User talk:Jackson Peebles/Archive 2

Cell For Cash cleanup
Thanks for fixing that article! There was a long-term problem with a certain other editor trying to whitewash it. DMacks (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My pleasure.--Jackson Peebles (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

MKTO
The question is whether they meet the notability standard of WP:BAND. This was discussed at WP:Articles for deletion/MKTO. Their entry seems to be being pushed by single-purpose accounts connected with the band -, , ,. If someone not connected with the band can make a draft of a non-promotional article with references to show how they meet WP:BAND, they should first approach user, the admin who closed the deletion discussion, and then if not satisifed go to WP:Deletion review. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Purple Saturn Day
I have undone your A7 and G11 tags on this article. A7 only applies to people, animals, organisations and web content - not software. I remember the software being released and having contemporary magazine coverage, such as this in ST/Amiga Format. Even if we can't find enough reliable sources to establish individual notability, the article might well be worth a redirect to ERE Informatique. Could I recommend that before you nominate an article to CSD A7 to follow the same WP:BEFORE rules as in an AfD, as often it's simply that a new editor isn't sure about what to write and puts in a stub sentence that superficially gives little context but a search for the name turns up reliable coverage. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   10:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

course instructor right
Thanks for the poke. I've gone ahead and assigned you the course instructor right, since you seem to know your way around Wikipedia. Good luck! If you have any questions related to course pages, let me know.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Very fast review of my last article! I've added the episode to the season 10 page now. Jonny2BeGood (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Thank you for the thank you!

Account creator
After reviewing your request for the account creator right, I have enabled the flag on your account. Keep in mind these things: If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the account creator right. Happy editing! &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The account creator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
 * The account creator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the account creator right will result in its removal by an administrator.

Adoption?
Hi, I saw that you didn't get accepted for the reviewer permission; this can be frustrating, but I think I might be able to help. I run an adoption course through Wikipedia's Adopt-a-User program. If you complete the course, you'll have valuable experience that might allow you to gain those permissions. Granted, you shouldn't come into the course with advanced permissions as your primary goal, but it could be a bi-product of you becoming a more well-rounded editor. Let me know if you're interested. Go  Phightins  !  01:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you still interested in continuing? I am sorry; I totally forgot to post the next stuff. Go   Phightins  !  17:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Still interested! Just didn't want to interrupt you if you were busy!  Thanks so much!Jackson Peebles (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Whenever you're ready for the final exam (I'm sure that's a word you've come to dread...), let me know. My final exam is of course flexible compared to those in the Am. Ed. system of Higher Ed...you can start whenever you want, you get a week, and you can ask me questions as you go. Go   Phightins  !  22:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Hello Jackson. I was wondering if you are taking Go Phightins! final exam. If you feel you have gained enough knowledge during his course, you are not required to take the exam. Please notify me, so I can notify Go Phightins! Thanks. JHU bal 27 • Talk •E-mail 02:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Jackson, no rush...I posted above. It's not a big deal, just let me know when you can. Go  Phightins  !  02:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No Time to Think: The Menace of Media Speed and the 24-Hour News Cycle
Thanks for the help. I apprecaite it. NHCLS (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

 * One more reply. :) -- Cheers, Ri l ey    05:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
—  nerd fighter  18:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
feel free to delete these TBs once you have read them. Thanks!—  nerd fighter  18:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Good work!
✅I am fully satisfied that you understand when to warn or report people, and how. You may archive that section of your talk if you don't want it on your talk page. Thanks! —  nerd fighter  03:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

TUSC token 249d98efba42836dd060d374e9b9612e
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
 * What is it?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Umm... this is going to sound dumb, but I actually have no idea. I was hoping hitting the button that said it would give me a token would tell me.  I found TUSC on the toolserver and wanted to know what it did.  I think this basically authenticates me as who I say I am to toolserver, but I'm not sure why this is necessary... --Jackson Peebles (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for Reviewer permissions
Hi! I noticed that you applied for these permissions and was wondering why you had done so.

As you are relatively new to wikipedia, with only 77 edits to the article mainspace, why not consider becoming more intergrated into the community, before applying for such responsibility?

Graduating from an 'adoption' program may verse you in every wikipolicy imaginable, but may not give you the real experience required to implement them in a discussion. For these reasons I would ask you reconsider your application, and engage in further editing work before reapplying.

Thanks!  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  08:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Mizabot
I have attempted to address your issues with Mizabot. Lets see if this works. If not just reverse and we can start over. My auto archiving configuration stopped working last year and I never looked into what changed so, maybe this can help us both. Lets see if it works or not now. Let me know if it does or doesn't.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help! I believe that it worked - it left an odd blank first archive page, but that's better than it not working at all!  Thanks again!  Jackson Peebles (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That is great. I will use the configuration to get my archives rolling again. My talkpage has become heavy and really needs cleaning out. I am glad that worked.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

CVUA
Would you mind if I moved all the CVUA related sections to your training talk page? —  nerd fighter  23:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all! :-) Thanks for asking - in the future, you can make whatever edits that you would like. Also, I've been awarded Reviewer rights, so thank you!  I am ready to do Lesson 3; could I please have more direction on that?  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! This is the account I will be using to make the edits to the pending changes test page.The test page is not often edited, so we should have no trouble using it for the CVUA. The link is on your training page. I will make one edit, and you may either accept or rejected it. Post why you accepted or rejected in each instance in unit 3. I will have more detailed instructions over there :) Good luck! Nerdfighter2 (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
Hey Jackson! I'm flattered by the nomination for EotW...there's just one problem. I kind of created (along with a couple others) the project, so I really can't get it. Still, I really appreciate the thought, but enough praise of me...it's time for you to go out onto the encyclopedia and change the world. Go  Phightins  !  03:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

CVUA
I added some questions to Unit 3: Reviewing so that you understand reviewing a tad better before we continue the hands on. Thanks! —  nerd fighter  00:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you could kindly complete the questions on unit 3 and unit 6, we could move on to the progress test. Thanks! —  nerd fighter  02:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Great work!
Awesome job on the CVUA course. You are doing fantastic. I just put up the progress test, so you can do that whenever. This does not count towards your final grade, I just want to make sure you have all the key concepts down. After this you will have a 5 day observation period, just to make sure that you are doing everything right. I was just looking at your contributions, and you are doing a fine job. Keep it up! —  nerd fighter  13:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

MacBook pro
Hi

Regarding this edit:i

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MacBook_Pro&diff=prev&oldid=539605984 i I believe this edit is unnecessary as the specs show 2 13" models, each with an upgraded processor option.i

http://www.apple.com/uk/macbook-pro/specs-retina/ i This is my first comment so let me know if I did something wrong.i

Ukbizguy (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ukbizguy! Thanks for your message!  I don't believe that you have done anything wrong.  If I recall correctly, I merely reviewed the revisions to that article.  When reviewing, my only right is to determine whether or not the edit is vandalism or another violation of Wikipedia policy.  Please feel free to make whatever edits that you feel are necessary to that page, and I will likely approve those, too!  Just try to avoid WP:EW and use the Talk page when possible.  Let me know if you have any other questions or if I failed to address your concerns; I'm a bit confused as to what they were.  I noticed that Go Phightins! welcomed you on your Talk page without making any negative comments, and I have no complaints about you, so if you're concerned about doing anything wrong, I think you're in the clear!  Best wishes, and happy editing!  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think I misunderstood as I thought you were the person who made the edit. I will contact the person who made that edit directly instead.  Thanks again. -- Ukbizguy (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:
 * Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
 * Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
 * Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
 * Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
 * Please read Help:Reverting and Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
 * You can test Rollback at New admin school/Rollback
 * You may wish to display the User wikipedia/rollback userbox and/or the Rollback top icon on your user page
 * If you have any questions, please do let me know.

 Wifione  Message 20:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Congrats! —  nerd fighter (academy) 20:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Congrats... You created your Teahouse profile!Face-smile.svg
Nice to see you at the Teahouse! I hope you like to be here if you have any question (s),feel free to leave me a message,and I will respond soon! Carliitaeliza  TALK  00:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please verify information before accepting submissions
When an IP is changing sourced content, you may wish to verify that the source actually supports the change. The system says you accepted this change   when the source clearly  "the film was made on a budget of around 42 crore, " and not the 22 proposed by the IP.

You may wonder, "why in the world would anyone actively misrepresent the source in that way? " and that is a very good question, but there is a reason why articles are given the "pending revisions" protection in the first place and such active and blatant misrepresentation is one and shows why sourcing should always be checked on articles with pending revisions protection before accepting suggested changes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  08:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose that would constitute as subtle vandalism, and it should be checked. —  nerd fighter (academy) 13:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I realize that I am the new reviewer here and am still learning, I am going to have to respectfully disagree with your perception of why articles are reviewed. According to WP:REVIEWER in the "Purpose of Reviewing" section (bolded emphasis added):

The purpose of reviewing is to catch and filter out obvious vandalism and obviously inappropriate edits on articles under pending changes protection, a special kind of protection that permits anonymous and newly registered editors to submit edits to articles that would otherwise be semi- or fully protected under one or more of the criteria listed in the protection policy.

Reviewers are not taking responsibility for the correctness of edits they accept. A reviewer only ensures that the version of the article visible to a casual reader is broadly acceptable. The reviewer checks the pending change(s) for an article and can then decide to either accept it, revert it or modify it then later accept it. Reviewers are not expected to be subject experts and their review is not a guarantee in any way of an error-free article.


 * Please note that I'm not trying to pick a fight, here, and I do try to do a reasonable job of checking information prior to accepting it. However, it is my impression both through my training and through Wikipedia policies that are based on consensus that the reviewers job is to detect blatant vandalism.  I apologize for not being an expert on this subject, but, to be honest, I'm assuming good faith, here.  I don't think that a reasonable individual can construe the IP editor's edits as vandalism, and I'm sticking by my decision to accept, though if you edit it to be correct (and you, obviously, don't need a reviewer), then you would be making the more constructive edit, undoubtedly.


 * Cheers, and please do note that I have the best of intentions in this explanation. Please never hesitate to contact me in the future, and I truly am open to criticism; after all, we're all still constantly learning.  Best wishes!  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My bad. Thank you for pointing that out! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not know that the official guidance was "if its not blatant vandalism, accept it" and I do not know what other people's practices are, I just know that if there has been enough issues with the article that someone determined protection was necessary, that I am going to verify any content before I put my name near an edit until they change the logging message to be "TRPoD did not think the edit was blatant vandalism"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  07:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is not blatant vandalism or nonsense we are supposed to accept it and then edit the information afterwards, if we can. There is no policy that states that we, as reviewers, must know the information or verify the material. Other involved editors can do that. This is supposed to take the responsibility of such actions away from the reviewer. One persons nonsense is another person valid mistake. I have seen hair color edits declined as nonsense when I would have accepted it as mistaken and then simply changed it myself...if I knew the accurate information. Since I wouldn't have known that, the acceptance of that edit would have been valid even if the information was not accurate.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Your review of my article
Thanks for reviewing it, and its the first article of mine that have been reviewed! Unfortunatelly I couldn't comment earlier since I needed to go to bed. Now for the "couple of sentences": I checked other sources, and Google Books doesn't have any info on the species besides that site that I got it from. I also checked other sites and found nothing. I guess it have something to do with "recently discovered species", (2009 mind you). So, maybe say, in a decade of 2 there will be more info... They do put yearly updates though but not for every species... That aside, I do have question though: So stubs (or should I say substubs) can be reviewed by all users? Because I thought it was only C and B class articles that get to be reviewed since their quality scale and scope is larger then the ones that you reviewed! Please, don't take it as a critisism, just my way of asking questions, since I was shocked for a bit!--Mishae (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking this as criticism at all, but even if I did, I appreciate constructive criticism! I believe that all articles are open to review using the Curator tool - I just ask it what's next on the queue and handle that article!  Thanks for thoroughly checking for more information, and I understand that sometimes there's just nothing we can do about stubs!  Thanks for your comments and contributions!  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your request at Requests for page protection:
Thanks for pointing that out. The user who tagged the userbox template for deletion forgot to to wrap the deletion notice with noinclude tags, which I have proceeded to do. Otherwise, there would have been others users complaining about the same problem. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 05:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Done grading
I finished grading your test, and you did a fantastic job. 97.8% Great work! The next step of the CVUA school is a 5 day watching period. I will keep an eye on your contribs to make sure that you are dealing with vandalism properly. This is a mandatory part of the program that all instructors must do. Please give me a date that you will be mostly active and the following 4 days. If I feel that you haven't edited enough for me to make a judgement call on your abilities I can extend it. Again, great work. Keep it up! —  nerd fighter (academy) 23:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for grading so quickly! Feel free to judge me based on my past couple of days of changes; those have been good!  However, I should be active for the next five days, too!  Thanks again!  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

My OA Application
Hey Jackson, I have applied to be an Online Ambassador for Wikipedia. My application can be found here. If you want, you can ask questions of me or endorse me. Thanks! —  nerd fighter (academy) 23:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words at my OA application :) —  nerd fighter (academy) 02:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

ACC Request
I have requested access to the ACC toolkit at toolserver.org. Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

 * I noticed that you didn't find too many vandalisms/reverts in your trial with STiki. Possibly due to some recent attention around my account (RfA), the tool has been seeing a lot of throughput recently. It's kind of a paradoxical effect, but the more popular the tool, the less "success" individual users will experience. Under more "normal" conditions, most users find 33%+ of displayed edits will be revert worthy. I/we hope you'll give it another try some time and have some better luck. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Andrew. I'm going to continue to use it; you've created a fantastic tool.  You'll note that I supported your request for adminship, so I'm aware of the circumstances; no fears!  Best of luck, and I hope to have the chance to work with you in the future.  Thanks for all that you've done for Wikipedia!  Jackson Peebles (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Teahouse Turns One!
It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!


 * --Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 22:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Nackawic
Big text Good day! I was just wondering why the new info was deleted from the Nackawic entry. Here is a link to the news story describing Riel Nason's novel winning the Commonwealth prize for literature: http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2012/05/22/commonwealth-prize.html She has won other awards as well, and in my opinion is far more noteworthy than the Canadian Idol contestant noted on the page...

Perhaps I am missing something...I am new to Wikipedia so maybe it's simply a matter that I failed to meet some style or citing rule...

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djstonefcip (talk • contribs) 15:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, Djstonefcip! It's good to hear from you, and thanks for seeking me out for clarification.   is a link to the diff between our revisions, which I will be referencing in this explanation.  First of all, I want to thank you for your contributions.  You are correct in stating that it was a legitimate, good edit.  The problem that I had, which is why I made what is called a "good faith" revert (as opposed to vandalism), is that there was no reference.  I think that adding Nason back in with a proper citation/reference would a great contribution to Wikipedia.  Please feel free to add the information back in; I've provided you with a welcome template and a bunch of links to help you get started!  With all of this said, I'm not completely free of blame, here.  I had a responsibility to do more research on Nason to see if she was notable (rather than assuming she wasn't), so I do apologize for that.  Happy editing, and please let me know if you have any additional questions!  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Good work
I just looked over your contribs and they are good :) Just remember to sign. (you forgot here). Nothing major. Good work though. —  nerd fighter  23:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yeah, by the time I went back to check on that, Sinebot beat me.  So, where do we go from here?   --Jackson Peebles (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we still have a couple days of this watching period (it's a drag, I know) but once that is done you'll have the final exam and you are graduated :) —  nerd fighter  02:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

STiki talkback

 * Hey there! I noticed you didn't respond to the "flow funding" opportunity I mentioned over at WT:STiki. Do you have any thoughts on that? Feel free to contact me out-of-wiki if you prefer. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about it - I must've missed it, before! This is something that I'm very interested in, and I commented on the WT:STiki page.  This should probably stay on the public record rather than out-of-wiki, just for transparency's sake, though I do find e-mail much more convenient.  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Your final exam
Firstly I am very sorry I forgot about your CVUA course. I didn't have much time this week end, and it completely slipped my mind until now. You have done great reverting vandalism over the past week or so. I am putting up the exam now on your CVUA page. Thank you for your patience ! —  nerd fighter  23:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all, and thank you. I'll get on that shortly!  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Heads up: Operation Navy Help Darwin
Just a friendly heads up, this IP edit to Operation Navy Help Darwin, which you reverted in good faith here, was actually correct in fixing a long-standing error. I've edited the claim in the article to better clarify. -- saberwyn 05:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, my apologies. Appeared to be an accident when reviewing in STiki - it's a good thing you were watching!  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
—  nerd fighter  22:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

From Brady Jack
Hi Jackson,

Thank you for your review of our Risk Inclination page. You suggested arranging CW, RA, and RIF in 2nd or 3rd levels. Please allow me to ask, would you have an example of a Wikipedia page which shows an example of your suggestion?

Thank you again for your suggestion and for your patience in considering this request.

Sincerely, Brady — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradyjack (talk • contribs) 06:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jackson,

Thank you for the help on my RIM page! Great job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradyjack (talk • contribs) 23:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

CVUA Graduate!

 * Other awards on the CVUA page. Cheers —  nerd fighter  00:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

AWB
I've added you to the AWB checkpage. INeverCry 19:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

from Brady Jack
Hi Jackson,

Please allow me to trouble to delete the following page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restricted_context

Thank you for your advise on deleting this stub.

Sincerely, Brady Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradyjack (talk • contribs) 05:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks from Aliaretiree
Thanks for reviewing This Week in Libraries your feedback was really helpful, I wasn't sure what categories to apply. Aliaretiree (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

RL Stine's Haunting Hour
I'm not sure how what I deleted was relevant to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.189.143 (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Pablo Garcia Gabriel
Hello Jackson, I'm sorry for this edit. I know it was my mistake. Thanks for fixing it up though! Best Regards Panos — Preceding unsigned comment added by PanosBonJovi (talk • contribs) 18:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: User:S.S. Miami
I don't think you'll get much improvement done by that editor as they are blocked as a sockpuppet or sockmaster (I'm not sure which account came first...), and rather unlikely to get unblocked by the look of things. (Still on my watchlist - that's how I saw your post.) Peridon (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Keith B. Alexander
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Keith B. Alexander. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar
I'm so humbly honored I haven't anything clever to say.

(PS: I've never seen those top icons before. I put the one for reviewer on my pages. Cool!) WQUlrich (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)