Hello, Gordonrox24. You have a new email! Please check it at your convenience. Message added 05:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC). You can take off this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
Pawel Huelle: "2021-02-28T07:24:26 Gordonrox24 talk changes 3,277 bytes −142 removed odd pronunciation section. If anybody wants to redo that properly, go for it. undothank" Kdammers (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok thanks for that, @Kdammers: . When it comes to how pronunciation should be written, we need to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style which tells us pronunciation should be written using The International Phonetic Alphabet. So if we want, we can write it out correctly and re-add it to the article. --Gordonrox24 | Talk20:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! There are probably a few schools of thought out there. In my opinion, if there are no comments for any outcome, the request should simply be extended another week to allow for people to comment. That's what I would do, as there really isn't a rush. That being said, it has in the past really been up to admin's discretion. It's not a vote, so if the nomination is accurate and nobody says otherwise, it could be safely assumed it's uncontroversial enough in the eyes of the community to move forward with the delete. I suspect most admins will have their own idea of what is best in this situation. I'm not overly attached to any one method here, but I think I'd tend to just extend the discussion. --Gordonrox24 | Talk00:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@つがる: If there are no votes at all then it gets deleted with what is called a soft delete. On Simple Wikipedia our Rfd also acts like Prod does on en.wikipedia. So basically it gets deleted but if someone later comes along and objects to the deletion then it immediately gets restored. -Djsasso (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's very interesting how some of the early ideas have faded. If we have a problem now, it is getting new ideas in. We're much tougher now on dishing out stars for articles. We don't have WikiProjects, and "projects" based on users' subpages have not prospered. I suppose with a young, volatile, readership that's to be expected. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true. To be honest I wasn't thinking that deeply about it. I still have the stars permanently saved in my talk page archives, so storing them a 2nd time doesn't make sense anymore. In general they are still valuable tools especially for editor retention.--Gordonrox24 | Talk14:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gordonrox24 - When you do your votes at the RfD, can you follow the guidelines on how to vote, please? It is easier to calculate and not have to look through all of the texts (or in some cases encyclopedias of text) to see what others think. If you need any help on the proper codes and placement, please let me know and I will be happy to show you. Thanks! PotsdamLamb (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh.... What? I've got no clue what you're talking about. The guidelines for RfD are short, and rather clear, and I always follow all of them. RfDs are not a vote, they are a discussion. Having to read what people think is how the whole system works.--Gordonrox24 | Talk21:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You didn’t ping me so I didn’t know you posted. If you look at the others, even admins, post the vote in the beginning. There is a tool that calculates all of them up. While an RfD is not a vote adding that at the beginning does help out a lot and yes the comments after it get read too. PotsdamLamb (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have nearly 2,000 deletes on this wikipedia, many of them RfD closures, and I've never had to use a tool to help me read the discussion. RfDs here, in general, only get a small handful of comments. Some get none. Templates look pretty, but they're by no means a requirement, and I personally dislike them. If working your delete or keep into the text of your comment reads more naturally, I'm all for that.--Gordonrox24 | Talk
Hello Angela! Maybe we can include @Darkfrog24: here as well to help clarify a bit on the intentions for these pages, as they are the user who made the pages in question. It looks like The Woman in Gold (movie) was created on May 20th, as a redirect to Woman in Gold. Woman in Gold itself was created on May 20th, and was redirected shortly thereafter to Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I by Darkfrog. This created a double-redirect at The Woman in Gold (movie), which I fixed earlier today. We do in fact have another article, Woman in Gold (movie) that has content about the movie itself. Perhaps we should consider changing some of those redirects around to direct properly to the movie's article. It is a little bit confusing dealing with articles with very similar names. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk03:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A few days ago, the article about the movie was just called "Woman in Gold." Then I made the article about the painting. I moved the article about the movie to "Woman in Gold (movie)," but I guess I didn't catch all the redirects. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see the problem. The link "THE Woman in Gold (movie)" redirected to the article about the painting, and not to the article Woman in Gold (movie). I fixed it. Yes, an article title that's explicitly mentioning "movie" should go to the movie, not to the painting with the same name as the movie. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey don’t get involved on reversing that guys edits. We are waiting on him to get blocked and put in for a global block. Just to keep you out of trouble. I think he’s an lta but can’t quite put the contribs yet. PotsdamLamb (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey so I noticed you like the good chemistry. Yesterday I tried to fix the two entries showing up as value in the info box but they won’t take even with the right identifiers. Do you know how to fix that in the template? PotsdamLamb (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I tried a few days ago and it still wouldn't accept the input. Something is wrong here: probably the template has a bug. Maybe I should make a new post on the talk page of that template? Animalguy7 (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Gordonrox24: For what reason is an administrator expected to have involvements in Request for Deletion nominations? You mentioned you only saw 225 discussions for Wikipedia space during the eleven years I've been performing tasks on English and Simple English Wikipedia. How much experience in community discussions is required before someone gets admin rights? Angela Kate Maureen17:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tropical Storm Angela:, thanks for the question. In my opinion, an administrator nominee should have some experience in discussions such as RfD as an admin may be called upon to use their tools to respond to those discussions. This can be things like carrying out community consensus to delete or keep at RfD, or dealing with community ban discussions at the Administrator's noticeboard. A history of participating in the discussion process can be a good indicator as to how a nominee can handle the discussions that are often lengthy and sometimes contentious. In terms of quantity, I don't have an exact number. I just think I'd like to see more consistent community engagement. To be fair, there are probably some editors out there that would disagree with me and say this type of engagement isn't necessary at all. I'd just be more comfortable with a higher level of activity in this area. I hope this provides a little clarity on my thoughts. Thanks, --Gordonrox24 | Talk20:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks. An administrator has taken care of this page. In the future you can add {{QD|your reason to delete --~~~~}} to request quick deletion of a page. --Gordonrox24 | Talk20:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! Again!! LOL! Please reach out to me on IRC or via email so I can get you added to the admin IRC channel and added to the admin email list. Cheers! Operator873 connect20:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! When you leave a message on talkpages, do you get the editing screen, or a different box that has both the 'visual' and 'source' code button, and on the bottom right, it says "cancel" and "add topic" I cannot remember if this was a beta feature here, or an code update. Sorry that I have a hard time describing, I can attach a screenshot to clarify things! TsugaruLet's Talk! :)🍁21:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I just seem to get the standard edit screen with the source code displayed. To be honest, I'm using the old monobook skin so I'm probably not seeing what you are. I'll try a few different skins and browsers later and see if I see what you see. --Gordonrox24 | Talk21:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Governor Blåççk Sometimes RfDs stay open past the "due to close" date. It is not required to close them on that date. Sometimes the admins want to see if there might be a little more discussion, and sometimes they just don't get to them right away. It's not necessary to message an admin for this. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Gordonrox24. I'm letting you know that I declined to include this page in the RFD for the related page. That is because you added it so late in the life of the RFD. I'm concerned that people who reviewed the RFD earlier wouldn't have had a chance to see that you added the second page. Feel free to make a second RFD for this one. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not inclined to do that. I'm more inclined to revert to the QD and delete it as a hoax, which was within my right. There was no rush to close that, and I feel the responsible thing to do would have been to extend the discussion a few days if you felt it wasn't clear. I'm really unsure why we are in a hurry to close RFD discussions.--Gordonrox24 | Talk03:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there was some confusion there. I nominated this one for QD instead of RFD as it was much more obviously a hoax than Dee Dee and the Man (the original article) because the original article was also the name of a Dexter's Laboratory episode, but there is no such name for anything with a Dee Dee and the Man 2, therefore making it eligible for QD. While I am happy for both to go through RfD, I think that removing it entirely is a bit odd, especially as the original one was deleted on RfD now. I am happy to go RfD or QD on this one but I think leaving it up with no tags is a mistake. Blissyu2 (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The only reason I didn't delete this outright as a hoax was because there was an RFD which could help us prevent any further issues in terms of deleting hoaxes outright in the future. With a QD, we couldn't always just QD this again. An RFD would let us just QD it should it be posted again. I was, and am 100% comfortable doing a QD. I do not have any issue with how you handled this, User:Blissyu2. I was just hoping to be more proactive. For me, this is a more fundamental issue on this Wikipedia where we seem to be in a rush to have a lower number of active RfD discussions. Personally, I'd love for us to have hundreds. Let's weed them out. Others seem to find that distressing, which I fundamentally disagree with, and leads to closures when there is still discussion to be had. This RfD could have been left open for discussion. No rush at all to close it. --Gordonrox24 | Talk04:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yeah, I am happy to accept decisions either way, but I do like processes to be followed with a degree of consistency. A lot of people on here seem to assume motives for me that are simply not there, as I am really just trying to make things better. Having consistent processes is important. I think Ferien put it well, as casting aspersions. There have been a couple of IPs (possibly the same person, but perhaps not) who was going around assuming that I was secretly something or other and he has made about 50 different accusations about me, not seeming to notice that it's not possible for even 2 of them to be true as they contradict each other. Sadly, we have an admin here who thinks I'm out to get her for some reason, when it was all about processes and consistency. Blissyu2 (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blissyu2: Out to get you? If you're talking about me, I don't think that at all. I have no hard feeling toward you. You said you thought the deletions I did were in error and against GNG rules. Fair enough, so I asked you -- multiple times -- what rules you thought had been violated. I still haven't seen an answer to that. If you think I did something wrong -- especially if you say so publically -- then yes, I would like specifics. You're entitled to call me out when I do something wrong, but please be specific. That's all. If I did something wrong, I can't improve (or avoid doing it again) if I don't know exactly what it was. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gordonrox24: I agree with what you say except that I don't feel it was rushed because it was already 4 days beyond the scheduled close date -- in fact, the addition was made after that date. I declined to delete it out of consideration for people who may have already looked at it and made their decision based on it being just the one article. If multiple pages are to be included in one RFD, I feel they should all be there from the beginning. You may feel differently, and that's fine. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Totally understood. However, We're a wiki where updates to our main page are months behind. Given that, I absolutely do not believe 4 days on an RfD is late. That said, this is a discussion for another time and another place. We'll just continue on with the process as is expected. No worries. Thanks for the heads up and response, I appreciate it. --Gordonrox24 | Talk04:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Ferien (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)