User talk:Razorflame/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Closing RfAs

Closing successful RfAs is a job for bureaucrats. Closing unsuccessful RfAs is a job for either admins or bureaucrats. It is one thing to archive the page for successful requests after a user has already been promoted, as you have done a few times in the past. It is another thing entirely to declare an RfA unsuccessful, even if it clearly is. You do not have the authority to do that. Please do not close any more RfAs unless/until you become an admin. Thanks. · Tygrrr... 00:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All right. I won't do it anymore. Sorry for overstepping my authority here on the Simple English Wikipedia. Razorflame 01:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Need your userpage semi-protected?-- Lights  talk  16:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nah. It's nothing a simple reversion can't handle :) Thanks for the offer, though. Razorflame 16:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for welcoming me. A quick question: Are the notability guidelines here the same as the ones on en-wikipedia? Malinaccier (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ones for living people are the same. Read over WP:RULES and see if everything there is the same as over on the English Wikipedia. Razorflame 16:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Malinaccier (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a problem! Razorflame 21:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, thanks for...

Hi there I'm unregistered right here, but I'm a veteran wikipedian, and I'm trying to edit the article, and you keep reverting it, can you stop?

By doing it so, I can proudly remove your tag, and fit the scope of simple pedia

Thanks in advance

Eduemonitalk 17:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will remove the template for you and add the {{inuse}} template so that you can make your changes without getting edit conflicted. Thanks for letting me know about this in advance; I wasn't sure if what you were trying to do was vandalism or not. I will go remvoe the encopypaste tag right now. Razorflame 17:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi again, can you review the article? And if it is possible rate it. Thanks in advance. Eduemonitalk 17:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will go ahead and review it, just not now. I'll review it in about an hour. If you can't wait for me to do so, feel free to ask some of the other active users to review the article for you. Thanks, Razorflame 19:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I use PilotGuy's tool and so I just use the ones listed there most of the time. BirdsArmy Talk 20:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know you use PilotGuy's tool :). I also know that they don't have to removing cotent warnings on them. Also, based upon his last warning, you should probably have given him a test2a anyways because that seems to have been all that he was doing. Razorflame 21:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Demotion of Violin

Don't forget to add Violin's demotion details on Wikipedia:Proposed article demotion. - Huji reply 17:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was working on it at the exact same time that you posted this message :) Razorflame 17:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah noticed! Thanks. - Huji reply 17:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problems :) Razorflame 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"almost every nobel prize winner" Which ones don't use it? That needs fixing. --Bärliner 12:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eh? Alright. I can go fix that if you are wanting me to. Otherwise, if you have already fixed it, then I guess that I see no reason for me to. Razorflame 16:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
you said the template is used by "almost every nobel prize winner". Tell me which ones don't use the template, and I will add it. --Bärliner 21:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was a mistake. I didn't mean to say that :) It is used by every Nobel prize winner :) Razorflame 15:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Year categories

I might hold off on creating all those categories just now. I don't necessarily agree with the creation of all the year pages that generated the categories in the first place. I think the community needs to talk about what we're going to do with these pages that are (basically) empty and have dubious worth. · Tygrrr... 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you think about it, the year pages will have to be created sometime in the future, so why not make the categories now so that we don't have to do all that work later on in the future? But, if you want me to stop, then I will stop. Razorflame 16:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think we should have empty pages. I think perhaps we should delete them. Thus, if the pages themselves are under discussion, creating categories only containing pages that may be deleted would create twice as much work to undo.
I'm trying to figure out why the hell this wasn't discussed before Durova and W7bot went on this spree. Did I miss something here??? · Tygrrr... 16:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would have to agree with you here. This was done without any of the administrators' consents, or without the approval of the community as a whole. I would have to agree that it would be twice as much work to delete the categories, but what if the categories created were created to be of use later? Razorflame 16:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds like you want to create an empty category, which can be deleted in accordance with policy. What is the point of creating a category which is no good now, and which makes extra working by having to remind admins that it is an exception to policy and should not be deleted as "it might be of use in the furture" --Bärliner 21:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I agree with you, as I am pretty sure I have made known when I added the categories to the fast deletion request that Browne34 has made on the Requests for deletion page. Razorflame 15:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


request is here, but thank you for message and further directions, best regards ;o) --Dalibor Bosits (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that the 'crats check that page very often. I would suggest asking one of the 2 'crats that I left in my message directly, that is the way that you would get the bot flag quicker. Razorflame 15:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i know, i just did, thank you for your time Razorflame, best regards --Dalibor Bosits (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem!  :) Razorflame 15:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have a radical idea... why don't you fix the article instead of tagging each and every article ? Thank you, Mønobi 22:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't take that idea wrong. Razorflame is done that in a good faith edit, posting up the {{wikify}} template so other editors in the future can get the message that the articles needs some fixing. I'm pretty sure that he was merely helping to contibute to the article, not offend you. Hope this helps you:) --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 02:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I place the tags on the article not to offend you but to give other editors the chance to help you fix your article so that either they can make it better or you can make it better. If you would rather me fix the article instead of just posting the tags onto the article, then I will do so, if I am able to remember to do so. Thank you Razorflame 19:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not offend, it's just a waste of time to tag an article when it will take 2 seconds to "wikify" it. Mønobi 22:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
0_0 2 seconds!? For me it takes at least 5 mintues. :P --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 22:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For an article such as this one (see current version), all that was done was to add links (2 seconds per link) and copy and paste an infobox over from En Wiki (around 40 seconds). Not much work and maybe a maximum of 2 minutes to wikify the whole thing and make Simple just that much better. --Gwib -(talk)- 22:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is Razorflame often adds these tags to articles, when a few seconds extra work will actually fix the problem. Fixing the problem is the real help to the community. What is the point of sticking a tag on an article in the hope that another editor will then find it and fix what is often a simple problem? It does nothing but create extra work --Bärliner 23:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will happily start doing this now. If it that big of a problem, then I will happily start fixing up articles that need tags instead of just placing the tags on them. Razorflame 23:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If were just suppose to fix it, then what is the point of the template? Oysterguitarist 05:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be honest, I'm partially agreeing and disagreeing with all sides (except Oyster and Snake) here.. Yes many of the cases of just adding the tag is a waste as the problems can quickly be solved in a matter of a minute or two, but on the other hand, especially considering the workload and time restraints the person may be working with, this isn't always the case. It is no editors job to clean up after other people. We are all volunteers. If someone wants to clean up, more power to them, but no one should be forced to go through and wikify or cleanup. True in many cases, just tagging and moving on is little better than boosting edit count when another 15 seconds could have solved the problem entirely, but then you have people claiming to do the job and not only causing someone else to follow up on it, but by removing the tag, they are hiding the problem. Gwibs reference above is a perfect example. Razor tagged it as "wikify", Monobi changed the stub tag and removed the wikify tag without bothering to wikify the article. Luckily I happen to notice the change the comment here and took a look at the article and actually did the wikifying of the article. It is all of three sentences and yet the only thing linked in the entire article was what was included in the stub tag..
While many of Razors edits of this type do scream of editcountitus and could be more useful with a few moments of effort added in, it is not his responsibility to be someones mother and clean-up after them. At least he did tag them rather than just make some minor tweak and let it go hidden. I personally would prefer he got a lot more experience in the areas of wikifying, cleanup, and other aspects of making every article better as a well rounded editor given his aim for admin, but no one should be blamed for actions such as these. -- Creol(talk) 07:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey Razor. I was wondering if you could help me a bit with Across The Universe, I saw what you wrote, but didn't understand it entirely. Can you give me like some specific pointers, like detailed instructions that would get the article up to GA? Thanks Chicken-The-Turkey-Farm-Face-In-Your-Face-Munching-on-your-lips-hips-chips-Ps.IuseRosary? (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By copyediting, I mean going through the article and fixing the grammar and spelling mistakes that could potentially be in the article. Shortening the sentences is pretty straight forward; all you have to do is change around some of the sentences to make the wording shorter on them. I will add more to this post for the other parts of the post that I made to the GA page. Razorflame 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikifying means pointing important terms that relate to the article to their articles by placing double brackets around the term in question. This should be pretty straight-forward as well.
There are some complex words throughout the article. You will need to find simpler terms to replace the more complex terms in the article. Razorflame 20:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks : - ) Chicken-The-Turkey-Farm-Face-In-Your-Face-Munching-on-your-lips-hips-chips-Ps.IuseRosary? (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problems! Razorflame 16:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Yes, you are right. Looks like the template has to be renamed. I created this template because I have noticed that some IPs do a test on articles and then revert it quickly. Chenzw (talkchanges) 05:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have seen this happen many times before and I have come to this conclusion: they really shouldn't get a warning because they committed vandalism, and then thought better of it. Why should we punish them for doing the right thing? Razorflame 15:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haven't you heard...

About this incident? Just wondering if you watch YouTube regularly. :) --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 05:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never visit YouTube. I have only gone on there once, and even then, I did not like it very much. I prefer to go to websites that I know have a good reputation; I have not heard of YouTube having a good reputation. Razorflame 15:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[1] --Gwib -(talk)- 16:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blocked here at school. Maybe someone can just tell me in words? Razorflame 16:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"YouTube is the video service acquired by Google in October 2006 for $1.6 billion, representing one of the most impressive investments ever made for an Internet company. Since the Google acquisition, YouTube was continuously brought in the spotlights because more and more companies are suing the search giant for publishing videos without authorization." --Gwib -(talk)- 16:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heh, that just goes to show that YouTube can't be trusted! Razorflame 16:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't trying to convince you it had... You just said you were oblivious to youtube's rep. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was oblivious to it. I already knew that it couldn't be trusted; now you've gone and given me good proof that supports that belief :) Razorflame 17:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What?! I don't get what any of you guys are saying. And what the hell is that no one trusts YouTube. Suddenly I don't get why I even started the discussion now. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 08:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was just responding to what Gwib brought up to me. That was all. Sorry if I misconstrued the actual point of your starting of the topic. Razorflame 16:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How do I upload images?? LB22 (talk to me!)Email me! 20:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS - please respond on my user talk page.

Responded on your talk page. Razorflame 20:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks LB22 (talk to me!)Email me! 20:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a problem! :) Razorflame 20:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Birth and death categories

I've noticed your formatting on new birth and death year categories could use a little tweaking. For example: Category:1492 births would be categorized as follows:

[[Category:1490s births]]

Similarly, Category:1492 deaths would be:

[[Category:1490s deaths]]

It's a pretty minor change from what you're doing now, so if you wouldn't mind following this format, I would appreciate it. Thanks! · Tygrrr... 17:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed you doing this, so of course I will start doing this in the future :) Razorflame 17:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your sig

I've never seen a person go through so many Signatures. You broke the record.--  C h r i s t i a n M a n 1 6 21:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was no record. I just change my signature whenever I get bored of the old one. I got bored of my old one after using it for several weeks, and now I've started using a new one so that I wouldn't be bored anymore. Razorflame 16:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"You broke the record" is a figure of speech. Lighten up, Man!--   ChristianMan16  22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've seen that you've run for adminship again. :) --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 08:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I have decided to run an RfA now, even though Tygrrr told me not to. I feel as though I have learned everything that I can and that there is nothing more that I can learn on here. I learned a very important lesson about responding on the AN from both Tygrrr and Barliner, and I have taken that one to heart. I will only respond to the AN after I have looked at every angle that I can possibly think of, and then I will make a complete response to every topic that I should be making a response to. Even though I doubt that the RfA that I have posted now will pass, I will not withdraw it yet. I will let it go the whole week and then get the response back from it. Cheers, Razorflame 16:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Umm... I wan't asking why you were going to run an RfA, but its good to know. I'm sure you're becoming a better wikipedian every minute. Anyways, don't let the critizism people throw at you let you down, the purpose of running an RfA is when a person feels that he is ready, not by what other people say about you. Just another one of those helpful tips for you. :) --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 00:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The critism that other people have provided me will help me gain the knowledge to become an administrator in the future. I will fully expect and welcome any critism that people throw my way. Cheers, Razorflame 16:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm the first one to criticise you accordance to your says (kidding), move forward bro. you have been blessed from God since you career, have a good lucky.....--RecorDprodUceR (talk) 06:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have already moved forward; I am just going on with my life right now. Razorflame 15:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice to hear that. In my side I've already dream about to be an administrator in Swahili Wikipedia (verify). So I wish you lucky, Cheers....--RecorDprodUceR (talK 2 mE) 12:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you kindly for your words! Even though I won't get to be an administrator now, I'm sure that I will be able to be one in the future! Razorflame 15:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't Despair, cause is too early to say that. Now I see your contributions is more than 15,867 (see it here). While in my side, I have only 2,752 and bit more (see it here). And now I became an admin, so please don't despair everything will be okay. In other side I don't know why do they late to make you an admin, maybe there's something personal or what? (I don't know-can't imagine). According to your contributions, there's no need to wait for anything they real should make you an admin just now if possible, Cheers..--RecorDprodUceR (talK 2 mE) 08:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome message

Hey, just signed up today!

I thought I'd point out that there's a grammatical error in the welcome message received by new members. There should be a comma between Hi and the user name.

So it should look like: Hi, User. Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia!

Alternatively, you can stick a semicolon after "User" rather than a full stop, but that's just a matter of taste.

Yes, it may seem pedantic, but just because this is the Simple English Wikipedia doesn't mean that one can be lax about grammar ;-)

Thanks for reading.

Applemeister (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)ApplemeisterReply[reply]

 Done Thank you for pointing out this grammatical error. I have gone into the welcome template and added the comma as you requested. Welcome! I hope you like it here :) Razorflame 16:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just noticed a welcome template put on today here, and it does not implement the comma... TheWolf 01:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is Barliner's personal welcome, so that is why it doesn't have the comma. Razorflame 15:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah. TheWolf 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFD votes

Yes, I do tend to get a little odd at times. And I have no experience with Uncyclopedia, so I had no idea that using those terms was anything like it. Sorry for any inconvenience, I'll go change my votes to 'Delete' and such ASAP. Thanks for letting me know. TheWolf 16:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a problem. Razorflame 16:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, can you help me with my signature?

I need to know how to edit it for the word Adam to be a different color and link to my user page, and the word Bomb to be a different color and link to my talk page.

I know how to edit my signature, but I don't know the code. Help?

Adam Bomb (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure! What color would you like each word to be? Razorflame 16:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Adam I'd like it to be somewhat of a crimson color. And the Bomb to be somewhat of like a, navy blue color. Adam Bomb (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good! Now do I just copy the code there into my signature box, or what? Adam Bomb (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, click on my settings at the top right of the screen. Then, where you see nickname, copy and paste the coding into that box and click save settings. That should enable you to use it. Also, make sure to check raw signature box. Razorflame 17:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay! Awesome. Checking the raw signature box is where I was messing up. Thanks for the signature! Adambomb 17:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problems!  :) Razorflame 17:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alfred Deakin

I am kind of curious about your reasoning for marking Alfred Deakin for quick deletion. -- Creol(talk) 16:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, whoops! I thought that a vandal created it just now. I didn't look in the history to see if it was a vandal that removed the content. My mistake! Razorflame 16:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Making signatures

Sure, you can add my name to the list. Thanks, I didn't know there was one. TheWolf 17:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a problem!  :) Razorflame 19:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Things that make me go 'hmm'

This edit has got me curious again.. You tagged an eight word sentence with four templates.. That is almost more text in templates than the entire article. While stub and uncat were definitely needed, wikify served only to say wikify Italian, British, and journalist. Cleanup was definitely not needed as the only thing to clean up would be adding a stub tag which you already did. It is realy hard to screw up an eight word one sentence article in reguards to MoS. -- Creol(talk) 20:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My mistake. I was probably on autopilot; going through probably tagging 40-50 articles, so I just added them whilst I was on autopilot. Sorry for doing that. I will try to discrestionize the amount of tags that I put onto an article. Cheers, Razorflame 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simple Wikipedia is great

I think it's a great idea doing this, because it is very true that there are a lot of people who does not speak English as their first language, encouraging writers to put more simple phrases and other similar things realy help people use this website. But I just wish that one day somehow people would actually consider Wikipedia as a recognized official source for resource, just somehow...

Sersarsor (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep. I would have to agree with you on this one :) I definitely wish that people see Wikipedia as a genuine source of information to use in papers and stuff like that in the future, but because of how schools don't like Wikipedia, I am not too sure if this will happen in the future. Razorflame 17:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


For welcoming me back. Oh, and it's nice to see you, by the way.--TBC 04:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a problem! :0 Razorflame 17:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot account at nowiki

Ref Wikipedia-diskusjon:Roboter#Darkicebot (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you kindly for letting me know about this promptly! Razorflame 15:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is there a rock band with the name Razorflame? Is that where you got the name? --Jack Black 16:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. I got it from my own imagination. Razorflame 16:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your RFA

I'm so sorry about your failed RFA. At least you did better this time than in any other time, which may be a good sign that the next one may pass... Cheers,-- Lights  talk  21:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No need to be sorry. Just by going through the RFA made me learn what others thought about me; what others liked and didn't like about me; what people have seen me improve in. Even though I did better than I did last time, I can only account for that fact by having more people than the last time. The same players as my last attempt (Barliner, Creol, Tygrrr, Brown34), all still voted oppose this time, and they might continue to do so in the future, but I am sure that they will eventually come to see reason someday :0 Until then, Razorflame 21:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand how you must feel. Both of my pervious RfAs ended up the same way. :) --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 22:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope that you become more active later in the future as well :) Razorflame 19:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I am way too busy. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 03:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just saw this after being away and I feel I need to clarify something. Our votes have nothing to do with "seeing reason", as you put it. The users who have opposed your promotion have completely legitmate reasons for not thinking you're ready. Rather than think you're ready and hope that we'll eventually see the "error of our ways" (so to speak), you might want to listen to our advice and constructive criticism. · Tygrrr... 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have listened to your critism and I am currently trying to incorporate it into my daily life here on the Simple English Wikipedia. Razorflame 20:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chris Thile GAN

I created an article for Stuart Duncan and simplified a number of sentences in the article, do you wish to change your vote? --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am unsure about this article. There are still a few long sentences, but yes, I would be willing to change my vote to support now. Razorflame 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Barnstar Congratulations: You have been given a Barnstar!

For your hard work here on Simple English Wikipedia!RecorDprodUceR (talK 2 mE) 08:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wish you lucky!!! Forget about obstacles. You've been blessed before, so this barnstar it's eligible to have it (your deserve). Cheers,--RecorDprodUceR (talK 2 mE) 08:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thankee much for the barnstar :) Razorflame 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you warn, when the IP didn't make any edits today, not even any deleted edits?-- Lights  talk  19:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could've sworn that I reverted an edit that he made that day...bah! I must be losing my mind! Razorflame 14:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope not...your a good contender for a future successful RFA.--   ChristianMan16  19:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heh :) *cookie* Razorflame