User talk:Gordon Ecker

CaNNoNFoDDa 18:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Gordon Ecker 07:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clever use of a similar word to avoid profanity. Bow to me. But back to my original point, what the funk. First off, I don't think you've mentioned on your GWiki page that you're on Wikipedia as well. Secondly, I found you by checking the page history on List of Eureka Seven Characters. I never knew you watched Eureka seveN... you do watch the show, right? Because if so, I've got five T-shirts that say we've got common ground. Jioruji Derako 08:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I missed quite a few of the earlier episodes, but I plan on catching up. The finale's airing up here on Friday. -- Gordon Ecker 10:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...eh, I forgot to check my watchlist here.

Saw the finale a while ago here (East Coast, USA)... although I got a edited version of the final episode. Luckily, the channel made up for that by airing the uncut episode the next week; unfortunately, I missed that one.

Been collecting the DVDs though, so I've got nearly the entire series, as well as most of the series in manga form and a small pile of T-shirts. Who doesn't love swag? -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 09:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I originally built the list from the first source that's there in the details section (and basically ended up rewording, reorganizing, etc.) so can I remove the facts, or do I have to copy and paste the reference for each one?... Noian (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to discuss this on the

article's talk page. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Anyway, I have removed the redundant citations. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gordon Ecker,

it seems you have taken down the external link we posted under the Wee Warriors section with the explanation "seems to be commercial spam".

We are a non-for profit, non-commercial, free project and would like to place a reference inside Wikipedia.

Also we are new to Wikipedia.

So we will add the external link again. Please contact through my website in case you still have doubt.

Thanks

Regards

Ralf Toth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomeoftreasures (talk • contribs) 13:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the conflict of interest guideline is fairly strict about self-promotion. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the stub section of controversy on the article, Gluon. It is indeed notable - you would be right if Jack Chick were a single quack out there selling these things, but the popularity and widespread distrubution of chick tracts indicates a widespread acceptance of the views presented in them. I'm working on finding additional sources for the Gluon controversy. Until then, Chick tract will do just fine. Zelmerszoetrop (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't, it merely indicates, in conjunction with corroborating evidence evidence, a widespread acceptance of some of the views presented in them, arguing that every view advocated by the tracts is widespread solely due to the tracts' popularity as a whole is an example of the association fallacy and original research, reliable secondary sources would be necessary to substantiate any claims that Jack Chick's views on quantum chromodynamics are widely held. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were to remove vandal edit summaries. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I suspected it was vandalism-related. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had trouble trying to figure out how to phrase it. Thanks. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting eachother and sort this out on the talk page. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If you will look at the discussion page for this article, you will see that, in a previous dispute, I've posted numerous entries to support my position. Frank Pais, by contrast, did not post any. Mr. Pais was not interested in discussions on talk page, even though I repeatedly suggested in the edit summaries that he do so.

If you can convince Mr. Pais to participate in discussions on the talk page, feel free to try. But I wouldn't hold out much hope.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I don't want to escalate the current dispute, so I won't comment on the previous one. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you mind leaving a note at

]

I've posted my issues on the talk page. It's mostly a phrasing issue. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Canadian Human Rights Commission . For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just nice for me that I found a familiar face around here. --Silverleaf . talk 04:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another one! --People of Antioch (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check

]

Wikipedia Project

The Wikipedia: WikiProject Typography will gain a lot from you partnership, please join it and help Wikipedia. Critisizer (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not really that interested in typography. I just happened to spot some issues while reading typeface-related articles. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Lesley Hughes: but clearly she is no longer the Liberal Party candidate (which is the subject of this article) despite what it may say on the ballot. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She was nominated as a Liberal candidate and the withdrawal deadline has passed. I think we should continue this discussion at

Talk:Canadian federal election, 2008#September 22nd nomination and withdrawal deadline. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Pinehearst Industries

Gordon: Hello. FYI, with respect to your edit at Pinehearst Industries, the AfD was closed by an administrator as "redirect". If you disagree with the outcome, you should appeal the AfD result first, not just restore the article. Please feel free to ask if you have any questions about this. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice Tone's note at the top. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I’ve been working on a lot of ‘’

]

Net Neutrality cleanup

Hi there, do you want to help with the net neutrality cleanup. what it really needs is for all the unref stuff to be replaced with wel reserached stuff (its quite easy finding source for most of the issues actually). You can maybe adopt the pricing section... Also, it needs some sort of structure, the pricing section could go in the argument sections (its really an argument...?). Any help welcome.--SasiSasi (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A

]

I don't think I have been involved in the dispute, and it involves several policies I'm not familiar with. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how you contributed much of the content to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons), I figured I'd let you know that it is up for AFD. BOZ (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Nevermind, I see you already noticed. :) BOZ (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome job improving the article. Thanks! Mjpresson (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{

}} On some other wikis, the names of pages which have not been visited since the last change are bolded, and history pages of watched pages have a highlighted "updated since my last visit" note for edits since the last visit. Is it possible to enable either of those features on Wikipedia by editing my monobook.css? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I asked someone familiar with the MediaWiki software and they said definitely not with css; maybe with js, but you'd have to use cookies for each page. Sorry! Further questions? let me know! Fleetflame 05:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you have commented once before on the clarification of the rule for the Box Art, would you be willing to put your 2 cents in to the new path of the debate. A user posted a better quality PNG with a better name, but seems to have started a bit of a battle as the European JPG was posted first. Thoughts on this, or would you rather stay out of it? 72.237.4.150 (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gordon,

Have you seen this? Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-09-21/WikiProject report BOZ (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

]

Canadian election graph

To the extent there is a consensus on polls for the next Canadian federal election, it appears to be that we should branch it off into a separate article. You and I both think we should leave behind a graph. Do you know how to make one or who made the one used for the 2008 election polls? -Rrius (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not familiar with any graphiing software. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WIkia is not a reliable source.

]

Yeah, I know, I was suggesting that the Shounen Jump interview mentioned in Sazh's Final Fantasy wiki article could be used as a reliable source, assuming it exists. Thanks anyway. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I declined your move request as it undid the standard title case. Kiko4564 (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally used {{subst|move|current page name|proposed new page name}} instead of {{subst:move|proposed new page name}} and the template ignored the second parameter. The move tag has been fixed. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed your who request on the FairTax article. I'm thinking it may be too much to include them all, and undue weight for that section. 5 of the 7 Republican candidates came out in support of it, at least one Dem, and some of the minor party candidates. I don't see that it makes much sense to name them all one by one. If someone wants to see, they could follow the source. Morphh ^(talk) 0:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I added a {{helpme}} tag on my talk page. We'll see if someone understands my question... :) Thanks again! P@ddington (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything you can do to improve the new article,

]

I've tagged it with a merge proposal for consistency, since it's a subclass in 2nd edition and a series of prestige classes in 3rd edition, and the precedent seems to be covering subclasses in the main class articles (illusionist in

list of prestige classes article. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair enough; I was kind of thinking that myself. Since it seems the editor who started the article only did so to add a (now-removed) copyvio, we really don't need the article anyway unless someone can add some substantial content to it. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

]

CPC

You are a regular contributor at Conservative Party of Canada, so I seek a third opinion at Talk:Conservative Party of Canada#Woodworth's abortion private members bill. The basic issue is whether the fact a private members bill concerning abortion will be debated is sufficiently significant to be discussed under the section dealing with the party's position on abortion. -Rrius (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIPEDIA IS KITTENS!

Pppowercurve (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is in reference to the tag "Editorial|date=December 2009" which you added to the Digital Preservation article. This article is now in the process of significant revision as part of an NDSA Working Group WikiProject on Digital Preservation. We feel that the editorial issues you identified have now been remedied and would like to remove the tag. Please let us know if you have any objection. Davissp (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC) on behalf of the NDSA Working Group WikiProject on Digital Preservation.[reply]

• Comparison of smartphones Andries (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Censorship in Canada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Union Nationale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diablo III, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diablo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gordon, as I am new to Wikipedia I politely ask for your explanation.

I've seen that you removed the "Thus ending the controversy" from my edited

Hearthstone controversy page.

I wanted to ask, while the controversy was about IeSF having a male-only competition, and since IeSF changed it's policy, didn't this end the controversy? That what it was about, isn't it?

Thanks :)!

WinzardIsrael (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's too early to make that kind of conclusive statement. Sometimes, scandals and controversies fizzle overnight, other times, they stain an organization's reputation for decades or generations, sometime an old scandal gets back into the news after years or decades. -- Gordon Ecker, WikiSloth (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of smartphones is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphones (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of smartphones is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphones (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

ArbCom Elections 2016

: Voting now open!

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!