User talk:Coredesat/Archive 14

Re: Sidr pressure
IMD falls into the category of questionable sources, and should be treated as such. Good kitty 04:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They should also have the correct center position, which they don't have right now. For Yemyin their predicted landfall was off by about 11 hours. Their official status does not include professionalism, thus they should be considered questionable. I don't think notations like '<' or '>' next to their figures is the best way to go about this. Good kitty 04:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You could ask any professional meteorologist and they will say they are a bad source of information. Maybe ask Thegreatdr or somebody. Unfortunately, information from other sources has already been allowed into the article to present information that's more accurate. I agree with that and I think it had to have been done. Anyway, I know there's a lot of emphasis on "officiality" in this project, but it never bothered me much. WMO isn't a democratic organization. If their program is failing (as it is here) they probably won't do anything to fix it. Good kitty 05:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * People writing the articles should use some common sense with this. You posted on the talk page where they are in error, so the source's inaccuracy is verifiable. Good kitty 05:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Another RfA
Thank you so much for voicing your support in my successful RfA. I'm humbled to have the community's trust. As I master the ways of the mop and bucket, please don't hesitate to message me for any advice or corrections. Cheers! Spellcast 23:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA
I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards -- Herby talk thyme 12:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:A suggestion
What comment? Juliancolton 01:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I will try not to make any more comments like that. I was just suprised that somebody found enough information for the storm to make such a good article. Juliancolton 13:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

PARC deletion
Looking for information on why the entry for PARC (Partners in Reptile and Amphibian Conservation) was deleted. Can't find it in your log. Thanks. Jpmacke (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor Jedi AfD
Hey there, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind expanding on your decision to delete a little more. It seemed to me that the debate was fairly even, and interpreting consensus here would be a little tough. Would you mind putting your reasoning on the AfD for all interested parties to see? Thanks! GlassCobra 16:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Shingitai Jujitsu
Please note that your notability debate is flawed. Shingitai Jujitsu was founded by John Saylor. Please note his biography per his website,"John Saylor is a former 3-time National Judo Champion, 2-time Pan American Medalist, and coach of the U.S. National Judo Training Squad at the Olympic Training Center for 7 years. In 1987 Saylor was voted Coach Of The Year by the United States Judo Association. Today he coaches submission wrestling, jujitsu, self-defense, and mixed martial arts fighters at his “Barn Of Truth Dojo” in Perrysville, Ohio."

It's philosophy is best described in the University of Tennessee website about Shingitai Jujitsu: http://web.utk.edu/~utmaclub/juji/history.php. A sampling of additional clubs that teach Shingitai Jujitsu philosophy are:

http://johnsaylor-sja.com/ http://www.welcomematjudoclub.com/ http://asianma.com/jujitsu.html http://www.midohiomatclub.com/ http://www.lawrencegrapplingclub.com/ http://selfdefensecenter.com/umac/index.html http://www.thefightfarm.com/ http://www.westshorejujitsu.com/ http://www.kc.net/~jujit/index.htm http://combatjiujitsu.tripod.com/index.html

I request the page be reinstated. The consensus was based on incomplete information. Ooda 0402 (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Ooda_0402

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

AFD Close
I think you forgot to close the AFD. I have done it for you. Spartaz Humbug! 15:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

List of songs about the environment
Can I get a copy of List of songs about the environment (Afd discussion here) placed in my user space or emailed to me? Thanks. -- Alan Liefting- talk - 00:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably best to email it. -- Alan Liefting- talk - 21:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thans a lot for that. -- Alan Liefting- talk - 22:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Swalwell, Alberta
Do you think it's worth pursuing the AfD close by a non-admin who participated in the discussion? This really is a nothing place without any news coverage. The only reason this stand-alone article exists is because Wikipedia Review has decided one of their pet targets lives.AN -- Jreferee    t / c  19:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Recommended moves
I have been dealing with a big debate over moves - another admin (Hmwith) requested a cut-and-paste (and did it for one of the articles), but I tried to prevent such. Could you please move the following:


 * User:CrazyC83/Ingrid07 --> Tropical Storm Ingrid (2007) (overwriting cut-and-pasted article, leave talk page as is if possible as it was blank)
 * User:CrazyC83/Jerry07 --> Tropical Storm Jerry (2007) (over redirect)
 * User:CrazyC83/Melissa07 --> Tropical Storm Melissa (2007) (over redirect)

I have already moved Karen as it went over a blank link. Thanks... CrazyC83 (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Swalwell, Alberta, again
Personally, I think the AfD very clearly established consensus, as has years of precedent about articles on real settlements - even if they are not likely to grow past stubs. In this case, a redirect to a list also removes what information does exist in the article.

More specifically, I have a hard time believing the urge to toss this one hamlet's article is separate from the trolling problem with WR. While that may be a failure to assume good faith on my part, I also believe that if the community wants to re-think the notability of hamlets, or other small settlements, that that it should not be done piecemeal. There are 141 blue links in Hamlets of Alberta. And that is one province of ten, in one nation out of 192. I don't believe the issue surrounding this article is because it may end up as a perma-stub. Resolute 01:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Gorky
Hmm, I forgot I mentioned it. Well, there are over 600 Google results that call the cyclone Gorky. Though it is true the storm was not named, the variety and extent of the storm being called as such might warrant inclusion of the name, though I really don't know of its origin. If you want to remove it, though, that's fine. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 36
   '''Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 36 has been released!'''

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/11/30/wikipedia-weekly-36/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODU P  04:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

Articles for deletion/Moneybomb
Hi. I see you closed that as "delete per consensus of established users." I don't think that consensus was at all so clear there, I'm afraid. All of the below are established users.


 * Chardish - nominator (Delete)
 * Dennis The Tiger - Delete
 * Elonka - Delete
 * Gordonofcartoon - Delete
 * HelloAnnyong - Delete


 * John J. Bulten - Keep (editor since October 6, but prolific, over 600 edits)
 * Wasted Time R - Keep (editor since 2005)
 * Pie4all88 - Keep (editor since 2004!)
 * Kazvorpal - Keep (editor since 2004!)
 * The Devil's Advocate - Keep. While he only has 50 edits, they date back to July 2007, are fairly evenly spread out over that time, and are mostly not related to Ron Paul topics. I don't think we should discount this opinion either as a new editor or as a single purpose editor.

That's an equal number of voices for keeping as deletion. Hardly consensus. Finally, there were three "neutral" voices, two of which changed from Delete voices during the course of the discussion.


 * Medtopic - Neutral, due to being a Ron Paul supporter (!)
 * Accounting4Taste - changed opinion from Delete to Neutral
 * Athaenara - changed opinion from Delete to Neutral

I can't see any consensus for deletion. In fact, the fact that two respected editors changed their opinions away from deletion seems like a strong argument that no such consensus was established during the discussion. And that an acknowledged Ron Paul supporter chose to eliminate himself voluntarily says something about good faith.

Finally there are the arguments themselves. The nominator writes "point of view issues ... Synthesis issues as well" which are not reasons for deletion, they're a reason for rewriting. Elonka writes: "This Moneybomb article (and other Paul articles) have become a magnet for edit-warring and soapboxing," - well, that's not a deletion reason. We have no shortage of articles that are a magnet for edit-warring and soapboxing, from Intelligent Design to Abortion to (insert your favorite thousand others here). Kazvorpal pointed that out.

Agree? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

While the above editor has already stated this I wanted to express my disagreement with your deletion. I don't believe a valid consensus was achieved on deletion. I feel like your use of "established users" basically meant you did a head count of people with a long edit history and ruled out people like myself, who have a shorter history. However, even there I feel you misjudged in deleting the article. For instance one editor called for deleting the article on the basis of it being used by and I quote from her, "Paul's cult-like followers" so I can't help but feel her position was not an unbiased look at the subject at hand.

It would seem that three of the four people in favor of deleting it mainly took contention that it met WP:COATRACK standards and was being used as a coatrack by Ron Paul supporters, two of them only gave one sentence basically asserting this, but without sufficiently backing it and the other is the editor I mention above. I think this was a poor judge of the standards and ignored that not every article which talks a lot on a specific subject is a coatrack article. To use the example given on what is not a coatrack article, an astronaut's trip to the moon in a biographical article on the astronaut is not a coatrack since it's a significant event in the individual's life.

Basically, it is not a coatrack article if the mentions are clearly important to the article subject. In relation to the moneybomb article it is clear that mentioning Ron Paul more than other candidates is relevant as the term originated from and was popularized by Ron Paul supporters and the November 5th moneybomb organized for his campaign serves as the best present example of a successful moneybomb and warranted many mentions in the media. Mentioning Ron Paul more than others is at this stage unavoidable because of this.

I did recognize a lot of biased language and sources being used in the article, I admit, and I believe I made appropriate edits to balance it reasonably. Among other things I removed part of a quote on the page since it seemed to discuss simply Paul's campaign, rather than the moneybomb itself. I also put a paragraph in mentioning the Kucinich moneybomb, which his supporters have set up and who have also been using the term moneybomb to describe their efforts. I also tried to downplay negativity towards other moneybombs that did not meet up to the same expectations. Not to mention cutting out much of the Guy Fawkes mentions. I also mentioned Ron Paul's low status in the polls and how this was aimed at raising his profile, which seemed to have not been mentioned by previous editors. Several other editors, three with long edit histories, suggested editing it to maintain its neutrality over deleting and this, I believe, was the most reasonable and rational course to take.

Also while some suggested merging it with Ron Paul, campaign finance, or Google Bomb I feel all of these ignore crucial points about the moneybomb specifically and each of those articles.

It's important to realize the money bomb is more than just a Ron Paul thing as others have used the term and technique and it is not just about raising money. The November 5th moneybomb generated hundreds of articles and appears to have been crucial in getting him name recognition as well as boosting him in the polls. So the moneybomb was really more about media coverage and name recognition, rather than raising money. Also it entails more than the day itself. The November 5th moneybomb succeeded because it spread virally around the Internet. Using YouTube, Myspace, and Digg, among other Internet vehicles, to advertise the date. Traditional methods have also been employed and use of word-of-mouth. These are crucial with regards to a moneybomb's success and so they ultimately can not be separated from it. I don't think it can fit nicely in any other article because of this.

The idea of putting it in Google bomb is completely baffling since it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. Judging by the way it is mention, a single paragraph four sentences long with one sentence being about half of the paragraph pointing out Hillary Clinton raising more with "traditional methods". The person who made this change is also the editor who made the rather negative comment on Paul's supporters I mentioned. Given this it would seem her stance on the issue shows a conflict of interest.

Essentially the case for moving it or merging it with another article doesn't jive well as there's no article which really fits it appropriately. Because of this I believe you should review the discussion on it and consider returning the article so that more moderate-minded people can balance out the article.

Lastly, I do personally support Ron Paul, but this is not my motivation for wanting the article saved and I made no contributions to it prior to it being flagged for deletion and my contributions then were in the spirit of making it neutral. I think the technique employed by Ron Paul's supporters will be significantly used by other "fringe candidates" and third parties that would otherwise be unable to get donations and get more people involved in the democratic process. It is because of this that I strongly support the moneybomb article.

Thank you. --The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

AIA
Hey I founded the AIA...but not as a wikiproject, in fact most of our members do not have wiki accounts. Gp75motorsports acted on his own, against the orders of the leadership, and created a wikiproject page. Don't worry about me writing a "sermon" I support the deletion of this page and have made that known on the main page--Greenwood1010 15:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Vampire (Buffyverse)
I'm trying to tidy up this article to save it from deletion. I still have more info to add, but I think I've addressed your primary concerns about too much plot and OR problems? Do you still think this article deserves to be deleted?  Paul    730  04:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I have more creation info to add in. Do you think the article is saveable?  The description section is just to provide context for the rest of the article, the second section isn't really in-universe since it's about how the vampires were concieved by the writers (and, when I include more info, the make-up guys).  I agree that the article needs to establish more notability, that's the next issue I hope to address.     Paul    730  06:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The items you nominated for deletion in my page...
...is what I don't really need. You can go right ahead and delete it. -Go od  sh oped 04:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, actually, I needed the Gallery and menu. -Go od  sh oped 04:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And about the mass menu, I got the source from FastLizard4, and not the other way around. -Go od  sh oped 06:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Brian Barlow
There were pages about Brian Barlow and The Loner Show. Why were these deleted?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catseyes1 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: FAC suggestion
Very well, I will not FAC any articles. And by the way, I am happy to hear any more suggestions as I go along, because I am still learning about how to write better articles. Juliancolton (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Love Hina Timeline deletion
Hello, Coredesat.

I'm contacting you because it was your ID that I saw in the Deletion Log, against the deletion record for "Love Hina Timeline".

I'm not convinced that the decision to delete was a correct one: most of the points advanced both in favour of deletion and against were factually incorrect. For instance "television shows to have large audiences of Wikipedians" (sic) and "it would be suitable for specialized anime wikis" both fail to grasp that the timeline was for the Manga (comic book), not for the Anime (animated cartoon). Apart from the differences of detail, the Manga was a whole year out compared with the anime. Also, it would in fact be impossible to produce a similar timeline for the anime, because the anime contains far fewer clues about the dates of events than does the manga.

I'm not quite sure that my understanding of what constitutes "original research" is correct. It seems to me that anything that isn't a straight cut and paste must necessarily have some degree of originality. The Love Hina Timeline could be called original because it was a superb example of collaborative detective work. The Manga contained many clues about dates, some of which were subtle, and to pin down exact dates it was sometimes necessary to know the start and end dates of Tokyo University terms, or the dates of popular Japanese festivals, and so forth. But all of this information can be found either in the Manga or in common reference sources, and in that sense it was not original. Nothing was made up out of thin air, and nothing was just cut and pasted. I thought the article steered a successful middle course.

The article for a long time had a box near the top asking for people to improve it; and I think that for this reason the article was improved, and improved, and improved, until in the end it was in an utterly superb state (for which I do not claim credit; I did do some edits, but I was not the main contributor). What responsible organisation solicits improvements over a prolonged period, gets those improvements, and then deletes the (superb) result? What would be the point of responding to any further requests from such an organisation?

The situation, now, is that Wikipedia has practically nothing specifically about the Love Hina manga, even though the main Love Hina article concedes that the manga is generally considered to be superior to the anime. Also, throughout the whole of the internet, there is nothing comparable to the deleted article. I did once start to put a timeline together, but I abandoned the project when I discovered the Wikipedia article. I suspect that many others will have done the same. So now there is a gaping hole in the Internet's coverage, which weakens the entire medium. Is the purpose of Wikipedia to create such holes? I hope not.

For all these reasons, I hope that the article can be reinstated. However, I am aware that the Love Hina Timeline could be considered to be no more than "a detailed summary of that work's plot", as the guidelines put it, and that this was probably the main reason for deletion. If this reason is sufficiently strong to make you think that a reinstatement is out of the question, then I hope that at the very least you could e-mail me a copy of the article in its final form. I am the writer of an unfinished work ("Mutsumi Knows", on fanfiction.net) which is set in the Love Hina universe, and which I would like to belatedly finish. The timeline would be of great help in ensuring that I don't contradict the established canon.

Thanks in advance,

Martin Gradwell (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
Hey, if you're on here later tonight, could you move User:Hurricanehink/Effects of Hurricane Ivan in the Lesser Antilles and South America to the mainspace? The projected link is a redirect. I also put it on WP:RM. Thanks if you can. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Dammit, Janet
Just for the record, can you tell me what swayed you about the 'keep' votes beyond their sheer number?Kww (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Moneybomb
I'm confused, I'd just written up an endorsement of your close at the DRV, then edit-conflicted with your close of the DRV in which you seem to have changed your mind. What's going on? WjBscribe 22:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I, too, support the close as delete and am wondering what's going on. - Chardish (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The link is just above, in the barnstar. Follow it. I think we convinced him, which I had hoped would be nicer than going to DRV. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica article
I believe closing debate on Encyclopedia Dramatica in Deletion review after only 2 hours of existence was premature. Not all questions that I had raised had been answered, and only one other WPian was present. Your reasons cited did not make sense. Therefore, I am asking that discussion be reopened, and pertaining to the discussion, that the namespace Encyclopedia Dramatica be opened so that an appropriate article can be created, as there is no official ban on that namespace. SamuelRiv (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Not going to happen" is essentially saying that debate cannot occur, when the article topic in question does not violate any of WP:DEL.
 * You cited the ArbCom rulings (see Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Proposed decision and Requests for arbitration/MONGO). These rulings pertained specifically to users involved in the incidents and to external links to ED, but did not mention anything regarding whether or not ED was appropriate to be included as an article in WP. It did cite the VfD debates, but those can be overturned through the channels I was going through here.


 * I have gathered some information together at User:SamuelRiv/Articles/Encyclopedia Dramatica, but before starting to write the article, I came across the archived version at and its WP mirror at User:Mrmattkatt. Obviously cleanup is necessary, and some new information and links are now available on my page, but what is wrong content-wise with this article? SamuelRiv (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's easy. There is no "non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources." Nobody has written anything about ED; they've only been mentioned in a couple of pieces about other topics. Do they meet WP:WEB? That's the only question to ask. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ask that all discussion be moved to my talk page, as it looks like I'm going to be the principal player here. I am copying all my comments to said page, but I think this would be much more appropriate on the deletion appeals page, and so again I am asking that discussion be re-opened there. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Avatar: The Last Airbender - The Western Air Temple
Hello, I am WiiDS, and I am here to confirm that the episode, The Western Air Temple, of Avatar: The Last Airbender, has officially aired in Canada on Friday December 14, 2007. Yes, I have seen it, I am not lying. Here is a summary (Which I posted in the article, "Zuko"):

"He (Zuko) then later joins the group (The avatar and his group) at the Western Air Temple after many tries of proposal in the episode, "The Western Air Temple". When he first approaches them at the temple, asks for their forgiveness, asks if he can join the group, and proposes to be Aang's firebending teacher. However, the group denies his proposal, and Zuko resorted to asking them if they can keep him as prisoner if he can't be their friend. They still denied him, and he leaves to go sleep in the forest for the night. Toph, knowing that Zuko was telling the truth, she decided to talk to Zuko. She discretely approached him while he was sleeping, which shocked him, then he firebended her accidentally by natural instinct, and burned her feet. She then ran away to the air temple to recive help from her friends. Afterwards, "Combustionman" finds the Avatar, tries to end him by sending a blast of energy from his third eye. Zuko then heroically hits Combustionman, and thus causes his attack to miss. After the Avatar and his group found the attacker, they planed to defeat him. Sokka then threw his boomerang directly into combustionman's third eye by surprise. This caused combustionman's third eye to malfunction, and then self-destruct. Finally, Zuko asks Aang and his group if he can join again. Aang, Sokka, and Toph found it in their hearts to allow him in. Even though Katara agreed too, it seems that she hasn't forgiven him. At the end of the episode Sokka shows Zuko to his room, and then Katara approches Zuko, saying that if he "slips up" in any way, he will be banished from the group. Even though Zuko is now on the Avatar's team, he still does not have their 100% trust, especially Katara."

Believe me or not. I hope you consider my contribution, even though many other fans contributed with nothing but lies. I am telling the truth. I'm not asking you to bring back the page for the episode right this instant, but I'm asking you to take what I've told you into consideration, and when the episode airs in the USA, you'll see that I've been telling the truth, and I hope we can build up on some kind of formal trust in the future. Thank you for your considerantion, and thanks for reading!

UPDATE: I just recentally e-mailed YTV, and asked them to prove to you that the episode has aired in Canada. This is the message that I wrote:

"Hi, I am WiiDS, a member of Wikipedia, and I would like to prove to the administration that in the TV show, "Avatar: The Last Airbender", the 12th episode of the third season, called "The Western Air Temple", has indeed aired in Canada on YTV on December 14, 2007. Of course, where can I prove myself other than asking the official source - you, YTV! Please, whenever you can, please write down a formal approval to the administrator, Coredesat, to approve that the episode has officially aired, and that he able to create the page for that episode. Thank you for your time, and I hope you will take this request into consideration. Thank you again!"

I hope this works out! Thanks for you continued patience!

UPDATE 2: Well, I don't know how else to put it. The episode did air only a few hours ago (8:30PM EST), so I don't know where I can find a published article. Does official e-mail from YTV directally to you count? Can you e-mail them? Anyway, thanks for you time, and I hope that I'll find an official article, or something like that, sometime soon (Unless someone beats me to it, which they probably will, lol!) so I can show it to you. Thanks for you time!

UPDATE 3: Here it is! It may not be a formal article, but it is the actual episode itself! See for yourself: http://www.avatarchapter.com/56/book-3/chapter-12.html Enjoy!

UPDATE 4: LOL, well it sucks that Kizor beat you to it, but nonetheless, the work is done! Now the page just has to be built. So far, the page doesn't cite any sources. Can I use the website I gave to you as a source? Anyway, thanks for you time, and good day!

WiiDS (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)WiiDSWiiDS (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Royal rumble drinking game
Thanks for closing Articles for deletion/Royal rumble drinking game. I see that you decided to close the debate with a "delete" decision, and that you deleted Royal rumble drinking game, but not the co-nominated Family Guy Drinking Game. Was this deliberate? Bovlb (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had never noticed db-afd before, and I didn't want to just go ahead and delete it myself. Bovlb (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 37 and 38
   '''Well, gee whiz! I don't check WP:WEEKLY for a few days and look what happens: I miss two new episodes. Nonetheless, Wikipedia Weekly Episode 37 and Episode 38 have been released!'''

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/12/10/wikipedia-weekly-37-rundown/ and http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/12/14/episode-38-interview-wbrianna-laugher/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODU P  02:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

Ghazala Mahmud
Are you sure that there was a consensus to delete this article?

Two of the "votes" for Deletion simply said "per nom" and the other said "A doctor in a hospital? What's notable about that?", whereas it was clearly stated in the article, and referenced, that she is not just a doctor in a hospital, but is executive director of a leading teaching hospital and research institute. I can't see any valid reason for deletion in the comments in the AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

my RFA
  If you voted in my RFA... <font color="#002FA7">...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations. <font color="#002FA7">Thank you again and, best regards. Van Tucky  Talk <font color="#002FA7"> This RFA thanks was inspired by <font color="BA55D3">Lara <font color="00CED1">❤ <font color="FF1493">Love's 

List of famous books and novels
hi. i've been searching a book list that i saw this summer here. than i learnt that the list had been deleted. i found its deletion log. here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_23#List_of_famous_books_and_novels

how can i reach this list. can you find it from backups or something. sorry for bad english thank you for reading.

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)