Misplaced Pages

HAPPY NEW YEAR This is Carcassonne in southern France where I spent Christmas, safely away from Wiki temptations. Back to work now. I hope you have a great year in 2010 for writing, reviewing, adminning, or whatever takes your fancy. Always willing to help when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! You too. I was there in 2002, I didn't even know it was there, just driving across southern France and this medieval thing comes over the horizon ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Albert Speer

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for listening and going the extra mile by offering to check out that image history to ensure we're "telling the (hi)story" as honestly as we can on WP. And if there are any others from the same source, perhaps, that I've not yet seen...! ;) Cheers, David. Harami2000 (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Dief

I'll at that to my list of articles to review. Note that there is no guarantee that I will actually get to all the articles on my list. At a glance, it looks like nice work, though. Steve Smith (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I realize you are likely to have demands on your time--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Hey Wehwalt, I've recently discovered the inimitable joys of vandal fighting. While Twinkle is a very effective tool, I would like to use huggle for its speed and easy access to other contributions, as many of the incidents do not appear to be isolated. If you could grant me rollback, I would be much obliged. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Knock yourself out.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Always happy to exercise my adminly powers in a noncontroversial manner!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I bet. I'll do my best to ensure it stays noncontroversial. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah incident

Hi Wehwalt, I've made some changes to the article that might alleviate your concerns, if you're willing to take another look. I've outlined them here. Cheers, SlimVirgin 22:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Advice on interactions with a young editor

Hi Wehwalt, hope all is well. Recently I came across a new user on the recent changes page. She had created a userpage where she stated that she was 10, in addition to posting her full identity, which I had suppressed. She seems interested in editing, but also seems like she just wants someone to talk to. I'm a bit unsure as to how to proceed. I've offered to show her around and help her out, but I'm aware that Misplaced Pages is probably not the best place for a ten year old. I'd appreciate it if you could look over our interactions on both of our talk pages and give me your thoughts on how best to proceed. Thanks, Throwaway85 (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Gentleness I think is the best route here. Gentle guidance. I've watchlisted and will see where it goes. If there is a risk of coming to harm, I will do what I have to. Hopefully it won't be needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought something similar. Your point about asking for parental permission is well-taken. I'll keep an eye on things and try and make sure she doesn't wind up somewhere she shouldn't be as well. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good. If she expresses any interest, I'll help her set up a page in her own userspace where she can try to build an article. I probably could not have at ten. But if it at all looks like trouble, I'll do what admins do and then ask for a review of my actions at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully it doesn't get to that point. I was thinking something similar about copying an article she wished to edit into her userspace. She seems fairly precocious, so who knows? Thanks for taking a look at it. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Compromise at administrator noticebord

I have laid out another compromise solution per user ALI's recomandation on the issue of the number of dead in that CIA attack. Please read the discussion, your neutral POV would be apreciated.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I responded to you on the noticebord.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the response on the board can be viewed now, I had an internet lag temporarily. Sorry.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Pro-Orc? o.O?UrukHaiLoR (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha. Anyhow, I am about to leave for the evening, but will keep an eye on things tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, ok thanks. Goodnight. And, yes by the way, I realy like those guys. xD Hehe.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help on Expulsion of Germans after World War II. I'm staying out of that and related pages for the time being since there's a perception of bias on my part. Cheers, --BaronLarf 04:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Rand-y musings

I am not sure I get the comparison, Wehalt. Could you expand on your metaphor for me? - Arcayne () 19:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That's Wehwalt. It's been 20 years since I read the thing, but in the book there were those who felt that they could solve the country's severe economic problems by pressuring the intelligent to solve the problems. They were not successful. I do not think that if you put this into force, that admins facing reconfirmation would solve the problems of RfA.

I should add that I do support community desysoping. I would favor that the RfDS would have to get a consensus to desysop, and possibly some minor restrictions, let's say seven days notice to the admin before you can start one, and perhaps each editor is limited to one attempt at a desysop per month. And if the desysop fails, the admin cannot be taken down that road for six months. That kinda thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation against User:UrukHaiLoR

As you have commented on a report on AN/I in which I have been involved, I'd like to inform you that I have filed a sockpuppet investigation against UrukHaiLoR (talk · contribs). This account very likely is a sockpuppet of Top Gun (talk · contribs), who has been blocked indefinitely for "lying about sources, in addition to a whole host of other sins".  Cs32en  02:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the rollback rights, it'll definitely help when I choose to skim through the recent changes list. Connormah (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you had mentioned your work there and I figured it would come in handy.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Diefenbaker

I noticed you had sent the Chief to FAC. I propose to defer my contribution to give somebody else the chance of a pop, but rest assured I will dive in appropriately. Thanks for the acknowledgement in the nom statement, by the way. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't think that keeping it at PR longer would improve the article much. Please read my PR responses, they address issues such as the famous Articling Student debate!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you confirm?

Hi Wehalt, I'm trying to read through an FA nom, and having trouble reconstructing where it currently stands. If I'm not mistaken, your most recent statement about your position is that you are no longer opposing FA. Because of that, I struck a statement that you were "still opposing," which had me hung up for some time. Is that accurate? Most definitely not looking to put words in your mouth, just follow what has been a pretty complex discussion. Your confirmation (or correction) would be most welcome. -Pete (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposing, but I am waiting to see how others weigh in and how the nominators react to proposed changes. I may take a position in future. Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Thanks for your help over at the ANI board. I was moved over the show of support and I wanted to thank you and everyone else who posted in my defense. I deeply appreciate it. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

np--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Antonin Scalia

Please refrain from deleting properly referenced material about Scalia, e.g. Ralph Nader and Robert Weissman. Letter to the Editor: Ralph Nader on Scalia's "originalism" The Harvard Law Record, Published: Thursday, November 13, 2008, Updated: Tuesday, September 29, 2009. --Zeamays (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A letter to the editor is hardly properly referenced material.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It expresses a serious opinion about Scalia's views, and is authored by a prominent critic of Scalia. The mode of publication is unimportant to its relevancy. Again, please don't delete this and other critical comments. Just because you disagree is no reason to delete. --Zeamays (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I neither agree nor disagree. I have rephrased it somewhat, the word "claimed" is generally disfavored on Misplaced Pages, and I've put it into the citation format. I should note that Nader is not a legal scholar, and his quibble is like saying that Scalia is inconsistent because he doesn't count blacks as 3/5 of a person.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I looked up your talk page first. However, you have misquoted Nader. I will edit it to properly reflect what is in the Nader text, which does not say that corporations did not exist prior to adoption of the constitution (nor pior to adoption of the 14th Amendment for that matter). Actually corporations did exist prior to adoption of the original constitution (see History_of_corporations), but that is irrelevant. It is your opinion that Nader is not a legal scholar, but I would suggest that is in opposition to the facts cited in his Misplaced Pages biography. You describe Nader's opinion as a "quibble", which is definitely your POV. Misplaced Pages articles should reflect both sides of a controversy. --Zeamays (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Then you'll put in that Scalia has said (at least according to Nader) that this is a question that he doesn't intend to face until it comes before the Court?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No I am satisfied to have the article state Nader's position that Scalia's position on corporate personhood contradicts his claim to be an originalist. However, if you want to add more of the article, you may. Please don't misquote Nader this time. --Zeamays (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have dumbed it down a bit. Part of my view is that this article has gotten too technical and it turns off the lay reader. I think that I have not changed the effective meaning of what you said. If not, can we perhaps discuss agreeeable language on teh article talk page? I'm not trying to change what was said, I'm trying to make it understandable to the lay reader without him needing to click and go off page.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; what you have now is fine. I apologize if my comments assumed wrong intentions. I have found that many politically-charged bios have editors who want to subvert Misplaced Pages's POV standards. --Zeamays (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It is fine. My purpose is to improve this article to FA, I do not have any axes to grind. Please stay engaged with the article, I welcome feedback.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

TFA Requests

I think you may want to check back at your request of Edward VI of England. You nominated it as a one-point article, but it is a 2004 promotion, so it actually gets three points! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Al-Durrah

Hi Wehwalt, apparently the al-Durrah FAC is slowing down loading time for the FAC page overall. Sandy wondered if you and I could discuss moving some of it to the FAC's talk page, as much of it is the discussion between us. We could leave a link to whatever is moved. Would you have any objection to that? SlimVirgin 15:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you need to is fine so long as there is a clear link,--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt. (At one point, when I read through, I seem to recall-- could be wrong-- that you had an unstruck oppose in addition to a support. Is my recollection faulty? Could you review that your declaration is clear?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's down to 103 kilobytes from 191, Sandy. Is that short enough, or should I move some more? SlimVirgin 16:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not focus on size; it's more important that we remove resolved commentary only. I haven't yet checked ... but any further reduction you can do, taking care that anything unresolved remains, would always help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, first time I've used this tool; I think it indicates a few cases of missing alt text? I'll have to defer today's pr/ar until tomorrow; since Zscout hit almost all the image reviews, and I've no experience with his image reviews, I'd like to wait for another reviewer to weigh in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There were some images added since I did the alt text, so I will add those, but I can't add one to the lead image, because the infobox has no parameter for it. I just tried to add the parameter, but I don't know how to make it invisible, which it needs to be. SlimVirgin 17:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional alt text added. SlimVirgin 17:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm an idiot, with this type of infobox, you don't need an extra parameter, so it's done. SlimVirgin 17:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Being ignorant of infoboxes can be a good thing: I work hard on it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection Request

Would it be possible to semi-protect my user page indefinitely? I'd like to prevent vandalism to it, as I've been recently engaging in anti-vandalism efforts, and I have seen a couple instances of vandalism on it already. Thanks. Connormah (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you've got the wrong one, it was the userpage, but can you set a one-week expiry date for the talk page, possibly, too? Thank you so much. Connormah (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, disregard the expiry for my talk, keep it indefinite, along with my userpage. Thank you! Connormah (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah sorry, my bad.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No problems. Thanks again. Connormah (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll

You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.

It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).

As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!

Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's that man again (with the umbrella)

I thought you might like this Neville story, which didn't make the article. On 24 November 1938, not long after Munich, the House of Commons was debating the possible division of Palestine under the recommendations of the Woodhead Report. Colonial Secretary Malcolm Macdonald referred in emotional tones to "Bethlehem, the birthplace of the Prince of Peace." Winston Churchill was heard by several members to say, in a loud aside: "I always thought he was born in Birmingham." Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Typical of Churchill, I fear.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Visible thanks

Much obliged for the suggestion of what promises to be a delightful project. There's a lively discussion at my blog. Mentioned you in the opening paragraph. Cheers, Durova 04:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting! Thanks for the heads up! I enjoyed the comments too. I agree, Lane looked like he did, for good or ill, and he looked that way from about the age of 30 (see the pic of him in 1898). He merely lost more hair over time and put on a few pounds, I think. By the way, if you have any time, do you think you could lend your views regarding the images at here?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, Durova, I did import two more audios on Neville Chamberlain, you may have an interest in improving them so they can be featured. As I mentioned, I don't have an interest in doing featured sounds, because I didn't create them and don't feel right about it. However, you are very welcome to.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Am a little hesitant to join that FAC; have already commented on other areas at that article talk page. Nonfree use rationales are not my strong point, since Commons doesn't deal with them. It might be more appropriate at that article to use the unedited version of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Regarding Neville Chamberlain, try asking Dendodge or Seddon. They do audio restorations. Durova 15:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2

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, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Admin help request

For some reason, the "Page size" function has vanished from my left-hand toolbox. It reappears when I'm in edit mode, like now, but of course it doesn't work then. Any suggestions as to how I get it back? I need it like some people need cigarettes, and am likely to turn grouchy without it. Is it within admin power to bring me relief? Brianboulton (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I know it has something to do with what you put in your monobook but I don't know how to do anything about it. Sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well, thanks anyway. I'll ask around. Brianboulton (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem fixed. Whew!!! Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Scott Brown

Thanks for being on top of the change to the page. I've enjoyed working on it so far. I like that it's a new article and can grow.Malke2010 03:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think so. I have no intention of poaching on the page, just doing what needed to be done. I'll keep it on my watchlist for at least a couple of weeks, but I am so busy with other projects that I just wouldn't have time to help out on the editing. It's got good potential, and is getting a lot of views, suggest you strike with improvements while the iron is hot.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely agree about striking while iron is hot. I would like to see an article that stays neutral in POV as much as possible. It's nearly impossible to do that on established pages. Like Sisyphus with the stone up the hill. But would appreciate you hanging around to check on things.Malke2010 03:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. You have the advantage of a clear field, run with it. Otherwise you'll have to wait until everyone gets bored and goes away and you'll lose a lot of the impact. I'll keep an eye on things, if you like, it will be another set of eyes, and my having the tools can be helpful though I am not the most active admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at the edits made by KeptSouth regarding Brown's personal life. He keeps reverting my edit which is based on the Boston Globe article. It seems he is synthesizing to make a point about violence, etc. I am trying to keep this article neutral. He's also putting in references from the Time's Online which is not the source of the information originally. Sometimes people place sources to advance POV also. I'm trying to keep it real here and let this page fall into edit warring. I've seen that here already. Thanks.Malke2010 17:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Section reads much better now.Malke2010 22:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this . I took it out because I thought this seemed POV pushing and what was there already seemed adequate without WP:UNDUE. But then he came back and reverted it. I think broad statements like, "Brown is widely viewed as. . ." are not encyclopedic, they sound more like opinion piece language.Malke2010 18:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at WP:WEASEL? I find that helpful in this sort of situation. I haven't actually looked at the edit though. I'm not sure you can keep up with it without risk of 3RR, so be careful. Obviously we want the article as accurate as possible at this time of great attention, but getting it seriously in condition may have to await another day, when the interest dies down. Still we all do what we can.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It's looking good considering the activity over the last 24 hours. Now there's great concern about the nude pictures from Cosmo.Malke2010 19:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL

even if Coakley won every vote, Brown would still win

That is against WP:SYN and WP:CRYSTAL. We can say that major news organizations have him as the winner or that he leads with 97% of the vote counted. Misplaced Pages should be superaccurate not just sloppy or good enough for a 5th grader. JB50000 (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an edit summary, not an insertion. See my comment on the article talk page. By your logic we would not have declared Obama president elect until January, when congress counted the vote.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh my god

Thank you so much for this. I am dying laughing here! Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad you like it. But I'd refactor Q3 and your comments in a big hurry, and not wait on the deck chair rearrangement people, you've got some patching to do. Meanwhile, I'm going to use some of this ice and have a nice big scotch on the rocks.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? Malleus told me off (whatever his exact wording was) and I haven't dealt with the bloke since. Don't plan to ever again. He has a deep seated hatred for Americans; everything I do see from him on talk pages is about how only the English speak English, and American English isn't English, it's crap, and how Americans think they have this imperial dominion over everything, and how the "IRC cabal" (which he thought included me at the time) is out to get him...le sigh. It really tears me up how many people actually think he's an asset to the project, even with his conduct (which is basically my lowest moments, all the time). No doubt this diff will be posted at the RFA. I guess one has to be Commander Data (before his emotion chip) to pass. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would make sure that every word in your answer to Q3 is dead on accurate, and that your attitude towards the conflict is seen as acceptable. Read the opposes you've picked up. My thought is that these are just the sort of opposes that RfA readers latch onto with "me too". Be cautious.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have struck the inaccurate indirect quotation; is this not enough? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Consider a supplemental statement saying why you were reluctant to read those diffs and revisit the conflict. Consider my own RfA. Of the 24 opposes against me, two thirds were based on one diff where I told a talk page troll that his editing was "for shit". I apologized on the ip's talk page, made another statement, and narrowly passed.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Lyman Hall

So, waaay back in August, I seem to have nominated Lyman Hall for GA... when I actually meant Lyman Hall (academic). As I'm not actually watching Lyman Hall, I didn't realize my mistake until I came across the nom tag on Talk:Lyman Hall (academic) and investigated the history of WP:GAC. So, sorry for the confusion. I suppose I should renominate it now, pointing to the correct article :3 —Disavian (/_contribs) 06:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I was wondering why such a poor article was nominated for GA (that is, the one on the Continental Congress delegate from Georgia). No discredit to your article, which I am sure is excellent.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA?

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

email

Check email. :) Malke2010 23:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

File:006.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:006.JPG, has been listed at Misplaced Pages: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. FASTILY_sock 04:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dief Will Be the Chief Again

On January 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dief Will Be the Chief Again, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

50 DYK Medal

		The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Wow! Up to 50 and beyond... Very fine work. Congratulations! Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

email

Please check yours.Malke2010 22:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)