Electronixfreex

Hello, Electronixfreex, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia! I hope you will be happy helping here. You should begin by reading these pages: Wikipedia:Useful, Help:Contents, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and how to write Simple English articles. If you want some ideas of which pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested articles or the list of wanted pages.

Even though it is a good idea to research an article (like looking at the discussion page) before making large changes, please be bold and try! Any changes you make that are not perfect can be fixed later. We are also working most on core articles and the most common topics until this Wikipedia grows.

If you want to ask a question or talk with other members, you can visit our version of the "village pump" at Wikipedia:Simple talk. Administrators on Wikipedia can also help you with more difficult problems. You can also ask me for help. The best way to do that is to leave a message on my talk page. You should always sign your messages on Talk pages by typing "~~~~" (four tildes) at the end of your words.

If you would like to test Wikipedia, please use the sandbox. Please do not test Wikipedia by editing its articles.

Good luck and happy editing! --Gwib ^-(talk)- 14:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! ElectronixFreex

Razorflame's 9th RFA

Have you actually spoken to Razorflame about this nomination? I suggest you withdraw it until you have got his agreement that running is what he wants to do. It's inappropriate to transclude RFA's which have not been accepted by the candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, for your information, the nomination has been removed by User:Gwib one minute before I posted that last message. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

[1] --Gwib ^-(talk)- 19:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Why was the RFA removed? --Electronixfreex (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the previous RFA had finished a day or two beforehand with a clear "no consensus" and, more importantly, you had not asked Razorflame if he wanted to run again, nor had he accepted the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

10th RFA

I would have hoped you would have learned from last time, only just over three weeks ago. You're running the risk of Razorflame leaving this project altogether with you continual nominations without speaking to him first. What happens if this nom goes the same way as the one which was closed 24 days ago? RF has hardly made any edits since then, why would people vote differently? It's not about feeling sorry for someone, it's about them needing the tools and the community trusting them. I strongly advise you to withdraw this and speak to RF first. And actually get an answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And what if RF gets back to Wikipedia to find a bunch of opposes? Think it through. Withdraw until you get his blessing. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Razorflame won't get back to find a bunch of opposes since we're not allowed to vote until he accepts. Electronixfreex (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

He won't know because the RFA has been deleted once again. Please stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the RfA was submitted from an account which seems for all purposes to be a Single Purpose Account (that purpose being RazorFlame RfA) and is only editting using open proxies, the RfA was reverted and deleted as at best disruptive and likely vandalism. If the account continues to act in this manner, it is likely to be blocked. -- Creol(talk) 10:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Your vote on Razorflames RfA

Hello there; you are a very inactive user, I therefore doubt the closing bureaucrat will count your vote as a valid one. That's what TRM is trying to tell you. --Eptalon (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And as Creol has pointed out above, this account is considered to be single-purpose and disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Per your request on my talk page, as a CU I can confirm you are positively not Razorflame. --Eptalon (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"You are a very inactive user" - Oh my goodness. His vote shouldn't count, but User:Swatjester's oppose should? This is either a big misunderstanding, or you guys are really bias. Electronixfreex deserves a vote as much as Swatjester, he is even more active. This is not right, either way. — AE (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Electronixfreex is a single purpose account, which per Wikipedia policies is explicitly disallowed from participating in RFAs. I am far from a single purpose account, for instance I have several thousand edits on other projects, and have legitimate edits to this project as well. Being active does not mean one is allowed to participate in certain functions.Swatjester (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent revert

Hi there. I undid one of your changes because it makes it sound a bit clunkier. The way that I have it written splits it into two seperate sentences which makes it easier for a younger audience to better understand the article. Cheers, Razorflame 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Not me

Da Punk lives on the other side of the world in Australia, while I live in Nevada. Although I've edited late before, I'm not him. — Jonas Rand · ^(talk) 22:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

OK I am sorry for the accusation and will AGF. Cheers Electronixfreex (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)