User talk:Racerx11/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

I don't want to start a editing war, PLEASE give the reason when you undid anything

rather than "unconstructive edits", please give your explains about the "Vandalism " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintwoto (talk • contribs) 20:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but since when is blanking a page as you did in the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming constructive? If you have issues with the page, use the talk page. Do not blank a page. Especially not for dubious reasons. -- O.Koslowski (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Raintwoto. As mentioned above, there were large chucks of content removed from the article and the edits appeared unconstructive. Sorry if I misinterpreted anything. I will stay off the page, but I suggest you seek a consensus, if you haven't already, before removing large sections of content. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 20:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

What large section of content means: Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change.[66][192] National science academies have called on world leaders for policies to cut global emissions.[193] However, some scientists and non-scientists question aspects of climate-change science,[192][194][195] see: list of scientists opposing global warming consensus. Raintwoto 21:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I was refering more to this edit followed by section removal on the related page. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 21:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I really don't understand how this could be under the section other views. Three cites for the views mentioned before? I bet you only see the 3020 bytes rather than the content, 3020 bytes could mean only two sentences. Raintwoto 21:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintwoto (talk • contribs)

I admit I was reverting quickly. I reverted the page blanking, which was -40,643 bytes (the entire page). Then immediately saw the same editor (you) deleted a section of 3,020 bytes, and I thought, "looks like some vandal is on a rampage again" and I reverted you again and sent another vandalism warning. Indeed, yes the section blank turned out to be only two sentences, but collectively your two edits appeared to nothing more than vandalism at the time. Hope you can understand how we cannot have editors unilaterally blanking pages whenever they feel like it. When an editor does blank a page, it is very easy for the rest of us to assume a section blanking by the same editor to be also vandalism, and indeed in this case it was arguably unconstructive. The good news is you luckily were not blocked. You were close though and still are. Should a similar scenario occur, I will probably do the exact same thing again, but my lesson to be learned is that I should pay close attention to every edit I revert. Your lesson should be to discuss things like this before taking such actions. Thank you and good luck. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Magyars prior to the 11th century

The Magyars were never referred to as Hungarians prior to the 11th Century and the formation of the Hungarian Kingdom

Supercom2 (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not know that. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 01:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not true. Magyar is the native name of Hungarian (like Deutsch for German). --Norden1990 (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh great now I dont know what to believe and have to research for myself, ughhh. Sad thing is, I happen to be of Hungarian descent and I don't know any of this. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 01:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, Hungary is not a worldwide nation. :) For accuracy's sake it should be added that references are made to our conquerer ancestors as "Magyars" distinguishing their rule with the Christian Kingdom (after 1000). However historiography used mainly the Hungarian form, see the references and sources in the article. There is no need to change. --Norden1990 (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The first website I visited hit my laptop with a virus attack. I'm gonna quit while I'm ahead, but preliminary research suggests Supercom2 is correct. Im calling it a night and watch The Big Bang Theory. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 01:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Cited from page of Hungarian people: "The exonym "Hungarian" is thought to be derived from the Bulgar-Turkic On-Ogur (meaning "ten" Ogurs), which was the name of the Utigur Bulgar tribal confederacy that ruled the eastern parts of Hungary after the Avars, and prior to the arrival of Magyars. The Hungarians must have belonged to the Onogur tribal alliance and it is quite possible they became its ethnic majority. In the Early Middle Ages the Hungarians had many different names, such as "Ungar" (in German) or "Hungarus"."

So they were called "Hungarians" before the Christian state. Moreover, take a look at this: Talk:Hungarian_prehistory/Archive_3#Hungarians_before_9th_century Fakirbakir (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Luke Losey

Hi you have been editing the page Luke Losey - i am Luke Losey and i was ironing out a huge number of factual inaccuracies that have appeared on the wiki page (that someone else put up). I guess my question is how would you know what is the truth and what isn't ?

The internet is very odd - whats your interest in me? whoever posted the wiki in the first place has already taken a large number liberties with my existence.

Strange stuff indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.30.205 (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

A couple of your edits appeared to be vandalism. Are you claiming this edit to be legit? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 18:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone else made this to start with ( without my consent or knowledge)- i haven't really taken any notice, anyway i read your guidelines and i understand now. I over reacted a bit because it seemed so out of my control (i have no memory of collecting sunsets). I have made some minor factual adjustments to with years things where made, dates names etc...but nothing that includes self promotion - only facts. Anyway i got the log on details from this person - but now i see all i needed to do was join in the first place.

I need to join this century.

L

PS yes the alien landing thing is real (to me when i was 8 anyway)

I'm confused. Are you saying when you were 8 years old, you believed you witnessed an alien landing...and photographed the event? If so, you can't put on an article in Wikipedia that you have photographed aliens without a lot of explanations, sources, etc. (and it still probably wont fly). And if you are in fact you who say you are, then you should read Wikipedia:Autobiography very closely and be very careful when editing articles about yourself or related closely to yourself. Thank you. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 19:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming Star Trek film

Hi. I appreciate your attempt to recognize "good faith", but do you really think an edit in which the editor adds the assertion to the article that those who disagree with him are "pedantic drones" really qualifies as "good faith"? :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I must have not seen that part. I only remember the issue of capitalization in the title. I probably need to slow down a little more when using Huggle. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 01:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

Edits like this are clearly intended to be good faith. Please do not report people for vandalism when they are making good faith edits, instead explain to them how their edit is not beneficial. Also, please, as it says at the top of of WP:AIV, make sure a user you report has received a final warning that indicates they will be blocked if they continue with their vandalism, and has vandalised since seeing that warning. The user reported had received no warnings at all. Viridae^{DON'T PANIC} 03:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That revert was a hair-trigger response by me when I saw the inappropriate user name and that was my mistake. Why my action resulted in Huggle reporting the user to AIV, I have no idea. The button I used was supposed to issue a level 1 warning. Never seen that happen before now. I have stopped using Huggle until I can find out what went wrong. Thanks. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 04:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Humphreys Peak

I undid you edit of Humphreys Peak. See the elevations given by Peakbagger. The NAVD88 elevation is 12,637 feet. The NGVD29 elevation is given as 12,633 feet. The prominence is unaffected by the datum change. NAVD88 is the current and preferred datum. Also I have found that Peaklist.org is not always reliable. If you want to refer to a list of peaks with 6000 feet of prominence in the U.S. try USA Peaks with 6000 feet of Prominence. If you disagree, we should talk about it. I might learn something. –droll [chat] 01:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I see the two elevations at the Peakbagger page now. Peakbagger may in fact be a better source than Peaklist for U.S. ultras, I don't know for sure yet, but based on my past experience, Peaklist is far better in general for ultras in the rest of the world. Neither is perfect of course. I have found huge mistakes on both.

I don't really have a problem with the revert based on what you have said. However, the statement you made about prominence being unaffected by datum change, I can't let slide. Prominence is defined very simply: Summit elevation - Key col = Prominence. Any adjustment to the elevation of a peak directly affects the prominence, unless the key col is adjusted by the same amount. The Peaklist page explicitly states among its disclaimers that its prominence values are calculated based on the old datum. Here is the direct quote:

OLD ELEVATION: The "New Elevations" may be interesting in their own right, but they aren't useful for prominence calculations. This is simply because all of our saddle data is based on topographic maps that used the older, NGVD29, vertical datum. Since prominence is a measurement of the difference between two values, it will be more accurate to compare apples and apples.[1]

This transparency of the their data and how it's derived, their detailed explanations in determining elevations of peaks where it may be controversal which figure is correct, is part of why I prefer Peaklist. In this case, is there any indication by Peakbagger that the key col was adjusted at all? Either way, the note I had included is justified. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 02:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. In my experience Peakbagger uses the same datum for summit and key col elevations when calculating prominence. This agrees with you quote from Peaklist. I seldom edit articles about mountain outside the U.S., Canada and Mexico and so I can't comment about other areas. My problem with Peaklist is based on my own experience but I can't give you examples. Seems like we are on the same page. The point was that showing the elevation using NAVD88 does not effect the actual prominence.

I've been kind of busy recently. I should have responded earlier. I'll try to get back to you on the lake question tomorrow. –droll [chat] 04:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Mt. Kazbek

Hello Racerx11.

You delete my link on wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Kazbek and you wrote me that it is not allowed. Ok i can understand it but there are also links from my Competitor firms: Mountaineering tours to Kazbek (link: http://ailama.ge) and Mountain House close to Mount Kazbek (link: http://mountainhouse.ge).

So now i will put my link again and if you will delate it place delete this other 2 links too (Mountaineering tours to Kazbek (link: http://ailama.ge) and Mountain House close to Mount Kazbek (link: http://mountainhouse.ge)) Because they are my Competitor firms and rule for everyone should be the same. Or don't delete my link too

Best regards ialno_ialno — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ialno ialno (talk • contribs) 14:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the other links. Sorry but I have to remove all of them including yours per Wikipedia policy. The mountainhouse link was bad/dead I think anyway. Thanks again for your cooperation. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 15:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Maciej Berbeka

According to Polish law can be considered only a deceased Polish court. After one year at the earliest. 87.99.45.74 (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Heil 203.94.130.78 (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Why did you deface my talk page with such ramblings and falsitries, accusing myself of vandalism?! If this were Pakistan, this would NOT be tolerated. 203.94.130.78 (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Wielicki on Lhotse

G'day Racerx11,

I noticed you just reverted an edit on Krzysztof Wielicki's ascent of Lhotse; this edit (if this works out as I expect it to) and I wanted to inform you that was indeed the case. Krzysztof had been fitted with one and a simple Google query for "corset lhotse wielicki" will give you 59 hits to relevant sources.

Best of greetings, Qwrk (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course...and Joe Namath wore pantyhose, and Dustin Hoffman wore a dress and high heels also, but we can't just bluntly state those facts without some explanation and some context. Agree? If not, then you may go ahead and put it back. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 23:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

At the moment I'm still in the midst of the Broad Peak aftermath, so in due time I will. Qwrk (talk) 07:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but just thinking out loud: I dont see how that particular detail is appropriate where it was placed unless you tell the whole story. In fact, it doesn't seem notable at all except that the name of the garment happens to be associated with female underwear. If he had wore something similar to a back belt, with a more boring name, would we still put it in the article? I assume the name "corset" is the only reason anyone would want to mention it. What is remarkable is the fact he climbed Lhotse with a broken back, and that he did it without the approval of the doctor who fitted him with the corset. It is within the context of this story that the corset mention is appropriate. Is that what you have in mind? Thanks. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 09:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

Hello, Racerx11, this is rJay. Thank you for your recent contribution to the page Laila Peak (Rupal Valley). I was simply unaware of this policy. RJay (official) (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem, though I misspoke in that WP:Manual of Style is a set of style guidelines, not really "policy" as I stated in the edit summary. Note that in many infoboxes, it is acceptable and helpful for them to contain flag icons, but I happen to agree they should not be added to the infoboxes of strickly physical geographic articles, for several reason I won't get into here. BTW I appreciate you taking the time to leave a message. happy editing --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 23:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Mistake

I personally traveled to the Himalayas and i think your information is incorrect, Himalayas is in Nepal, China and Pakistan. Those are the 3 countries which has most of the land covered in. India has part of it but mostly is owned by Nepal, China and Pakistan. That was just a minor mistake but a mistake is a mistake, Thanks for reading! Selectright (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Piz Morteratsch

Re your rhetorical question, I for one did not know about the clear left function code! Thanks for your work, in any case... Regards, Ericoides (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for the comment. It's just that I don't recall ever seeing anyone else execute that particular fix and I don't know why that is. Do you happen know why bullets and numbers from ref lists and see also lists do that in the first place? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 17:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have a clue. Ericoides (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

#46/#213 genre warrior

I'm so sorry that you've been dealing with that person's complete disregard for Wikipedia rules and guidelines. There's a discussion going on about it on the ANI notieboard, right here. Thank you. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Aw, its all good man. I'm just sitting around killing time anyway. Thanks.

Self-revert

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page Bargaining unit. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Clue-Bot beat me to reverting the vandalism of the IP [2]. My attempt at revert happened probably a split second after Cluebot executed its revert. I was using Huggle and I simply hit the wrong button when Huggle notified me of this and thus I accidently reverted Clue-bot. Realizing my mistake, I immediately reverted my own action. Thank you and have a lovely day. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 20:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:DTTR. Yikes. Doc talk 06:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Doc: actually, I thought about that after I left the message (Racer and I frequent different articles, so I wasn't real familiar with the handle); but I figured if Racer didn't like it, it was up to Racer to chide me. No harm, no foul. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Mike: No hard feelings here. I should have added an edit summary to my self revert and that would have clarified things.

Doc: I appreciate you stopping by and backing me nonetheless. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 19:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Laighton millea is not a former band member of Richard cheese

I just thought you may like to know that the band member stated on the Richard cheese page is not correct and needs changing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croadjar (talk • contribs) 23:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

List of US states by median income

As it has been pointed out in the discussion page on this wiki, the content already exists on another page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income Since this wiki is more detailed, it seems irrelevant to have the discussed page, which is also less obsolete. Therefor I would appreciate if you would remove the page, to make it more simple and transparent to the users of Wikipedia, to find the best page for this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokrollo (talk • contribs) 08:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No. There was no discussion and therefore no consensus for that action. See Wikipedia:Deletion process. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 08:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks, Racerx11, for keeping an eye out for vandalism on my personal pages. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 17:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

thank you

i understand that i was just making a point thanx for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.183.106 (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

HV

Thanks for adding the newest one! Unquestionably the same user. I just went ahead and blasted all his edits. He has given up the right to include any edit here. Lots of the edits I reverted are undoubtedly pure fiction: but it's not worth checking, really. It's tempting to AGF with even users like this when you see the random correct edit (I've done it as well), but it 's just not worth the time to analyze individual edits from him, as there is no possibility of him being "reformed". Better safe than sorry, and let a random honest editor make those random correct errors. Just nuke his contribs when you are certain it is him, as this one is. Cheers :) Doc talk 09:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That's fine with me. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 13:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't even level 1 warn him. He used the same IP to reinstate his garbage. A level 4im warning ({{subst:uw-vandalism4im}}) once we know it's him: then straight to AIV if he makes another edit, with a link to the LTA in the report. One more edit from this IP and that's where I'm going. Zero tolerance for this troll! Screw him, seriously. Cheers... Doc talk 01:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

A harsher approach may be effective, we will see. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 02:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

He's simply not capable of reforming. He's been dishonest from the beginning, and he just needs to go away. Or, more realistically, be chased away. We don't need his contributions here at all. Harsh is the only way to go with these types. Cheers :) Doc talk 02:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent warning(s)

Over the last few months I have recieved numerous messages stating that I've made unconstructive edits to several wikipedia pages (Starbucks, The Three Bears, Ash Wednesday fires and Black Saturday fires) when I have never edited a page or made any attempt to edit a page. Just now I found an edit that ClueBot NG stated I had made, which was the addition of 'POTATOS POTATOS POTATOS POTATOS' to the Ash Wednesday fires page. This was an edit a friend showed me that he had done on his iPad. Why would his ip address (150.207.145.78) be the same as mine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammca1508 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I have had the same thing happen when editing logged out and editing from my iPhone. I'm no expert but Ip addresses are often shared and there be several more reasons that explain what you are experiencing.

Honestly I wouldn't worry too much about it. Even if you get blocked it will be of short duration and now that you have created an account, all the irrelevant and bogus warnings will cease anyway. Just remember to log in with user account from now on and you shouldn't have any more problems. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 23:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for fixing my mistake I made using huggle

PrabashWhat? 23:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It happens a lot and it's so easy to forget or not think it necessary to check that the version we are reverting to is clean. I know I'm guilty. All the more reason for us watch out for each other for things like this. It is a team effort after all. :)--RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 23:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah i'm new to Huggle and its more complicated than STiki so I was bound to make a mistake somewhere :P --PrabashWhat? 01:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't sweat it, you're doing fine. In that particular instance you simply just didn't revert back far enough and left behind some old vandalism. Very common mistake. Shoot I've probably done it since my last post here. Yes the vandalism is now "hidden" behind our reverts, but usually someone catches it sooner or later. Heck there are bots (The Helpful Bot is one) that routinely go around and hide vandalism by adding back templates the vandal removed, but not fixing the other stuff. That's why its a good idea to check behind editors and bots if there appears to any reason to or anything out of the ordinary. Best wishes. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 01:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. INeverCry 00:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Topographic prominence

Unfortunately, simply stating that something is obvious does not constitute a proof. In fact, the claim of equivalence cannot be proven, because it is possible to construct a scenario in which the two basic definitions of prominence (minimum necessary descent and height above encircling contour) give different results. Admittedly, I stated that somewhat obliquely in my Wikipedia edit, partly to avoid having it deleted as original research. Clearly, that strategy was unsuccessful. However, one could equally well regard the claim of equivalence as either original research or an unsubstantiated conjecture, because no reference is given, and it would in any case not be obvious to the average person even if it were true. Riscola54 (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The article could be better referenced with inline citations. The concept is well sourced. If the only problem is adding proper citations to the statements then I can take care of that but give me a couple days because I'm a little busier than usual this weekend. If you feel the problem is deeper than that, please raise your concerns at Talk:Topographic prominence. Thank you. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 10:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, please explain to me in more detail minimum necessary descent and height above encircling contour can produce different results? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 10:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Racerx11, no hard feelings on this end. I was hesitant to make my initial edit, simply because I was not in a position to offer proof that the claim in the article was incorrect. Therefore, I opted just to say that the claim was unsubstantiated, as that would be more difficult to dispute. I can see that, from your point of view, this may just have been someone trying to be negative for no particular reason. Anyway, having the edit reverted, and being asked to initiate a discussion on the Talk page, forced me to be explicit about everything, so it has turned out okay thus far. It was not my intention, in mentioning the edit reversion, to be critical of you or anyone else. I was really just trying to get a feel for whether anyone cared enough about this (potential) issue to pursue it.Riscola54 (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to say thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page Fraggle81 (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome, but just for the record it was on your User page the diff, not your talk page. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time In Mumbaai Dobara

The movie Once Upon a Time In Mumbaai again, was change to Once Upon Ay Time In Mumbaai Dobara after the 2nd trailer was released yesterday. Check out this link: http://www.bollywood3.com/movie-news/belief-in-numerology-drives-ekta-kapoor-to-make-changes-to-ouatimd-title.html

Again? She can't make up her freakin' mind? Anyway , I can't find another source confirming that but whatever, the page is off my watchlist. Fix it however you want. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 12:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Another source to confirm the name is the trailer itself. You can find the name at 2:52 Sec Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm2YimzIGf0

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Great job with the AV work! Dan653 (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 03:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Bling!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Because I keep bumping into you on the Vandal Hunting expeditions.  Yintan  22:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 03:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A question of Australia

Good idea - I'll start a thread here shortly. "Pepper" @ 14:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)