User talk:Uncle uncle uncle: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
That was quick |
||
| Line 1,195: | Line 1,195: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
[[User:Uncle uncle uncle|Uncle uncle uncle]] 22:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC) |
[[User:Uncle uncle uncle|Uncle uncle uncle]] 22:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: LightGrey;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[File:Filmbarnstar.png|100px]] |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The WikiProject Films Award''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I, the awarder , hereby award Uncle uncle uncle the WikiProject Films Award for his/her valued contibutions to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Films|WikiProject Films]]. [[User:Uncle uncle uncle|Uncle uncle uncle]] 19:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
<dd style="font-size: 85%; color: #666; text-align: right; padding-right: 5px; font-style: italic;">Awarded [[User:Uncle uncle uncle|Uncle uncle uncle]] 19:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC) </dd> |
|||
|} |
|||
Revision as of 19:31, 23 March 2010
 | This user can, and will, make difficult edits if needed. |
This user is the owner of 92 Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy.
Hagerman Bot
I am being stalked by The Hagerman Bot Uncle uncle uncle 19:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
RE:Ward Churchill
OK, I've taken a look at the page and picture in question. You certainly have a point about the verifiability of the source: although WP:V and WP:RS contain no specific guidelines about images, I would say that one editor's assertion of the origin of the drawing does not satisfy WP:V's rules on dubious and/or self-published sources. Furthermore, looking at the talk page, it seems that User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters violated WP:CIVIL in accusing you of "random destruction". Not that I'm necessarily saying the image should be removed, but I think you have a valid point as per WP policy. If it would help, I will contact the user in question and try to negotiate a compromise; the next step would be a request for comment on the page, and possibly a strawpoll. Please tell me (on my AMA desk, not my talkpage) whether you find this an acceptable plan. Walton monarchist89 10:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Request for Comment: Verifiability as to the creator of the Rosa Luxemburg drawing
In preparation for an RFC at [WP:RFC/BIO] on the verifiability of the attribution of the the Rosa Luxemburg drawing to Ward Churchill, I have placed the appropriate section on the [1] page. There is a location available for Statements by editors previously involved in dispute. I have placed this notice on the talk page of the editors previously involved in the dispute to allow time for supplying these comments prior to requesting broad input from the Wikipedia community.
- Hello Uncle, I've had the chance to read your reply on the Talk:Ward Churchill page and I thought you made some good points. I appreciate your focusing on the specifics of the policy. I am putting together a comment or two but I have some things going on right now that I have to pay attention to. I'll try to post it in the next couple of days or so. Thanks for your patience, cheers! Cafe Irlandais 18:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
An Automated Message from HagermanBot
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 ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 23:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
About the Ward Churchill case
Hi, sorry I took so long to get back to you, I've been very busy both on WP and in RL. You did the right thing in going to RfC; the lack of comments from outside editors is unfortunate. The next thing you should do, since the RfC doesn't seem to have resolved matters, is start a strawpoll, i.e. a brief survey of users' views on the issue. It looks like the general consensus on the page is generally on your side and against LotLE, so the strawpoll should be helpful to you. If you like, I'll set up the strawpoll on the page myself. (After that, if the dispute isn't resolved, the next step is to take it to the Mediation Cabal or Mediation Committee, but hopefully it isn't a serious enough dispute to go that far.) Walton monarchist89 19:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Asking for an update
Hi, just out of interest, was the Ward Churchill image issue resolved amicably in the end? Walton Vivat Regina! 17:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
wikinews: is acceptable ref?
Look at it as a wikilink to another article, rather than an extenal reference. When we write, e.g., "the collapse of the Soviet Union followed perestroika", we don't demand a reference for this fact, becase the wikilinked articles contain sufficient amount of references. The wikinews article about pope's mishap contains a summarized description of the event, as well as several newspaper references, i.e., there is no wikipedia:Verifiability problem. A general common sense rule is to demand and include external references only into the articles most immediately and specifically dedicated to the subject in question. Otherwise wikipedia will turn into a huge pile of references, duplicated everywhere. `'mikka 15:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Your edit to User:Kelly Martin
Hi - please don't edit people's userpages without their permission, it's generally not the done thing. If you have some issue with Kelly Martin's userpage content, please take it up with her on her talk page - this would probably be the courteous thing to do. Regards, – Riana ⁂ 15:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Moreover, your justification is misguided. Aside from the section you cite being in dispute, it actually quite narrowly defines an "attack site" as that which (maliciously) publishes private information of a Wikipedians' identity. Kelly's blog clearly not such a site.--cj | talk 15:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's a nonsense to suggest that there's such a rule. The issue here is simply what constitutes an "attack site". Because the relevant section is in dispute, it is necessary to consider an attack site within the bounds of the ArbCom's ruling and aside from the rest of the policy:
The ArbCom has ruled that "[a] website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances," [2] and that "[l]inks to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking.
- It is fine that you consider an attack site to constitute anything containing what normally would be considered a personal attack on-wiki, but at the present time, the only clear-cut definition is the ArbCom's ruling. It is inappropriate, IMV, to enforce anything else. --cj | talk 23:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- CJ's advice on this matter is most astute - I suggest you take it. I know that you were acting in good faith, for what it's worth. Regards, – Riana ⁂ 00:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Re:Unionoida vs Unionidae
I am not a biologist either, so I could be wrong. I think I've been staring at the computer screen for too long. Please change it back if I've redirected in error. ... discospinster talk 22:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
TOR proxy users
I don't know all the editors using TOR proxies, and don't see any reason to reveal the editors who I do know using them. The issue is only relevant in this case because the person in question was running for adminship while violating Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Secret Page
 | This user has been fooled by Destructo_087. |
You sort of cheated but still here you go. Sorry about the latness of this reward but I was busy doing other stuff.--DestructoTalk to me 03:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Request
Hi, please don't use the ArbCom case to post links to a page where people are speculating on the real name of an editor who wishes to remain anonymous. If you think a little more about individual human beings who might be affected, and then think is the link really really necessary, and then think is there any way around it, you might find that it's not actually necessary. If it were necessary, you could use email. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Reply for threading:
- Hello,
- With respect to your post here: [2]
- I believed that all information about the real name the editor in question had been removed from the site and that the editor in question no longer believed the site qualified as an attack site as stated: "I'm glad to see TNH's act of moderation and withdraw my objections to linking to her website." [3]
- I certainly did not intend to link to revealing information, I included a link to the text I quoted so that other's could verify the correctness of my quoting. Uncle uncle uncle 23:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
plot search
See User talk:Pleasantville for a possibility. Tvoz |talk 19:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree in principle, but you've put the article in main space rather than Wiki talk. That, I believe is where it belongs. The deletion is only a proposal, not a decision, and one which should not be taken lightly. I would expect an admin to boot it to WP:AfD or WP:Move it into an appropriate location. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks - an editor has moved it already.
- In that case, assuming I can find it, I'll take the speedy off. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
My talk in you browser favorites.
No, I haven't a clue why my talk page is in your browser favorites. Cheers, Cecropia 04:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Franchise
New accounts may discuss the candidacy, but their "votes" are not counted, nor should they be added to the totals. Corvus cornix 22:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Scooba
Have you given your Scooba a name? :) - http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9789960-39.html?tag=nefd.blgs Corvus cornix 23:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nope nor the Roomba. I got them last year with some kind of deal. Buy the Scooba, get a Rooba free. The Scooba does a better job than I expected, but not as good as a human could do. I don't use it much - I think I'm too lazy to move the chairs in the kitchen. The Roomba works pretty well too - I'd like to have one of the auto-charging scheduler units, but even then the collection bin is too small and would have to be emptied every few days anyway. It needs a built in incinerator or the ability to empty the collection bin under my bed Uncle uncle uncle 00:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- I had too many problems with my Scooba... and I've never managed to bond with it. *Dan T.* 14:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed you created the above page a few weeks back. In principle, people helping each other is a Very Good Thing. However I had a couple of misgivings about it. (A lot of good ideas don't always work out as their well meaning founders intended, for example, we just had one of those closed at WP:MFD, the community sanctions noticeboard.) I've posted a note on the administrators' noticeboard to get others views. I thought you'd want to know so you could comment too, as its creator.
If you want to discuss let me know :)
Best
FT2 (Talk | email) 06:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Editors willing_to_make_difficult_edits
Wikipedia:Editors willing_to_make_difficult_edits, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editors willing_to_make_difficult_edits and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Editors willing_to_make_difficult_edits during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mercury 12:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Break
==[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]]== Egads! You're absolutely right about my error. I've responded on that talk page. Thanks! - Mtmelendez (Talk) 10:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Break
 | This warning template has been placed to underscore the message left for you by another user on User talk:Giano II. If you continue to threaten children with far too sophisticated puddings ("He makes her eat desserts she just doesn't understand") you will be blocked from all future thanksgivings for the good of the public, as you would create far to much drama and controversy. We will be monitoring you with seekrit espionage methods your lesser ranking mind couldn't possibly comprehend, to ensure this warning is heeded. |
Merkinsmum (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the warning. It took me quite a while to find the source of the quote above, even with the correct spelling. The reference librarian I checked with seemed to have a low opinion of gentlemen who quote from "Lotita." Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Lol, you discovered my secret, do you mean Lolita or some less revered, more specialist literature?:) I was actually giving a nod to this sickeningly mawkish charity ad, which has been parodied by other charities who wanted a less cheesy method of advertising.:) [4] Merkinsmum (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I had no idea where the quote came from, but "He makes her eat desserts she just doesn't understand" looked like it could have been a quote from a novel that I should have read at one point.Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Lol, you discovered my secret, do you mean Lolita or some less revered, more specialist literature?:) I was actually giving a nod to this sickeningly mawkish charity ad, which has been parodied by other charities who wanted a less cheesy method of advertising.:) [4] Merkinsmum (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you possibly enable email as I wish to ask you something more privately?Merkinsmum (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hello - I have enabled email. Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
A category you created is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedia_editors_willing_to_make_difficult_edits. User:Dorftrottel 16:51, January 15, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 16:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
My Rfa
I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
RfB questions
Thank you for asking those, I enjoyed having a think. I've responded. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
New Section
Uncle uncle uncle 04:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
X
Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
X
Uncle uncle uncle 04:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Editors willing to make difficult edits
Wikipedia:Editors willing to make difficult edits, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editors willing to make difficult edits and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Editors willing to make difficult edits during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:55, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC) 05:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Blocked as a disruptive account
I have blocked this account, an admitted secondary account as you stated on your userpage, as it is not a legitimate use of an alternative account per policy. Nearly all of your contributions have been either to update your "sock counter," or to pop up to participate in particularly contentious discussions. This account has been blocked indefinitely; please cease use of any other disruptive alternate accounts as well. krimpet✽ 02:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Help
{{help}}
Can someone please put some instructions on my page for requesting an unblock?
Thanks!
Uncle uncle uncle 03:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC) That would be {{Subst:unblock|your reason here}}, with "your reason here" being your reason for why you think you should be unblocked. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Uncle uncle uncle 04:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Unblock
Question: If you use only one account other than this, what is {{User Alt Acct Master}} with "This user is the owner of 92 Wikipedia accounts ... " at the top of this page about? — Athaenara ✉ 06:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Yow!
Hello,
I just read Krimpet's post here. [5]
It sounds terrible - I have no idea what Krimpet is talking about. I could look it up I suppose, but I have never had any association with either User:DepartedUser or User:PouponOnToast.
I don't want to waste anyone's time by looking into my history. I'm sure everyone proclaims their innocence (except maybe criminals who gloat in movies). But if anyone did, they would see no connection between me and those other accounts. At least I assume they would find no connection as there is none!.
Probably not much I can say to show innocence to a multiparagraph claim at the Administrator's Noticeboard Incident Report.
Even when it is wholly incorrect. I am not a disruptive single-purpose account or a vandal. That is obvious from my contribution history. Although I haven't done much other editting lately, I certainly haven't been disruptive either.
I do believe that the arbitration committee should arbitrate. Which I take to mean as creating binding decisions in important cases where the community is or has been unable to reach a decision. I don't consider the talk page incivility which they are discussing to have reached the level of being major problem needing arbitration. And I said so.
Uncle uncle uncle 04:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Tor
I editted Tor related pages due to the whole CharlotteWebb RFA shabang. Where someone mentioned that CharlotteWebb had been using TOR during his/her RFC. That should be verifiable if anyone wants to check. Uncle uncle uncle 04:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Other Account
If a checkuser is unable to find my other account, it may be due to me switching to ATT Uverse recently and now having another IP address. I can make an edit from it if needed.
Contributions
Please look at my expanded contribution list [6] not just the latest 50.
Uncle uncle uncle 04:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Treatment of the Editor
Hello - I do not believe that I have inappropriately used an alternate account and I have never operated sock puppets.
There is a significant difference between an editor who inappropriately uses an alternative account and a person operating sock puppets. Thus, an editor who inappropriately uses an alternative account may still contribute to the encyclopedia through their main account. An inappropriate alternative account is not a sock puppet account and assumption of good faith still applies to the main account of that editor. Aggressive approaches applied to protect the encyclopedia from sock puppets ordinarily should not be applied to the main account of an editor in good standing who inappropriately used an alternative account.
And, as the Wikipedia Sockpuppet page section above says - "Aggressive approaches applied to protect the encyclopedia from sock puppets ordinarily should not be applied to the main account of an editor in good standing who inappropriately used an alternative account"
Which makes sense (although I hope now I am not accused of wikilawyering).
Beans
Someone on the [8] page stated: Support Block. Krimpet has a pretty solid case here. I disagree - there is no case (at least in regards to me) - I have not inappropriately used alternate accounts and I have not created sock puppets. How someone could find "a pretty solid case" with respect to my account is silly - they could not have looked at any evidence as there is none.
I'll admit that it isn't as silly as the !! case as he (I have no idea who he was) apparently made many fine edits while I have made only a few fine edits and somewhat more so-so edits.
Uncle uncle uncle 05:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if you are a sock puppet or not, but I don't agree with an indef block based on suspicion alone. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Help Request
{{helpme}}
Can someone please put a link to my talk page (and a note that I have added some text) to the bottom of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page where I am discussed.
I don't want any more uninformed "Support - a pretty solid case" remarks from users who have not read my side of the other side. Here: [9]
Thanks! Uncle uncle uncle 06:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes - thanks!
Maybe if the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents note for [10] was split into sections for Uncle uncle uncle and for PouponOnToast it would make sense for people to Oppose or Support correctly for either. It makes no sense for them to Opppose/Support both as we are unrelated (according to me).
Although it does seem like a bit of a waste for you to have to go to the trouble of helping me as I haven't done much useful editing lately even though I am innocent of disruption.
Thanks again.
Uncle uncle uncle 06:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Unblock and apologies
New evidence has come forward that suggests to my satisfaction that you are not related to the sockpuppetry DepartedUser/PouponOnToast. This had played a large part in why I decided to block you indefinitely, rather than just warn... but I think it's clear that you are not him, and my block was in error.
Please keep in mind the reason that I stated for blocking, however; your claims of having "92 sockpuppets" and constantly adding to a counter saying so, in addition to only contributing once every few weeks in mostly contentious discussions, tends to suggest that you may in fact be sockpuppeting abusively. If this is just a joke or something, I ask you to please end it to avoid any later mix-ups. :)
I sincerely apologize for my error however, and any problems this may have caused. krimpet✽ 06:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Who on earth could take that seriously- a hardcore sockmaster would not admit it. See my userpage:) And no I wouldn't change it personally just because of a mistaken good-faith irony bypass on other's part. Sticky Parkin 13:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
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, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
92 socks!!!!
Lol!!! Can I see a list of them please. C.U.T.K.D T | C 08:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hello - I no longer update my list of alternate accounts - none of them are sockpuppets (although I have not checked the WP:sockpuppet page recently to see how the definition for sockpuppet has changed). At Wikipedia sockpuppets are bad, but alternate accounts are not.
- I discovered that although not a single one of those 92 alternate accounts was ever blocked or even reverted (although some of the edits were of course modified by other users to suit their stylistic preference) I was still given an if-def block as a sock master. So - I decided to keep on doing what I had been doing in helping editors who did not want to edit themselves due to fear of harassment.
- I did have one throwaway account that may have technically been a sock-puppet (that was not listed among the 92 accounts) - it was used as my Wikipedia account when I signed up on Wikipedia Review. That account made 3 main space edits which are still the last edits made on those main-space pages and 5 talk page edits. I believe that Thatcher called it a "spit and giggles account" or something like that. He made no mention about the other 92 accounts.
Uncle uncle uncle 21:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar requirments
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Cupcakes Here
[[11]]
In recognition of the many anonymous words of praise that I have received
92 barnstars for Uncle Uncle Uncle for all he has done without recognition. Good work.
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
-
The Apple With A Bite Taken Out Of It may be awarded to individuals who contribute greatly to Apple Computer and Apple Macintosh-related articles. Introduced by grm_wnr on January 10, 2006. -
The Con Safos Jalapeño is used in awarding people Chicano awards as part of the Kindness Campaign. -
The Encephalon Cross For commendable contributions to medical articles. Introduced and designed by Encephalon. -
Created to recognize those editors who tirelessly contribute in a genuine fashion to Christianity-related articles. by Aiden -
The Comics Communication Barnstar: For speaking up for the truth, educating fellow editors, explaining project guidelines and goals, striving to resolve differences while keeping a level head, and generally facilitating communication about comics-related articles and between their contributors. Usage: See User:Doczilla/Template:Comicscom. Created by Doczilla. -
The WikiProject NASCAR Award shows the "never quit" spirit of NASCAR teams that we hope the project members exhibit. Introduced and designed by Royalbroil on 2 June 2006. -
The WikiProject Japan Barnsensu Award can be awarded to those who have made outstanding additions and/or improvements to Japan-related articles. Introduced by Nihonjoe, and designed by Tangotango on 28 July, 2006 as part of WikiProject Japan. -
The Swaminarayan Appreciation is awarded to those who make outstanding contributions to Swaminarayan related content, WikiProject Swaminarayan. Introduced on November 12008 by Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते -
The Endangered Language Immersion School Bus is available for anyone who works on endangered languages, or who can read the writing on this bus. -
The Karma Yogi Barnstar is to be awarded for significant contributions to articles about Krishna, Bhagavad Gita and related topics. See Template:The Karma Yogi Barnstar. -
The McLellan Quaich is awarded for outstanding contributions to Scottish coverage in Wikipedia. Suggested by Deacon of Pndapetzim in 2019, named after Angusmclellan, with the image selected by Cactus.man.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
Uncle uncle uncle 22:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
|
The WikiProject Films Award | |
| I, the awarder , hereby award Uncle uncle uncle the WikiProject Films Award for his/her valued contibutions to WikiProject Films. Uncle uncle uncle 19:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
|