User talk:Gordonrox24/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
 | Please click here to leave me a message, or click here to send an E-mail. |
TB
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Notability
Hi Gordonrox24, I have had a look at some new pages you have made, Roush Fenway Racing, and Jack Roush. These articles are very short, stubs, and they don't give enough information to explain why they are importantt enough to be included. At this stage it is very likely they will be quickly deleted QD for not being notable. Can you expand them and more information? --Peterdownunder (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- The under construction bannershould do the trick.--Peterdownunder (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Are you finished with Jack Roush? If so, can you remove the {{inuse}} tag? The article still needs to show notability. At the moment, it is still QD'able (which it should not be, of course) fr33kman talk 02:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- The under construction bannershould do the trick.--Peterdownunder (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Sasuke Uchiha
Hello, I disagree with your opinion to merge. As you can see in the "English" wikipedia website, there indeed are articles on the characters of the manga. Merging all of the characters into Naruto in simple english, I believe does not allow focus to go on to the specific characters themselves. In order for the simple english page to advance like that of the english wikipedia, we should also focus on the characters on the manga itself. --User:Pacifism89
RE: Thanks.
You're welcome! By the way, this wasn't really necessary. :) American Eagle (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Reversion at Simple Talk...
Hello, I notice that you are doing good work, but you mistakenly removed a comment from a new contributer. I have partially undid this revert that you committed. I have also removed your warning to the user here and replaced your text with a welcome. We have to be careful not to discourage new users. Keep up the good work, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Welcoming new user accounts
Hi Gordonrox24. Could I politely ask you to refrain from welcoming new users until they have made at least one "non-bad" edit? Quite a few new users never use their accounts again after creating them and welcoming them causes their talk pages to hang around when they would never have been created had it not been for a {{welcome}} tag put on them. Also quite a few new users are actually either vandals or sock puppets and we don't really want to welcome them. By general agreement we tend to wait until a user has made a good edit before we welcome them and invite them to stick around. If you personally recognize a new user account as someone from another WMF site who is a good user there, then by all means jump right in and welcome them!! Keep up the good work!! Cheers :) fr33kman talk 00:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're not creating hassles! :) I, for one, welcome your efforts here! As for the user (Slady), they have made two interwiki edits (both good edits) so the welcome was the right thing to do!! Happy Editing fr33kman talk 00:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome and thanks very much for reporting that vandal to me; they have been blocked. Feel free to also use WP:VIP to report vandals. Many editors like to see a user report vandals to VIP before they'll consider them for adminship (if this is a goal of yours). Cheers!! fr33kman talk 00:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I missed that you did report them to VIP. I must have wonky vision tonight lol :) fr33kman talk 00:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome and thanks very much for reporting that vandal to me; they have been blocked. Feel free to also use WP:VIP to report vandals. Many editors like to see a user report vandals to VIP before they'll consider them for adminship (if this is a goal of yours). Cheers!! fr33kman talk 00:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I've deleted this template for you. Please note that on simpleWP we make all userboxes in our own userspace then others can link to them there if they like. We made this decision to keep Template-space less cluttered. Cheers fr33kman talk 00:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Re:Note.
Thanks, I didn't see it. Exert 02:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Note
I don't like what you are saying about me on the project. Please be careful and limit what you say about other editors. Most especially if you can't source your statement, that is to sully my good name. Comment on the change, not the person making the change. This project is an encylopedia. Very respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- I can find nothing that I said that I cannot source. You were the flagship of the WP:AN discussion, and now that discussion has just spilled over into RFD. While I think the block was right, all this disruption that it is causing is pointless. It is hard to comment on changes made without first understanding what is going on in the mind of the person behind the keyboard. With equal respect,--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- You can't source my desires. How can you say that, that I want him gone, and I'm attempting to wipe him form this project. Have I deleted his talk pages, and his userpage? I think I stated he was a good editor at AN. Respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- I only say that as most editors are trying to move on with regular editing; you continue to forge on editing in topic dealing with BG7. Deleting his userpages? What is that RFD?With all due respect,--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- You can't source my desires. How can you say that, that I want him gone, and I'm attempting to wipe him form this project. Have I deleted his talk pages, and his userpage? I think I stated he was a good editor at AN. Respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thankspam
 | I promise to do my best and justify the trust the community has placed in me! Pmlineditor Talk 10:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC) |
Quick deletion of Reversible
The page you wrote, Reversible, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Jamesofur (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirects to Wiktionary
Hey GordonRox!, I don't think we've had a whole lot of interaction but given that you've been fairly active and I just found a collection of articles similar to the one above (softlinks to Wiktionary) I thought I would drop you a line (in hope you come by or have email turned on). I am sort of of under the feeling that we should have these pages be empty hence the original qd above but I can understand the idea of keeping them so after finding a whole collection of them from you I thought I would wait to see what others (including yourself) though. I'm removing the QD template from the Reversible page but leaving the warning so that you see it. I hope to hear from you! Jamesofur (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Good to see that you are back! If you want, I can restore your rollback. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hey! It doesn't really matter. Whatever you like. Personally, for the size of this Wiki I am fine with Twinkle and the undo button, but I'll leave it up to you.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 15:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Did it anyways. ;) Regards, Pmlineditor ∞ 15:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Haha. Thanks! Happy editing.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 15:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Did it anyways. ;) Regards, Pmlineditor ∞ 15:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Editor review
I've de-transcluded your editor review since it has been there for a long time. You can read comments at Wikipedia:Editor review/Gordonrox24. Regards, EhJJTALK 03:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yep. Thanks for the comments, they are truly appreciated!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 20:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Simple News Issue 15
| Wikipedia:Simple News | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||
It's / Its
Hi there, in the Guerrero article, I changed "it's" to "its" because when possessive, "it" does not have an apostrophe. (See here). As far as I can remember, and can see from a quick scan of google, this is a universal rule and not specific to British English, but I apologise if this is not the case. Regards, --Belovedfreak (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- yeah my fault sorry. --Huik01 (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Nope, I think that was my mistake. Thanks for catching that!!--Gordonrox24 | Happy Holidays! 16:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- good work. --Huik01 (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Simple News Issue 16
|
| ||||||
|
| |||||