User talk:Aureez/Archive1

TV Program Episodic List
You left a topic for discussion about this page like last year and I just wanted to let you know, I've added in the Broadcast Years for the shows as well as a big amount of shows which I'm adding Soap Opera's now as it is, I just thought you might like to know. Afkatk (talk) 00:41. 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello. Thanks!  Yes, that was quite a while ago ... and I had forgotten all about that.  If you are planning to work on that article / list, I woud also suggest making it a "sortable" chart.  I believe that that is a pretty easy edit, although I am not 100% sure.  Thanks for the update!   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC))


 * I'll defiantly look up the layout of the table in the future and see how it goes, thanks for the tip Afkatk (talk) 18:34. 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm currently looking around for it, Sortable#Examples Is this what you were talking about? Afkatk (talk) 07:20. 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks.  Yes, that link described the sorting that I was talking about.  I already went in and added the sort feature to the Table in the article.  I think it's helpful to have the information sortable.  Thanks!   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC))


 * That's cool, I was gonna do it, the unfortunate thing is the Years Broadcasting section wont be sortable. Afkatk (talk) 16:50. 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello. Actually, the dates of broadcasting can also be sorted.  However, they all need to be formatted with the proper date sorting code.  Check out this Wikipedia page that discusses the template and the correct formatting if you want the dates column to be sortable ---> Template:Dts.  Basically, for example, each date needs to be entered such as this (without the extra spaces, that I just added in now to "avoid" the Wikipedia code taking effect ... so that you can actually see the code itself): { { dts | 2009 | January | 1 } }.  That is ... if you type in the code { { dts | 2009 | January | 1 } } (without all of those extra spaces) ... you will get the date to appear as January 1 2009 ... and this date will be correctly sorted when placed in a sortable table.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC))


 * By unsortable I mean that since there are a lot of dates which aren't clear like for instants there are some shows where it's not known when they started broadcasting Afkatk (talk) 12:14. 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see what you mean. I just looked at the Table very quickly.  I only noticed a very small handful (perhaps 4 or 5) from the entire list that had "unknown" dates listed.  The great majority of the TV shows did indeed have dates listed ... and those dates can be made to be sortable.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC))


 * I think I'm gonna try sorting the table into Started Broadcasting and Finished Broadcasting, so that it'll be easier to sort, it'll take quite some doing though. Afkatk (talk) 20:26. 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's funny that you mention that. Even before I got your message, I was thinking the exact same thing.  That it would be easier to have two separate columns (beginning date and ending date) to make the sorting easier.  Good luck.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC))

Hollyoaks series/episodes count
Hi. I've reverted your edit to add the series/episode count to Hollyoaks as it appears to be unsourced. Where have you got this information from? As far as I'm aware, Hollyoaks doesn't have a set series structure (if it does, I've never seen it). [ジャム] [ t -  c  ] 09:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto for Coronation Street - no series, it airs all year round. Also, you edited to 9 January. Well its currently 28 December. Anything could happen before those episodes air. Episodes are updated once they have aired, not before. Thanks.--UpDown (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * TV.com, I got the info from TV.com. Afkatk (talk) 21:50. 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of TV.com being a reliable source, especially if it is giving you "series" information for shows like Hollyoaks and Coronation Street, which don't have series.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 23:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, I think their slogan "where the fans run the show" show that it shouldn't relied upon.   [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 23:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As to where Wikipedia is a reliable source.--afkatk signs off (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean. If you are talking about what Wikipedia considers reliable sources, see WP:RS.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 01:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

List of television programs by episode count
Hi. I just wanted to make sure you knew that this article is being considered for deletion. I do not think that it should be deleted, but others do. I am not sure how much you are concerned with this article, but I got the impression that you put a lot of work into it ... and, thus, that you did care at least somewhat about this article ... and its possible deletion. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

P.S. This page is where the deletion debate is located --> Articles for deletion/List of television programs by episode count. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC))


 * it's true I put a lot of work into it, I did care at one point but tbh they pretty much made me stop caring with the first deletion debate. afkatk (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What makes you say that? I just looked at the deletion debate.  It was strongly in favor of "Keep" votes, as far as I could tell.  In fact, I was hoping you would participate in the debate and add another "Keep" vote.  I am a little confused.  If it is mostly "Keep" votes, why would that make you stop caring?  Let me know.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC))


 * It's just some of the comments left even if they are in favour of it being kept afkatk (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would not take any of the comments personally, if I were you. In the end, the result of the debate was to KEEP this article, rather than to delete it.  Thus, most agree that the article is good and valid and has merit.  I hope you will continue your excellent work on this article.  It is appreciated.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC))


 * I never took the comments personally after all it is only wikipedia, I'll probably update it from time to time anyway afkatk (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's good to hear. You did a lot of good work there.  Thanks again.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC))

Idea running by you
We haven't talked in quite a while and I know you're pretty busy with other projects, I've seen your sandbox, lots of castles in there, but anyway since we've talked on this article quite a lot I thought I might run this by you before putting it in use, on the List of television programs by episode count, I've thought of putting in a Country of Origin column which I'm actually working on right now and I pretty much wanted your thoughts on it before I actually go ahead and make it final, oh and btw I have been working on the article again for the past few days afkatk (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I'll make a Sandbox to show you how everything will look afterwards afkatk (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. Good to hear back from you again ... and I am glad to see that you decided to work on this article again!  That's great news.  As to your question ... yes, I think that adding in the "Country of Origin" is a great idea ... and I think that it will add to and benefit the article a great deal.  So, my vote is: yes, go ahead and do it.  Also, yes, I would love to see how this all looks, in your Sandbox, whenever that is ready.  When it is, please let me know.  I would be happy (and interested) to take a look at it.  Thanks a lot for contacting me about this.  Please reply back, whenever appropriate, at my Talk Page.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Also ... I am not trying to make "more work" for you ... but I do have two suggestions about this article. What do you think?  Because the list is now sortable, I think the table should have the following two things: (a) the Column for Years Broadcasting should be split into two separate columns ... one for "Beginning" and one for "Ending" years.  This would make more sense in a sortable chart ... and ... (b) I think that the titles should be listed in alphabetical order, not episode quantity order.  Because the list is now sortable, a person can always take the alphabetical list and simply sort by episode number, if they want to see which show has the highest count, second highest count, lowest count, etc.  More importantly, episode "counts" will constantly change --- for shows in production, at least.  Which means constantly "keeping track of" and therefore "moving" a show on the list whenever the episode count changes ... which could be every day ... or every week.  However, if the list was in alphabetical order, the order would never change at all ... and no one would have to "keep track of changing the order of the list" every time an in-production show added more episodes.  This is quite a bit of up-front work ... but, I think, worth it.  What do you think of these two ideas?  Please reply at my Talk Page, whenever you want to.  Thanks!   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Hi, it's me again. I just now took a quick look at your Sandbox.  Looks great!  I have two thoughts to add.  (1) For what it's worth ... I think that the first column of the Table should definitely be the title of the show.  That is the most important piece of information in the whole list.  I wouldn't care where exactly the "Country of Origin" column goes later on in the Table ... except that it definitely should not be the very first column.  That is my opinion.  The very first column should necessarily be the Title.  I just wanted to share my opinion before you got too far down the list and did a great deal more work. And (2) ... I know that some people on Wikipedia complain if you list a flag alone without actually also writing the country name.  I, myself, don't care about this ... and I don't know the "official" Wikipedia rule about it.  But, I worked on other articles before ... and some people made a big deal that you can't list the flag alone without also writing the country name.  So, I just wanted to "warn you" in advance.  Just so you know, here is an article that I once worked on, a long time ago ... so you can see what I mean ---> User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page22.  Thanks for listening.  Your thoughts?   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC))


 * I think the alphabetically listed part isn't really much of an issue as you pointed out this is sortable, and I am going to implement the idea of having 2 separate columns and I shall update the list with the separate columns and plan to eventually get the dts sorted out, I put the Nationality column up first mainly because it just sorta looked right, but I'll probably squeeze it into the 3rd or so collumn and I do have plans to make this more sotable as well, thanks for the input as well, this is pretty much the main reason I started up the Sandbox, nice hearing from you about the article as well, anymore ideas I'll pretty much put into consideration about implementing them afkatk (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Afkatk/SandboxP2 I finished the thing btw, so if you want to view it and tell me what you think of it before I go ahead and add it to the article, plus the Start and End Broadcasting I'll probably get started on it tomorrow or so afkatk (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I checked it out.  I think it looks great.  You did a lot of work on that article!  I am glad that you moved the "Country" column, so that it was not listed first on the left.  It looks much better, the way that you now have it.  Great job!  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC))


 * If you'd happily direct your eyes to User:Afkatk/SandboxP2, you can see a little glimpse of what it will look like after the Columns are seperated afkatk (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I did take a look ... and it looks great!  I really don't have any changes that I would recommend.  If I had to find one ... I might say that the last column (in production: yes/no) is perhaps unnecessary.  We can tell from the ending date whether or not the show is still being produced.  But, it is also fine if that column stays in the Chart, too.  Either way is fine.  Other than that, I don't see any issues ... and I think it looks great!  Thanks for keeping me posted ... and thanks for all the work that you are putting / have been putting into this.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

Feel free to take my Sandbox
I wanted to notify you that I'm giving up on doing the List of TV Program list thing, so please feel free to finish off my Sandbox and added it should be up to date with "07:42, 4 March 2009 Welsh (talk | contribs)" so please feel free to take over for me afkatk (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * V_V I guess you can ignore this I'm kind of bored now so I guess I'll finish it off, and I know I can be confusing afkatk (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's finally finished - List of television programs by episode count take a look, tell me what you think afkatk (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. Sorry that it took so long for my reply.  I only have a quick moment, right now ... but I shall reply more fully soon.  The article looks great ... you did a lot of work on it.  Thanks!  I have one suggestion.  I think that the "Ended Broadcasting" should have its own separate column.  Otherwise, (a) this defeats the sorting feature of the chart; (b) it actually makes the sorting feature not work on columns that have information (like "Start Date") that spans across several columns; and (c) it does not make intuitive sense to have the "End Date" be listed as the "Start Date".  I quickly went in and changed only the very first entry on the Chart, to give you an example of what I mean.  I think that is a better format.  Let me know what you think.  Thanks!   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC))


 * I guess I'll just do a quick run-through of the article with changing the Finished Broadcasting column into " July 29 2024 ", which is a pretty good code and I think it'll demonstrate pretty well day to day that the show is still running (your views on this would be appreciated. Also some discussion probably would be needed on what to do with the shows which have started and stopped etc or has had multiple series or so afkatk (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I just got on an awesome idea on the multiple series thing, instead of having them go down in the column from first ever aired series to the last aired series example:(Not actual dates on the list) March 10, 1964 - April 3, 1974 - Original series August 5, 1980 - April 5, 1988 - Second series We could have them going the opposite way so the new series gets sorted instead, what do you think? I think it would sort out the sorting issue pretty good afkatk (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. As far as the "finished broadcasting date", I do not think that it is a good idea to put the current date in that column.  That would clearly imply that the show stopped broadcasting as of today.  I think a notation such as "current" or "in production" is better than listing an actual date.  If I myself were doing the Chart, I would probably list something like "currently in production" in the column for "ending broadcast date" ... and I would thus probably remove that last column altogether (the "In Production: Yes/No" column).  As far as the multiple series thing, I am not quite following what you mean.  I guess I would have to see it or see an example to understand what you are proposing for that situation.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Here is an example of what I mean (below). I would probably make the Chart look something like this.  You can always add in color, if you want, to represent In Production or Not in Production (as the Chart now has red and green shading).  These are just fake dates and fake information below ... just to give you an idea.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC))


 * I see what you mean on the Current Day sort of thing, since the "Current" in the Finished Broadcasting column does sort it out I guess I'll just input it into the column, this is what I mean by the idea for the Multiple series problem.


 * Current:


 * Possibly After:


 * I think this could possibly help the sorting problem but there is always the thing of the Start section not sorting out correctly afkatk (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's what I believe could be an improvement on your idea (minor tweak on it) afkatk (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Any thoughts on the minor tweak? afkatk (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. Adding the color is fine. I am not much of a "color" fan.  It does not tell you anything beyond what is already in the chart in words.  If someone wants to "separate" the in production shows from out of production shows, they can simply sort by that column.  The color really does not help or add to that function.  I actually find color to be distracting and to take away from the charts.  That is just my opinion.  Also, I am still thinking about that multiple series issue.  I suspect that the way you are proposing will mess up the chart's ability to sort correctly.  You can test it out, since I am not 100% sure.  But I think that when you have things that "span" columns or rows, it screws up the ability to sort.   Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Also, if you really want to keep some color in the Chart, then I would say this. Keep the color for the "Currently in production" entries (as you have in green) ... but do not put any color for the ending dates on non-current shows (as you have in red).  Listing the ending dates with color would not really make any sense.  But, highlighting (color) the in-production-currently status (green) would make sense.  In other words, your color scheme is really trying to have the in-production-shows "stand out" from the rest.  I think that is best achieved with one color use (green), not two (green and red).  That is just my opinion.  Having the red color on the final date does not really make too much sense.  What you are really trying to do is to make it known which are still being produced (versus which are not).  And, for that, you can use only color and you don't need two.  In fact, using just one color (green), will make the in-production shows stand out a lot more ... rather than being mixed in with a distracting/dizzying flurry of green/red boxes alternating.  See below.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

New Section for Chat About List of television programs by episode count
Since the other section was getting kind of confusing, I thought we could chat in here (ignore the Sandbox discussion thing) - User:Afkatk/SandboxP3 This is a little taster of what it should be looking like in the future, Thought? afkatk (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks perfect. Exactly what I had in mind.  I think it looks good, this way.  Good luck with the project.  Keep me posted.  Let me know if you have any questions or want any more advice / suggestions / opinions / ideas.  Also, let me know when it's done, so that I will remember to take a look.  Thanks!   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC))
 * I will be sure to keep you posted, and we still need to discuss what to do on the Multiple series issue at a later date. Plus I am removing most of the "As of..." just because it looks a bit sloppy and looking on it, isn't really that necessary. afkatk (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, for Top of the Pops it looks like this, Thoughts afkatk (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I have to give this whole idea some more thought.  That (above) can be very confusing.  Plus, it will not allow sorting.  Let me think about this for a day or two.  There must be a clean, easy, do-able solution.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC))
 * I think I'll put a link in with the "See Page" so it makes it less confusing and this does fit into the Multiple series type issue afkatk (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is a very quick thought ... or, rather, a question. Is it possible to separate these TV shows into two separate row entries?  Or is there some reason why that is not a good idea?  I am just thinking out loud.  Let me know.  Thanks.  Example ... one row has all of the information for "The John Smith Show" (or whatever) ... and then an entirely separate entry would be a new row for all of the information for "The John Smith Show - The Revival Series".  That seems workable, no?  Or am I missing something?  In that case, the "old series" and the "new series" are treated like two completely different shows ... (which they sort of are, anyway).  And, through sorting the first column (Name of Show), readers can see both series listed one right after the other since (presumably) both will have the same or very similar names.  Does this work?  Or am I missing something?  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC))
 * On the separating the series idea it would be very hard to get an episode tally, the listing as 2 separate series in a row might work, and I'll try and find a code if possible for having like a span for all 2/more columns afkatk (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How's that? afkatk (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * View my Sandbox now and tell me what you think afkatk (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the main problem, as I see it. Whenever you have anything at all that spans either multiple rows or multiple columns, that will screw up the sorting feature.  If you go to your Sandbox (the P3 one) ... try sorting the different columns (by clicking that arrow).  Play around and experiment with the different columns.  You will see what I mean.  Because of the fact that some rows/columns have a "span" ... it reduces the Chart to meaningless gibberish when you try to sort the Chart.  That is the main problem.  As I see it.  I think (?) that the only way a sorting will work ... is if there are no spans at all, in either rows or columns.  I think?   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Yes this is a very big problem, I guess I'll drop the rowspan thing. afkatk (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, so give me a day or two to think about this. There must be some solution.  I just need to clear my head of it and think about it for a day or two.  By the way, approximately how many shows are we talking about ... that involve this "multiple series" issue?  A very small few?  A whole heck of a lot?  That will affect how I try to determine a "solution".  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC))
 * I'd say about 10 shows, I've sorted out Doraeman, and you can see how they will start to look like now afkatk (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think that what you did with Doraeman is perfect. The only thing that I would do is add an asterisk (*) in the total episode column ... or maybe just a general note at the beginning or the end of the chart ... that says that the number reflects the TOTAL for all the runs combined.  I think this is a good solution.  You?   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC))
 * You know what I think I know a good Wikicode that I can fit in which works exactly for this purpose, I'll notify you when I've input an example afkatk (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok view the Sandbox now afkatk (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I did. It seems like you solved that problem!  Great!  I did notice this, though.  When you sort the "Number of Seasons" column ... why do the results not seem correct?  The numbers are clearly not sorting in the correct numerical order.  Any idea why?  I assume that they are entered as numerical digits, and not alphabetic characters.  Odd, huh?  Any idea what's going on?  I am leaving and will check my messages tomorrow.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC))
 * The number of seasons column sorts fine for me, is it possible you could take a screencap for me of your browser window (ctrl+alt+Print Screen(by Scroll Lock and F12) paste it into Paint and save as a Jpeg and upload it to Tinypic (easily Google it) and put a link up for me to view, forgive me giving instructions I just don't know if you know how to do it and thought it would be easier if I just came out and explained it Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I did not really understand those instructions ... I am not very computer savvy.  But, I can read them more closely tomorrow.  I am logging off now and I will reply back soon, in a day or 2.  But, I just checked the sorting and it still does not work.  Rather, I should say ... sometimes, it does work and sometimes it does not.  When I click "sort", sometimes it comes out correct ... sometimes, not.  It's weird.  When it comes out incorrect ... the numbers get sorted something like this: 1, 10, 10, 11, 2, 22, 28, 5, 50, 8, 80, etc.  So, it appears that the computer is sorting them as alphabetic characters and not numerical values.  It sorts all the "1" values first (1, 10, etc.) ... then the "2" values (2, 20, etc.) ... then the "3" values (3, 30, etc.) ... which of course is not numerical order.  Any thoughts?  Try sorting it not only once -- but click "sort" several times.  You should get the same results as I do.  This must be universal for all readers, correct?  In other words, it can't just be my computer ... right?  Or can it?   I shall reply tomorrow.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC))


 * ok I understand the problem now, and I know a Wikicode which should sort it out fine Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Even though I did not understand your instructions about screen shots and jpeg, etc. ... I just did a new sort. Maybe this info can help you?  These are the exact results when I sort the "Seasons" column: 1, 10, 10, 11, 11, 12, 13, 13, 14, 16, 22, 24, 24, 24, 25, 25, 35, 37, 39, 5, 5, 50, 57, 59, 8, then all the dashes.  By the way, what is the problem that you figured out?  Why would you need a special Wiki code?  Isn't a chart just supposed to arrange numbers in order, without a special Wiki code?  Isn't that the whole point?  I am confused ?!?!?!?  Help!  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

Proposed deletion of Great Canadian Wrestling Interim National Championship
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Great Canadian Wrestling Interim National Championship, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No notability established. The promotion isn't notable enough for an article, therefore, its championship isn't either.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Nikki ♥ 311 23:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Great Canadian Wrestling Ontario Independent Championship
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Great Canadian Wrestling Ontario Independent Championship, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No notability established. The promotion isn't notable enough for an article, therefore, its championship isn't either.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Nikki ♥ 311 23:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Great Canadian Wrestling Tag Team Championship
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Great Canadian Wrestling Tag Team Championship, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No notability established. The promotion isn't notable enough for an article, therefore, its championship isn't either.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Nikki ♥ 311 23:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Great Canadian Wrestling W.I.L.D. Championship
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Great Canadian Wrestling W.I.L.D. Championship, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No notability established. The promotion isn't notable enough for an article, therefore, its championship isn't either.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Nikki ♥ 311 23:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Great Canadian Wrestling National Championship
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Great Canadian Wrestling National Championship, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No notability established. The promotion isn't notable enough for an article, therefore, its championship isn't either.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Nikki ♥ 311 23:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of NWA Mountain State Heavyweight Championship
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article NWA Mountain State Heavyweight Championship, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No notability established. The promotion isn't notable enough for an article, therefore, its championship isn't either.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Nikki <font color="Salmon">♥ <font color="Purple">311 23:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Nearly finished
I just wanted to notify you that the article is nearly finished there's probably only about 50 or so series to get down, I've also added 1 or 2 new series to the list as well as updating a few series' episode count and placement, I just wanted to notify you so that you know basically how it'll look like once it's finished. User:Afkatk/SandboxP3. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yeh and I figured out why Wikipedia was listing 1, 10, 11, 2, 20, 21..etc. it's because the numerical value is classed on the first letter, so it doesn't list the 1 or the 2 as 01 or 02 just plainly 1 or 2 so it strongly places them at the start, it'd be the same for 1000 to 10 it would list 10 as 10 not 0010 (which in comparison would be its value), and that's what this 1 code is about. I thought I might as well inform you how it works since you wondering yesterday. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to notify you that I have finished the whole article, as to what we talked about. User:Afkatk/SandboxP3. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, looks great! Thanks!  I am still a little confused about something, however.  We were talking about the sort list ... and you said that numbers are sorted like this (1, 10, 2, 20, etc.) ... unless a special code is put into the Chart.  First ... that does not make any sense.  Why would a chart not be able to sort numbers in numerical order?  That's the whole point of sorting, no?  Second ... take a look at this page: List of Best Actor winners by age at win.  The numerical numbers there sort correctly ... and there are no special codes used ... they values are just typed in as numerals.  Any idea what's the difference?  Or why the TV episode list needs a special code to sort numerical values?  Thanks!   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC))


 * I guess it's programmed weird, I guess they programmed it so some things sort automatically and some things need a code. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * On the Article should I go ahead and put it up now or do we need to tweak it? Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To me, it looks fine -- thanks! I think you can post it.  If I were to be nit-picky, I do not necessarily like the fact that some columns are centered and some are left-aligned, etc.  But that is just one of my pet peeves.  On a different note ... that show "Top of the Pops" seems very odd.  Does that really belong in the list?  Is that really an "episode" type of show ... or do they do Christmas specials once a year?  That show is confusing.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

SmackDown
I know WWE is celebrating tonight's episode as the 500th episode, but it will actually be #501. WWE did the same thing with Raw last year. They celebrated an episode in November as the 800th episode, but the real 800th episode was in September. WWE is also calling this years WrestleMania the 25th anniversary of WrestleMania when it is actually the 24th anniversary. In short, WWE doesn't only go by the actual numbers.  TJ   Spyke   22:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah ok sorry about that, I originally was correcting the date (Because I thought some dude didn't update that) and then decided to add in a reference, anywho no harm done I guess. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

TV Episodes
Hi. I have been very busy. So, I was not able to reply back to you quickly. I will do so tomorrow. Thanks for keeping me posted on the TV Episodes article. I will message you tomorrow. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Well I plan to keep you updated weekly because I know you are busy and I'll probably keep the weekly updates going until there isn't much to do which as you can guess will probably be a few months away as there is always new references and new shows which will need to be added, anyway when you are less busy we can discuss whether the Network idea is a good add or just clutter. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Raw
Not a bad start. If you don't know the location of an episode, it would be better to put something like "Unknown" rather than guessing. Here is another good source: http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/results/raw/_1993/.  TJ   Spyke   15:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant like "Green Mountain State Arena?". The question mark implies you are guessing because you don't know for sure.  TJ   Spyke   16:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it needs the whole card for each episode to be honest.  TJ   Spyke   18:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I still disagree with listing all of the matches rather than just the main event, it looks nice and similar to most "List of ... episodes" articles.  TJ   Spyke   16:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you haven't, I would suggest asking a few more people for their opinions first.  TJ   Spyke   17:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Raw Episodes
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I separated an informational footnote from the references on the main page. Thanks, <font face="Arial"> Genius 101 Guestbook  19:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

List of television programs by episode count
In the spirit of keeping you informed of what's happening with the article, I thought you might be delighted to know that I'm adding some references to the article, and will be working on this for the next few days. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks.  The article really looks good now.  Thanks for all your work.  Also, thanks for keeping me posted.  I will check the article from time to time, and possibly add some of my own edits as time allows.  I have many other projects ahead of that, however.  I think it looks great, though.  Good work.  I am glad that you decided to continue your contributions to this article.  Thanks!   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC))


 * One observation. At the bottom of the Chart, there is the following note: This number reflects the Total episode count for all of the series.  But ... it is unclear as to exactly which Chart entries this note refers to.  This note has a little carat symbol (^) ... but that symbol does not show up in the Chart anywhere at all, as far as I can see.  You may want to just add a generic note at the top of the chart, or at the bottom, that says something like "when a series has multiple versions, the number reflects the total combined" (or whatever).  Or you may just want to clarify the note already in there, its symbol, and which Chart entries it actually refers to.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - March 2009
Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar. If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

List of television programs by episode count
Hi. Getting back to you very quickly. Sorry for the delay. I think the network column is a good idea. My only concern / question would be ... I don't know how they handle the concept of networks in other countries. (A) Do other countries have a lot of different networks, like we do ... or do they usually just have only one network? (B) Are you able to find these networks from the foreign shows? So ... yes ... I think that it's a good idea to add networks in. I just don't know enough about how other foreign countries handle networks, that's all. As far as the 2 charts that you showed me before ... (see below) ... I like the top chart more than the bottom example. What I do not like about the bottom example is that you combined country/network as one column ... and that didn't make sense to me. I like the other example much better. Thanks for staying in touch. Feel free to ask more questions, if need be. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Can a show really have several networks? I assume the Chart refers to shows when they originally run --- not run in syndication.  Wouldn't that pretty much always be one network? ... or possibly 2, at most, if a show jumps over (which is rare, I think).  I don't think an original show plays on several newtorks ... right?  But they do later on, in syndication.  At least in the USA.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

List of television programs by episode count
I've added a SportsCenter logo to the article to help beef it up a little bit and I was thinking of adding some sort of statistics to the article but I don't really have much of an idea of how to put it though I was thinking something like this.

Afkatk (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. The article is looking good.  I think you've done a great job.  Adding the logo was a good idea.  This statistics table is a good idea, also.  If I were going to do anything to that article, I would make some of the columns be center-aligned, instead of left-aligned ... to make the chart appear better and more aesthetic ... easier to read.  That would be my priority, if I were working on that article.  Thanks.  Good work!   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

Talk Page
I'd be willing to help Archive your Talk Page, anything over 7 days and I'll put it in a Archive for ya. Afkatk (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. I finally got around to cleaning up my Talk Page.  That had been on my "back burner" for quite a while ... and I simply was never able to get to it.  Thanks for the offer of help, though.  Much appreciated.  As you will now see, my Talk Page has become much more manageable ... and far more "cleaned up".  Thanks!   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC))


 * I'd really be willing to help archive it rather than it all being shoved into an old non-used Sandbox. Afkatk (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Thanks.  I really do appreciate the help.  But, this is the situation.  I never save old Talk Pages.  I just respond to the messages and ... when the issue is resolved ... I just delete the messages.  I treat my Talk Page like my regular email account.  Once I am done with the email, I just delete it.  I really don't see any need or reason to hang onto old emails (or old Talk Page conversations).  So, that was why I never bothered to "archive" my Talk Pages.  On the last Talk Page ... I had gotten behind for a few months there ... so there were a lot of messages that I never was able to reply to ... or never able to resolve (as of yet), etc.  That was why the page got so large and so back logged.  I still have to go through all of those old messages and delete them, one by one.  That was why I placed them in an old unused Sandbox Page.  So that when I get the time, I will respond to them and/or resolve whatever issues were there.  I didn't place them in the Sandbox Page in order to archive them per se.  I will delete them all, one by one.  I just need the time.  Thanks for your help.  Quite frankly, I never understood why anyone would want to save old their old Talk Page messages?!?!  I like to "throw stuff away" after I am done with it.  Otherwise, for me, too much stuff piles up.  Thanks again.  By the way, that TV episodes article looks good.  Thank you.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Eurovision Tagging
I just wanted to let you know since you play somewhat of a big role in the Eurovision project that I've recently gone around tagging loads of articles previously untagged which I've added to the Project hence the sudden increase from 1887 to 2084, and will be doing so till obviously I can't find anymore to tag, I thought this info might be of some interest to you. Afkatk (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks, I did notice since I have many of them on my watchlist. A few months ago we went through and assessed a large amount of them to bring the assessment rate from 35-55 percent, but the overall goal is still to get them all assessed. It will be much more efficient if we have all pages at least tagged as part of the project so good job. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankyou, and I am going to try to get most assessed if not all, I've mostly tagged Artists who've competed but if there are more things to be tagged I'll eventually get around them. Afkatk (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to inquire about tagging Presenters, such as Graham Norton, Terry Wogan and presenters from other countries who are involved, I was wondering if I should go around tagging them as they are technically in the scope of the Eurovision. Afkatk (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and on a note I will eventually get around to assessing most of the unassessed just saying so you don't think I'll assess and leave them unassessed. Afkatk (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess presenters would fall into the project as well. Isn't it easier to assess as you tag? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually no it isn't, I can go a lot faster by just tagging the Talking Pages rather than taking a glance and then assessing. Afkatk (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

1
This attempted removal of the Granimal from Wikipedia has been a major discussion with my friend's and I tonight. We feel it's part of a much larger issue. In order to be notable or successful in pro wrestling today you have to be a gymnast. It's all about who can put themselves through the most tables and get hit the hardest in the head by a steel chair. The idiots at the top of the WWE don't know a wristlock from a wrist watch and the Granimal would wipe the mat with their heads. I had the honor of wrestling with Granimal in the independents in CT and he had a little game he played before each show. He'd line up whatever guys were brave (or dumb) enough to take the Granimal challenge. The Granimal challenge was $50 to any guy who could last a minute (60 freakin' seconds) against him without getting submitted. He ran this game at a number of shows and I only know of one guy who won the $50. You need to educate yourself my friend. Granahan is one of the last men alive who has been trained by the last living carnival wrestlers mainly Frankie Cain and Billy Wicks. He's highly respected by Gene Lebell. In case you don't know Gene Lebell's the MFIN' GODFATHER OF GRAPPLING and he lists Granimal's American Combat Association as his top link on his website http://www.genelebell.com/links.html or maybe you're a mark who doesn't want to know who Gene Lebell and Granimal are because reality's a little too hard for you to swallow. Do a little bit of research bro before you start trashing a man that could have you and I for a morning snack before he eats his breakfast and coffee! Respond back in the comments section of the Granimal Deletion article after you've educated yourself a litte more on one of my heros. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeemonster (talk • contribs) 03:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Terrell49.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Terrell49.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Kanonkas : <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Talk 12:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Terrell49.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Terrell49.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

David D'Or
Hi. Tx for your help on this article. You put notations in many places today, including in all the discography -- even though that information is sourced in the article itself with citations. Are you suggesting that the citations be repeated? I haven't seen that as the standard approach in such circumstances. Tx.--Ethelh (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It was originally -99, which I understand is acceptable. Why the reversion?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

template discussion
Ok, its all set up. In the discussion section, write why you feel we need the new template design. Write it as if you need to say nothing else to defend your reasoning. Discussions that go back and forth over small things usually turn out in a mess. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - April 2009
Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar. If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Instant messaging
Do you have AOL or MSN? It might be nice to be able to get in touch when necessary. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A note regarding the WPVG Newsletter
Due to an apparent lack of interest, the WPVG Newsletter will be switching from a monthly publication schedule to a quarterly one. The next issue be delivered on July 1, 2009 and will pertain to the second quarter of the calendar year. If you have any comments regarding this, or suggestions to improve the newsletter, please post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter.
 * —VG Newsletter Contributors
 * Notice delivery by –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 14:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 11 May 2009 ==


 * News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
 * Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 18 May 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Writers needed
 * Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
 * Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
 * News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 25 May 2009 ==


 * License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
 * News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - May 2009
Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar. If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 1 June 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Browsing the archives
 * Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
 * Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
 * News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)