You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
Hi, JeffJonez, by any chance did you make the following edit? . If not, I think anon 126.96.36.199 spoofed your address in adding this comment to the AfD. ttonyb (talk) 05:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
IP 188.8.131.52 Use of User name JeffJonez
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ttonyb (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Ship of fools
Hi JeffJonez. In this edit, you unlinked a redlinked band on a disambiguation page. It's generally best not to do that: if the band's not notable, their entry should be removed entirely; if they are notable, it's best to leave the red link so another editor can be inspired to create the article. 28bytes (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it funny when nearly everyone contributing to a particular article can see and agree that something is a good idea, or necessary, or provides a better article, and then some boob comes in and cites some general wikipedia rules just so they can throw their weight around and make the article worse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's me to a T, Mr./Ms. Anonymous. I'm always flouting my basic command of the English language and my fourth grade reading comprehension. Whatever article you feel I've diminished by my slavish adherence to some basic Wikipedian tenant, you have my most perfunctory apologies. - JeffJonez (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Remember to be nice!
Please don't revert new folks, just because they're new. You were new back in 2007. I hope folks were nice to you back then too!.:-)
- I suppose you might mean the "DO NOT EDIT" comment, but it was an unsigned aside on a section marked in red "Please do not modify" about reddit. I'll not SHOUT so loud next time. :) - JeffJonez (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's usually better to just let newbies bumble about a bit and help them out. I'm from the generation when reverting people was considered really mean.
- I know you were trying to do the right thing. :-) In general, it's often more important to be nice to people than to follow signs! --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Original Barnstar|
|Thanks for the help. One man band live (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)|
- Yes, but big juicy opinions about sexual fetishism *do* need a citation, otherwise it's still just original research. - JeffJonez (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I found the links added in the history to be just what I was looking for in my research:
Can we agree on how to introduce such information to the topic?
Hi Jeff, I see you've made numerous comments and edits to this article. I've had s go myself and as a relative newbie would be interested in your comments/further revisions. Chrismorey (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)