Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2360fa20c5fdfff

Jump to content

Talk:Gordon Neilson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Vegaswikian in topic Title

Title

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Gordon NeilsonWalter Gordon Neilson – The following suggestion has been copied from Talk:Walter Gordon Neilson--Tikiwont (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

deletion, changing a entrys name, adding absurd details, ie the only brothers to debut EXCEPT for . This redirecter has totally ruined all the rugby playing NEILSON brothers biographies. The changing of a lead name as Robert Thomson NEILSON, to just Robert NEILSON makes a mockery of defining people, ie, How many Robert NEILSONs are there compared to his full name of Robert Thomson NEILSON, same goes for Walter Gordon NEILSON, etc. I will admit the original bios needed more filling, but whats happened is offensive. Pushbutton auto (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I take above as a request to move the article Gordon Neilson to Walter Gordon Neilson so i'm gonna list it at WP:RM.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
This is his full name, but he's usually called Gordon Neilson. Neilson is not that common a variant.
The user making this request made various odd edits to said articles, clearly because s/he was not completely au fait with Wikipedia.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.