User talk:Jerry/Archive 5: Difference between revisions
→Archiving old AfDs: new section |
|||
| Line 433: | Line 433: | ||
Your close of this article is being discussed at [Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 25]. Thought you might want to comment.'''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 17:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC) |
Your close of this article is being discussed at [Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 25]. Thought you might want to comment.'''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 17:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Thanks. The user did discuss the closing with me, and I told them they could list it at DRV if they wanted to. <font face="century gothic" color="#eeff00">'''[[User:Jerry|Jerry]]''' </font><small>[[User Talk:Jerry|talk]] ¤ [[User:Jerry/Count|count/logs]]</small> 17:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC) |
::Thanks. The user did discuss the closing with me, and I told them they could list it at DRV if they wanted to. <font face="century gothic" color="#eeff00">'''[[User:Jerry|Jerry]]''' </font><small>[[User Talk:Jerry|talk]] ¤ [[User:Jerry/Count|count/logs]]</small> 17:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Archiving old AfDs == |
|||
Hi. I note that you removed these completed AfDs [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Old&diff=prev&oldid=193767667 on the 24th] and just wanted to remind you that when they are removed from old, they need to be listed at [[Wikipedia:Archived delete debates]]. The two days in question have now been put in place, so no problems, but this is just a reminder for future use. :) Thanks. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:35, 25 February 2008
2024
Jerry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jerry/Archive_5. |
| “ | ...delusional...kangaroo... | ” |
|
User talk:Jerry/Archive 1:Through January 2007 |
Welcome to my talk page
You are also invited to email me at: jerry@lavoie.com. Occasionally I repost emails that I receive to this talk page, however I remove sensitive material and personally-identifying information, such as email address, first.
I frequently collapse sections once I think the conversation is done. The section will appear as a purple bar with a summary and a link that says "show". If you are leaving me a follow-on comment for such a collapsed section, please add the new comments below the collapsed section, NOT in it. If you add comments inside a collapsed section, I may never see them.
Jerry's 10 talk page rules
- Please no foul language, threats or namecalling.
- If there is any possibility (at all) that I meant well, assume that is the case, until proven or admitted otherwise. I will do the same.
- Please append your wikisignature to all comments.
- Please do not add any contentious material about me or any other living person.
- Stop means stop. If we are in a heated argument, and I ask you to stop sending me messages on this page, then simply stop. If you think my conduct requires a review:
- Do not leave messages containing any personally-identifying information about children, including yourself.
- If you are here because a template showed up on your article or talk page, and you want to know why; 99% of the time, the information you seek is located right on the template itself. Please have the courtesy to read it first, then come here to complain or ask additional questions.
- If I deleted an article/ image, etc, and you want to know why, please look at the log for the page... I usually leave a detailed explanation including a code like "CSD#G12, COPYVIO, Content was..." If you go to the deletion policy, you will likely find your answer faster than sending me a message.
- If you do decide to ask me why your article, image, etc. got deleted, please tell me which one you are talking about. I delete many things a day, most days, and it can be very difficult for me to figure out which one you're talking about. This is particularly impossible if you are not logged-in, and your current IP Address is different than what it was when you created the article, uploaded the image, etc.
- If you are here to complain about another editor, for whatever reason, please consider using one of the forums to alert all administrators of the problem. This will get you faster service, from among dozens of patrolling admins.
Notice regarding deletion reviews
This user is an active closing administrator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you are considering initiating a formal review of a recent closing, it is requested that you attempt to have a discussion with me first, as suggested by the instructions at the top of WP:DRV. Please give me at least one day to respond, and keep in mind that we may be in different time zones. If you have a valid reason that my determination of consensus may be flawed, I do appreciate the opportunity to consider it and revert my own closing or explain to you my difference of opinion without the wikidrama that is often created at DRV. If you are here to drop me a template notice of a DRV that you have already initiated, but we have not discussed it yet, please consider closing that delrev and talking with me first. Just add the comment "please close this discussion until I have a chance to discuss this with the closing administrator per WP:DRV" to the discussion, and an administrator will surely close it shortly (as long as other editors have not significantly participated yet). Thank-you for your consideration.
New discussions
| *A discussion about the new recap template. |
|---|
== Question on neat idea ==
JERRY talk contribs 15:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
(dedent) I will take a watch and see stance for now. It the concerns I raised manifest themselves, then perhaps I will add that. Good job on the template, by the way. JERRY talk contribs 01:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
|
| *A discussion about an AfD I closed. This wound out going to DELREV |
|---|
|
The article Nial Djuliarso has been deleted again. I am tired of having to explain that Nial Djuliarso is a prominent musician in Indonesia. I created the page of Nial Djuliarso. Although he is not notable in the US, he is a notable jazz musician in Indonesia, because he's a child prodigy of jazz and has created a number of recordings which won awards in Indonesia. Deletion of his article is regretted. Again, I am really sad that Wikipedia uses American standard for notability, while ignoring people from developing countries. We can see categories such as Indonesian Journalist, Indonesian Musician, and Nial Djuliarso is one of them. (Sorry for the late comment regarding this matter because I was away to give birth of my son). The AFD has been discussed many times, it has been contested and approved to be reinstated. Please explain why Nial Djuliarso is deleted again on January 23. Chaerani (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I wonder if you could send me the link to the latest AFD discussion that I have missed, that have caused you to delete the article. I am now appealing at DR. Thank you. Chaerani (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
|
| *A review request from a user about a userfied version of a previously-deleted article. |
|---|
InDepenDance Dayhow this now. User:Soccermeko/InDepenDance Day Soccermeko (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
|
| *A conversation about an AFD someone else closed, and Template:FICTWARN. This wound up going to DELREV and ARBCOM/RFC. |
|---|
FICTWARNHi - it says exactly the same thing in a different way. As it stands, that template is misleading, especially for new editors. Black Kite 23:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
How is it less confusing to change the explicit listing of the only three prohibited outcomes with a spongy phrase like that? The ARBCOM injunction was clear.... do not delete, do not redirect, do not merge. It does not say do not edit, do not close discussions as no consensus, etc.... The wording is not confusing and does not need to be changed. What is wrong with it the way it is? JERRY talk contribs 23:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That template is inconsistent with my interpretation of the arbcom injunction, which is not a call to create a backlog of debates to be closed out when a remedy passes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Jerry. I responded to you on the Request for Comment. I hope this clears my previous comment up and I apologize for any confusion. Redfarmer (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC) |
| *A user asking me why their article got deleted. I told them to read the closing rationale I provided on the AfD talk page, as described in the closing summary. |
|---|
Pirani Ameena Begum AfDDear Jerry, I see that you closed this AfD as keep, but surprisingly, you didn't give any motivation as I think is usual when closing an AfD. Given that there were no real arguments given for the keep position (no notability other than being someone's spouse) I would appreciate if you could explain the logic behinf this decision to me. Thanks, --Crusio (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
|
| *A user telling me I did a good job.... damn near a barnstar. |
|---|
Your work rescuing St. Lucie West Centennial High School is much appreciatedThe current page is unrecognizable as the same article Operationquietnoise created as self-described intoxicated folly. You and others have certainly demonstrated the value of the edit button. Bully! BusterD (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
|
| *A user asking me why their article got deleted. I told them to read the closing rationale I provided on the AfD talk page, as described in the closing summary. |
|---|
Johnny Ca$hJerry, why did you delete Johnny Ca$h 10 editors voted keep and only 8 voted delete. The article had sources, links and the whole 9. I and 9 other editors feel the article is notable. Same As It Ever Was (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
|
| *A user letting me know they complete the merge per my AfD closure. |
|---|
doneI've merged Martiniano Ferreira Botelho according to your closing of the Afd. thanks for helping in the solution. DGG (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
|
| *A user asking me why their article got deleted. I told them to read the closing rationale I provided on the AfD talk page, as described in the closing summary. |
|---|
Deletion of Tunnel Rats article.Four delete, three keep, one merge. Given the nature of the article in question, I do not believe one vote in lead for deletion is really grounds for deletion. The organisation in question is currently dealing with the Australian government in various issues which were headline matters. I was working to attempt to add citations to the article shortly before it was deleted. Is there any chance of an undelete, or what is the process to request undeletion so I may continue bringing the article up to wiki standards? Jachin (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The Tunnel Rats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (AfD)
|
| *Critical pedagogy in regard to WP:NAC activities. |
|---|
Critical pedagogy request in regard to WP:NAC activitiesWhat an interesting house you live in these days. Since you're such an all around nice fellow toward schools, perhaps I could bend your ear a bit in regards to pedagogy. I've been dipping my toe in AfD procedures more than just voting, did a couple of non-admin closes, and some sorting. I'd appreciate direction and correction if needed. I'm doing the Deletion process section reading, and then applying stuff as I see it. Will be dipping deeper this week. Just learning more. Any attention you offer is appreciated. BusterD (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I have reviewed your participation in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion venue. I did a database dump of the pages that you have edited, and made a link page at User:Jerry/BusterD. There are 92 unique AfD pages that you have edited, some with multiple edits. Your edits range from participation, to listing error correction, to deletion sorting, to non-admin closure. I have noticed a distinct pattern to the pages where you have participated (!voted):
Taken together, I'd say you do not want to make waves. You are probably what I call a "blender". This is a very good thing for collaboration, and very good for the community as a whole. But it might hinder the perception that others have of your capabilities to make tough calls and make unpopular decisions. If you have aspirations of becoming an administrator, participation in AfD's that only matches the pattern I describe above might be held against you. I think you should review WP:NAC if you have not already seen it. It shows some other ways you can be helpful at AfD. We often have a 4-day or more backlog, so any help we can get is appreciated. If you have any specific questions or want feedback on specific AfD's or if you want to rant because you think I am totally out-to-lunch on this, or whatever, please do not hesistate to reply. And please again, do not take offense at my frank comments.... that is my trademark. JERRY talk contribs 02:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind my asking another question or two on the subject of this new AfD. Today, I find myself directly involved in an article I adopted while watching speedy deletions 48 hours ago. So while I stand by my work on the page, I'm wondering whether I shouldn't have recused myself, because I feel some loyalty to my work, perhaps an undue attachment in this case. Heck, I threw down a gauntlet in front of User:Doc glasgow pretty much daring him to nominate the article for deletion, mostly because it appeared that he had applied redirects against page consensus. Mostly I was surprised and disappointed, because since last year I've grown to recognize Doc as a community leader. He demonstrated his value to the community when he did actually nominate the article for deletion. Turns out I didn't see the consensus for redirection as it appeared in talk on another page. Strange. So without dealing with the issues of this particular AfD, my question is: how does User:Jerry deal with his own personal bias in deletion discussions? Personal bias as it relates to frequent AfD contributors? You work a bunch of 'em, and vote in all the others; you must have had some hard personal calls. BusterD (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
|
| *On the philosophy of redirection and history deletion. |
|---|
AfDIf the outcome of a deletion debate is redirection, why would you delete it first and then recreate the page as a redirect, i.e. losing the page history? I don't particularly mind, just slightly curious! MSGJ (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where you read what, but the only place that addresses this with any authority that I am aware of is Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, which does not directly state how to proceed. (It could use some improving; I'll probably work on it soon.) But if you read it over and understand what each action described is intended to do, you will note that we redirect without deleting in certain special cases only, where this is done "in order to preserve the history (as this may be required for the GFDL)." When the content of the article will never be used anywhere else, then there is no attribution to GFDL that is required, so it is deleted. There are 9 potential outcomes from an AfD;
Generally speaking if the article content and/or history are kept, so is the talk page, but it will be removed from wikiprojects. When an article is deleted, the associated talk page is also deleted, even if the article page is then immediately made into a redirect, as the comments there have nothing to do with the redirect, but rather pertain to the old content. There are exceptions, including if the talk page contains violating material according to WP:BLP or other WP:OFFICE decisions, or if the talk page contains a substantial consensus-forming process on it (such as old VFD's, RFC's, or Merge proposals). Does that clear it up at all? JERRY talk contribs 18:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
|
| *Another out-of-process DRV, which I refused to participate in on grounds that requester made zero effort to talk with me first (something they have no remorse about). |
|---|
Deletion Review for Matthew HalischukAn editor has asked for a deletion review of Matthew Halischuk. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Editorofthewiki 20:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I added an additional comment, but really it amounts to a Meh?. We'll see what happens. You are probably the best AfD closer that I've seen and I'm more than happy to support your actions. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC) |
| *Another request to review a userfied article that has not actually been improved yet. |
|---|
InDepenDance Dayhow about now. Soccermeko (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
|
| *Discusion about a CfD delrev that I decently closed.... these are tricky! |
|---|
|
I closed this DRV in your favor, but I do not have familiarity with triggering the bots. Would you please take care of that part? Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 23:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
; [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_14#Category:Visitor_attractions_in_Orlando.2C_Florida_.28closed.29]] Vegaswikian (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
|
| *Discussion about an article I deleted. |
|---|
|
Although I !voted delete on the AfD, now that he's on appearing American Idol and seems to have a following, what do you think about either undeleting or having a DRV discussion about it? Corvus cornixtalk 23:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I am certain this will not stand a snowball's chance at DRV, but I have no objection to you submitting it there. JERRY talk contribs 00:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
|
| *A discussion abut subpages. Reminds me of one I had a long time ago, but then it was me asking the question. |
|---|
SubpagesJerry, On the Afd WP:Articles for deletion/UEFA Cup 2006-07 knockout stage where I suggested a subpage, thanks for the link to WP:SUBPAGE. I have done a little more digging on my own and also found the WP:Article Size guideline, which really helped me to understand the issues at hand; and, I have commented about it on my talk page for future, new editors. Thanks again. --Daddy.twins (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
|
Recap
- Jerry, thank you for the comments on the TfD for the Recap template. You absolutely hit the nail on the head with more lucidity and eloquence and rationale than anyone else in the discussion. What you said was exactly true and everyone should take note of that. I had hesitated to bring up the list of names issue as I felt that if it were re-inserted, people would move back toward a delete mentality. I have a copy of it locally saved that I fully intend to put up in my userspace that has the names and a few other tweaks I've made since this whole WikiDrama began. Among them is limiting the number of rationales (I think that no more than 5 should be listable, because if there seriously are more than 5 core issues, we have bigger problems and the template would only muddy the waters) and adding more instructions.
- Anyway, I appreciate your words of support for the template and clear and convincing argument in favor of keeping it.
- Finally, if you happen to have any other thoughts on the matter, please let me know so that I may continue to improve the template. THANK YOU!!! • VigilancePrime • • • 06:23 (UTC) 23 Feb '08
There is an incredible coincidence involved with my even finding that TfD. You may note that TfD is a venue I do not often participate in. Out of sheer curiosity, I wondered if the template was used anywhere, so I went to the Special:What links here page, and saw the TfD listed.... so I folowed the link. I was amazed that it was almost through its entire 5 day listing and I had not seen it yet. A testament to your integrity, as I am sure you wanted to canvas me. I hope it gets kept, because I do think it can be a useful tool. Good job and good luck! JERRY talk contribs 00:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
interpretation
As someone less involved than I, could you comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masada (Honorverse)DGG (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I tried to put my best foot forward with an impartial comment. My policy is to not explicitly !vote, if I am asked to look at a deletion discussion, so I have not !voted. I hope this meets your expectations and approval. JERRY talk contribs 00:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
King Harold review
That you would side with someone who engages in personal attacks against me, does not argue with policy that is relevant to the discussion, and then call me paranoid? Perhaps you haven't noticed, but my userpage has been locked to prevent vandalism because people like this anon have been defacing it and following my AFD's in order to be uncivil as this person has been. Also, you have ignored my concerns of notability, of which none has been established. In addition, all but one other person thought this anon was correct and merited its own article. I urge you strongly to reverse this decision. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Declined
- User:DRosenbach has 3054 edits to 1286 unique pages; 1973 edits to mainspace, dating back to 21 July 2005. This user said keep.
- User:216.37.86.10 has 118 edits, dating back to 2 March 2006, and is by no means a single-purpose account. I have no evidence before me that this user is a sockpuppet of a banned user, so this user has rights to voice an opinion with equal weighting in AfD's. This user said keep.
- User:saberwyn and User:Ig8887 said merge.
- User:Pistachio said delete or merge.
- User:Astrotrain and User:Bearian said to Keep. (The former with no rationale.)
JERRY talk contribs 05:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- And your incivility is a concern for me:
- Your hilarious
- you are wasting our time
- go find something productive to do
- are you User:Blueanode? Cause I thought he had been blocked....perhaps I should go check on this, after all, it would be just like his usual cowardly ways of attacking people behind anonymous IP's with insults and no rational argument
- And your incivility is a concern for me:
JERRY talk contribs 05:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
A user has requested a review of your conduct at WP:AN/I
You can go ahead and present your side of the story [1] Mandsford (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Deletion Review for Kick in the Ass
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kick in the Ass. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I have requested this for review for two reasons. 1) It is academic theory by famous business philosopher Frederick Herzberg. 2) There was not a clear consensus. 3) The delete votes were ALL due to their belief that it was made up which it is clearly not, also it AFD's are meant to be a dicussion not a vote. Englishrose (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I am sorry that I did not speak to you first. I don't have many of my articles deleted...in fact it's years since I had a deletion review so I am unfamiliar with the process and thought it was a nessecity to file a deletion review. It's almost 12pm here and I was tired. Englishrose (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Removed :). Englishrose (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I am sorry that I did not speak to you first. I don't have many of my articles deleted...in fact it's years since I had a deletion review so I am unfamiliar with the process and thought it was a nessecity to file a deletion review. It's almost 12pm here and I was tired. Englishrose (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Kick in the Ass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
In a nutshell, the delete vote was 3-2 and not enough to form a consensus and the keep votes were far more well explained, per wikipedia rules it’s a discussion not a vote. The motivational theory was coined by a famous business philosopher Herzberg on how not to deal with employees and is in academic textbooks. The delete votes were all based on it being “made up” which per the references and the discussion it clearly was not. Any search of google books proves this. I find it hard to believe that this would be deleted on it’s content and believe it has been deleted on it having a funny name. Englishrose (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank-you for allowing me an opportunity to look over this discussion prior to a long drawn out drv has already started. I appreciate that you closed the drv and decided to discuss it here first. You may note that I reverted your deletion and closed the original drv as per requestor. It is best not to delete things from consensus-forming pages, as we try to be as transparent as possible in these venues.
- The raw !vote count in the AfD was actually 4-2 (people often forget to count the nominator). But it really isn't about the count, anyway. The issues here are simple... we do have a clear guideline for neologism notability. This guideline was cited in the argument. The sources provided use the term, but do not describe it or critically discuss the term itself. The article reads like original research. This is probably because in order to write about this term one must do their own research, because there are no reliable secondary sources that discuss the term. I do not think a deletion review of this AfD stands much of a chance of receiving support to overturn my close, but you are welcome to open one if you choose to do so. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
G4 on User:LakeOswego was not a mistake
If you look at the edit history of that page, it's a repeat recreation of a page canvassing for votes to keep a deleted article. It has been deleted for the same reason twice already, by User:Accounting4Taste and User:The Rambling Man. This is a case of sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry, involving a fringe author with a bad case of "The Truth", and his eager followers determined to protect said Truth. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I do not understand, but I'll leave it alone. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like another admin also thought the same way I did and reverted you again. I suggest you have a read over their and my edit summary comments... I think you were a little out-to-lunch on this one, Mike. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are just tired or stressed-out or something. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I do not understand, but I'll leave it alone. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Closed afd, AM (band)
hello Jerry. discussion here: four for delete, two for keep, you closed as delete. Calling that a consensus seems a stretch, and what's more I thought my arguments for keep were clear, reasonable, and unrefuted at close. How is it you disagree? :) 86.44.6.14 (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Many newspapers host a blog site. The blog site is where unverified information can be posted, and normally does not even have any moderator control to prevent cruft, hoax, exaggerated, or blatently false information from being printed there. Blogs are not allowed as sources on wikipedia for this reason. Even if the blogger's identity is known, and we have reason to think they have an important truth to tell. The participants in the discussion who recommended deletion were all in agreement that the article lacked verifiable reliable sources to establish the notability of the subject. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 12:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Did you not read it?
Did you not read the article "S&M Production Company"'s talk page? I was stating my case about why the article shouldn't be deleted. Or was that just not good enough....Never mind, forget about it. I mean its already deleted anyway. Saxisai (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think I am reading you telling me to nevermind and forget about your post. I will comply. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 12:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Kick in the ass
Your close of this article is being discussed at [Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 25]. Thought you might want to comment.DGG (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. The user did discuss the closing with me, and I told them they could list it at DRV if they wanted to. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Archiving old AfDs
Hi. I note that you removed these completed AfDs on the 24th and just wanted to remind you that when they are removed from old, they need to be listed at Wikipedia:Archived delete debates. The two days in question have now been put in place, so no problems, but this is just a reminder for future use. :) Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)