposed a few candidates that have been promoted this year, and for the most part I'm not alarmed/upset they are an admin. I'm sure I'll feel the same about you if you get the +sysop at the end of this thing. To Naerii... a few people have talked about me running. I'm not quite even at 2k edits, but 3k is really the new 2k when it comes to RfAs, is it not? I might consider a run in the future. Oh, and one last thing, I am a boy (man?). Gwynand is meant to be G Wynand, or Gail Wynand. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, he/she.. same thing :P I have no idea what the usual edit count requirements are, but yeah you could probably do with a few more before running. It's not really the number of edits anyway, more the breadth and quality - you've got the quality part down, but breadth - you don't appear to have many edits to key admin areas like AIV, and things like that are what make an RfA fail (as I'm sure you're aware :). You'll probably have an easier time than most at passing RfA with an edit count on the lower end of the scale; you frequently make thoughtful and interesting comments at those highly visible pages, RfA and ANI. I'll definitely be there to support when you do run, whichever time you choose... I look forward to reading Keeper's nom statement :P naerii - talk 02:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I don't doubt there'll be quite a few people watching my actions should I pass. That ensures higher quality from me which is good. Looking forward to yours. Trust me, you'll be much less controversial than mine. ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Absolutley

I have my heart set on a successful RFA in the near future and don't want to hurt my chances at all. Could we continue this here on the discussion page? Dusti^{complain/compliment} 17:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Simmons

I've replied on my talk page Bjewiki (Talk) 18:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Admin

You're thinking of Anonymous Dissident, correct? The other two I know are Ilyanep, myself, and a third one who I suspect doesn't want his/her age revealed. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apparently...

I'm the only one that is willing to answer any of your questions :-), regardless of forum. wt:rfa, my talk, wt:rollback, Pedro/mentoring....anywhere else you need me Gail? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, we do frequent the same areas. I think I'm going to start telling people to go to your talk page if they need to contact me... if you look at the count tool, I have 50 more edits to your talk than mine... Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 00:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

With all due respect, I would have preferred it to remain open for another twelve hours or so. An administrator suggested last night that I withdraw and take the commentary and learn from it, but I asked for it to remain open for at least 24 hours to gather feedback, if nothing else. I know that I was off to an awful start and had no chance of succeeding, but I wanted to gather significant feedback, if possible. As it is, everyone pretty much picked on one misguided / misworded edit and piled on to that one, rather than digging deeper.

Ehhh, regardless, I appreciate the thought. I would have withdrawn later this evening, more than likely, anyways, so I suppose it's six of one, a half-dozen of another.

Regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here. You definitely don't have to say "with all due respect" on my talk page, I closed your RfA and am 100% open to anything you want to discuss about it. When an RfA has entered SNOW territory, sometimes reasons for continuing to leave it open are because of significant chances of editorial feedback. In your case though, I agree with what you are saying, in that everyone was starting pick on the "legal threat" edit. Reviewing it, I saw very little room for further contstructive feedback that wouldn't be much better suited for other venues, like Editor Review. When people come and and see that same reason for oppose, it becomes less and less likely that people are going to do a deeper review of your contribs. Although RfAs can be a great place for feedback, feedback is actually just an added bonus, but not the goal of the RfA process.

Since I didn't comment in your RfA, I'll just say that it was unfortunate, if neccesary, that the misworded edit prohibited you from passing at this time. Looking at it, and reading it a few times, I understand pretty clearly that your intent was not to scare or threaten, but rather to inform the other editor of the seriousness of what they were doing in regards to those music articles. On the other hand, BLP and Legal threats are taken so very seriously on wikipedia, that even a stumble on one of these policies causes the community to require that the editor realized the mistake, and after that, ample time before requesting adminship tools. Seeing that you are indeed a good editor, and also your ability to come and discuss something that you disagreed with but in a knowledgable and civil manner, as you've done here, I'll certainly keep my eye on you over the next few months and wait for that next RfA. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA withdrawal

I'll do so then. What's the procedure? Ironholds 13:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid i dont know how to close it properly; another thing i need to know before i'm admin-read, i guess :(. 13:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's quite alright. I've only closed one myself. I'll try to close yours now, although I'll be copying how others one have been done... not through memory just yet. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, (you may already know this) the paperwork (7 steps to close a debate? Egads!) is all here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Keep. That reminded me that I forgot the last step. Just added. Thanks for keepin' an eye on me (I get nervous I'm going to do something ridiculously wrong when closing one of these). Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just for current/future reference

I recently looked over your contributions whilst trying to escape the bot saga - given today's discussion on Keep's talkpage, I jotted down what my assessment would be if participating in an RfA here - sorry for the abbreviation in the page name, but I'm lazy! :) Maybe you won't run now, but I still think this will apply Fritzpoll (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've bluelinked the page. You've got over 6 months experience, everyone think's your an admin anyway, I could care less about "edit count". You know what you're doing here. That's called WP:CLUE. Can't buy it, can't earn it, can't learn it. Got it, or don't got it. You got it, and you'll pass. We'll wait for your wife to change your life forever (first kid? heh, been there - I acutally passed out in the delivery room, had to be dragged out by one of my wife's nurses...) Stop laughing. You'll understand soon enough....) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks to both of you. Fritz, I'm attaching that summary with my RL resume :). In reality, I was thinking I might be ready to run around my 1600/1700 edit mark, but just didnt want to mess with the community running at that number. I read through AN/ANI every day, and can really honestly say that having access to deleted edits, protecting pages, and occasionally having the ability to block would be quite helpful to me. I have total confidence in myself that I would never abuse or overuse the tools, just not sure if the community could see that yet, and it's 100% about their confidence, not mine. The edit count thing is funny, I could be as high as 500 contribs to the AN message board, but most of the time opting to stay out of an already overcrowded thread is helpful. So, I may have spent 60 minutes reading and thinking, but in the end it is close to resolved anyways and I don't feel the need to add that virtually useless tack-on. Oh well. Yes Keep, it will be my first child. I'm quite excited. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, best of luck with the new addition in a few days then. Don't leave it too long running for RfA though - if they'll give me the tools, they can't be that picky Fritzpoll (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thankyou

For reverting this edit to my talkpage. It was rather random, wasn't it, as you pointed out in your edit summary! Best wishes, and happy editing! Lradrama 18:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. I think you gave the IP a warning recently, thats probably why he blanked you. I just reported him to AIV. Has a long block history. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Yes, he filled an article with much of the same babble about Bilbo Baggins, so I reverted it and warned him. That's probably why he did it. ;-) Many thanks, Lradrama 18:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)