User talk:Metropolitan90/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

DYK for Patrick Manogue reworked

I am relatively new to making a nomination like this and reworked the DYK for Patrick Manogue. --Morenooso (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, thanks. I got a DYK for this article and it was the first I created on my own. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Robert Pattinson

Hi. Thanks for your support re the Pattinson issue that I initiated re the issue of religion. You encapsulated everything I was saying quite succinctly. I really resent that I have to go to all this trouble to appease an arrogant newcomer (User:Bbrezic) who clearly averred on the article's talk page that he will only abide by an admin action in this matter, but at least now it's on the record. So far you are the only one to weigh in. If no one else weighs in or if there is general support for our position, will you please revert the article back to my last edit or if it has been updated since, remove the references to his "religion", as you are an admin. I would like nothing better than to do so myself but if I do it may restart an edit war or even result in some misguided block (i.e. WP:3RR). Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• I can't guarantee that I am going to get involved in editing the Robert Pattinson article even if the misguided reference is restored. If there is only one editor who insists on including this "information" about Pattinson's alleged religion, presumably other editors will be around to take care of reverting that editor, thus avoiding the need for you to get involved in an edit war or risk violating WP:3RR. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope so. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Metropolitan90. You have new messages at Acather96's talk page.
Message added 19:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Acather96 (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Metropolitan90. You have new messages at OlYeller21's talk page.
Message added 04:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OlYeller^Talktome 04:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at TransporterMan's talk page.

Never mind, thanks, you answered before I got there. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

William P. Hall

Could I please have an explanation on why my work-in-progress William P. Hall, noted circus figure and animal broker, was deleted? n what grounds? If its noteriety, do a quick Google search or something and you'll find the man did exist and was noteworthy enough to deserve an entry. After that jackass ClubMarx flagged it for speedy deletion, I returned to it with more information and more reference sources, but you nuked it before I could complete the task. I've created several Wiki entries, some that longtime Wiki editors with the Wiki Missouri Project (of which I'm a member) have complimented me on, and this is the first time I've had this happen. Just wondering why.Sector001 (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• At the time I deleted "William P. Hall", there was nothing in that article except a redirect to William P Hall. People's names don't go in quotation marks in article titles; we don't need to have redirects for "Barack Obama" or "Brett Favre" or "Angelina Jolie" -- their names alone are the proper article titles with no quotation marks around them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the explanation. I'd never had anything nuked like that before. I think it must have been Clubmarx that added the quotations, as I don't remember doing it. Dunno what their problem is. Power trip or something. lol. Thanks again! Sector001 (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

CPIM/Editnotice

thanks. I was about to do the same thing myself. Mr. R00t ^{Leave me a Message} 17:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Hanks

I'd like you to take a look at the progress I made on Jim Hanks and advise what else I might do. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Since even the nominator has recommended a "speedy keep" now, any further editing you may wish to do to Jim Hanks will be toward improvement of the article rather than saving it from deletion. Clearly, the article is no longer at risk of deletion, and your work on it has made it unlikely that it will be nominated for deletion again in the future. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • :) And it was both educational and fun to do so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

concerns

Tx for letting me know. Hopefully my response goes some way (most of the way, I would hope) towards alleviating your concerns. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we work on it together and come up with some format that works for you? Many thanks. You can respond here, I will watch this page.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of ideas about how to create a good hook for Jihobbyist. If I come up with anything, I'll post it on T:TDYK so the other commenters can see them as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of:

... that Nidal Malik Hasan (pictured) [and/or Jihad Jane] was said to have started out as a "jihobbyist", also known as an "ehadi"?

That seeks to address a few points. First, it cuts out "shoe-icide". Second, it makes clear that that was how the person(s) started out -- not that anyone is equating how they ended up w/that term (and issue I believe you also raised).--Epeefleche (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've sought to address your concerns here. Tx for your suggestions.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

5845

I think heh can represent "5000" as well as just "5" - but that only brings us to 5640. I think you are right, and the information I read was incorrect, and I was too quick to accept it because it came from an usually reliable source. Please feel free to delete what I put in but cannot defend. Thank you. Das Baz, aka Erudil 21:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Saint Subber DYK

This is a courtesy note to let you know that when nominating an article for DYK that you have moved from your userspace to mainspace, you should state that in the commentary of your nomination. If that's not pointed out, it often goes wrong, with reviewers rejecting on age (because they look at the creation date and overlook the move). As such, the step-by-step nomination guide encourages that this be stated. Meanwhile, I've rescued your nomination by reverting the rejection. If you wish to reply, please leave a note on my talk page. Schwede66 21:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Title 15 Code of Federal Regulations

You are a participant in the AFD for the article Title 15 Code of Federal Regulations. After you expressed your opinion on the article, a new article, Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, has been created. Please review the new article and, if you would like to change your opinion on the AFD in light of the article, revisit the discussion. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Opinion solicitation

Could you offer some sort of independent opinon about this discussion[1]? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gore Effect AfD

You previously commented on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect (2nd nomination). A new version of the article has been created in article space at The Gore Effect and has been nominated for deletion. If you have any views on this, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, I probably will comment on this during the AfD period. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Saint Subber

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Twilight: The Graphic Novel

You made the declaration that this article is notable. Can you provide the third party sources to back your claim? Thanks. Active Banana (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I'll add some sources to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Amjad m.qandil

Don't you think that it might be a good idea to give the article creator more than three minutes to add some content before deleting a new article? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• You may be right in this case, although of course the article creator could also have used the three minutes to finish the first sentence of their article, or at least to include the subject complement. I have now notified the article creator that they are free to try again and advised them as to the proper formatting of the title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

List of college football coaches by career wins

Here's a sandbox version: User:Paulmcdonald/sandbox as you can see, it's quite large.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted reference

You deleted the duckduckgo.com reference in the Valley Entertainment Monthly article by citing a list of mirrors and forks that did not include that site. Why would you delete one of the only online references to the publication when it is not even on the list you are using to justify deleting it? And is it really a good idea to delete references while an article is under AfD discussion anyway? Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

An answer to your comment on my Talk page

Some Questions Exactly how many cites does a subject need anyway? Isn't it something like two? The article has two solid ones. The Flipside article is being ignored like it is nothing. That is a nationally distributed monthly magazine as I've tirelessly pointed out, but you are focused on some small things, which I find ridiculously petty, but I respect your right to your opinion, obviously. The Hughson Chronicle announcement of the first issue is no joke either. I just think the material is not being reviewed properly. How common is it that a small publication like that would nonetheless have interviews and/or contributions from internationally famous rock musicians (Rick Wakeman, Country Dick Montana!, Ian Moore, Quiet Riot, Kevin Dubrow now deceased), the creators or Spider-Man (Stan Lee) and Green Lantern (Mart Nodell), a nationally syndicated psychic, a column by a leading UFO researcher at the time, as well as a particularly gory column specifically about B-grade slasher films? It looks like it will be deleted and I'm not going to get worked up over it, it isn't that important. But it turned out to be one hell of a learning experience and that's a really good thing. With that said however, I have to add that the publication described above would only be considered non-notable by an idiot. Just my opinion, don't take it personally."

Is is unlikely you will respond to this, I understand, because it is not about something I did wrong, in fact, it is a pretty solid case for the notability of Valley Entertainment Monthly which obviously you are hard set against. Yes, I was a bit prickly at first and didn't kiss everyone's butt during the process of trying to produce the article. I was new. I didn't know how things worked and NO ONE helped at all until Sarah came along. It is plain that you are not concerned a lick about the actual content of the paper, only that it was "small" and "not notable." The actual content we have NOT DISCUSSED AT ALL AND HAS BEEN COMPLETELY IGNORED. It would be interesting to see you attempt to produce a paper and then pack it with celebrities about which people actually care to read. Thanks for all your hard work and to all the editors that have made splendid efforts to ensure a piece of trash like this article does not stay on Wikipedia. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Comment Pretty hard to dispute, I know, so I understand why you are not responding. Since it doesn't support your completely objective delete vote, it should be ignored as all of my legitimate arguments have been ignored when it didn't allow you to tag or report me for something trivial or trumped up. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

• Check my user contributions. I hadn't edited Wikipedia since 5:05 UTC on 19 June 2010 and all of your above comments were posted since then. Regarding Duckduckgo.com, the site itself clearly indicates that it is basing its information on Wikipedia; it doesn't need to be on the list of mirrors and forks for us to realize that that is what it is. The Flipside and Hughson Chronicle are two references which I have not seen, but which I do believe I would be able to find by library research and interlibrary loans if needed. For that reason, I did not specifically criticize the use of Flipside and Hughson Chronicle. In fact, what I wrote was, "Other than the Hughson Chronicle and Flipside, I don't know if I would even be able to find any of the more relevant sources here." [2] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hook

Tx for the note. (It makes it easier than checking DYK every day). I've responded there, with a (hopefully respectful) contrary view. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Reformat of List of neighborhoods in Greenville, South Carolina

Thanks for your help on this. Chris (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• No problem. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Conference football season article

You were involved in the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Tabor Bluejays football team. I have re-tooled the page at 2010 Kansas Collegiate Athletic Conference football season and would appreciate any preliminary comments.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking of Joshua Novak

Greetings Metropolitan90 - thanks for your message. No, there was no specific reason for blanking the page. I just had a gut feeling that there was something not quite right about it. As you mention, the subject claims/is claimed to be an adult, but I/we have no way of knowing, and I prefer to err on the safe side 'cos it can always be “repaired” with an apology. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I have replied your comments in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Animal_protection I look forward to seeing your reply on the issues —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisaniceusername (talk • contribs)

• Thank you. I have not decided yet whether to change my initial recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

McCormack Article

Metropolitan90, thanks for your comments on the Ian McCormack AFD discussion page - I never saw them until after it was archived. Technopat suggested I bow out gracefully from the discussion and I saw the wisdom of it, considering I wasn't making much headway making the point you made in your comment (even if our conclusions are different). I completely and totally agree with you - Ian's "Wikipedia" notability must be determined by his notability as a speaker and evangelist, not by the merits of his story. However, most evangelists don't readily get in mainstream news these days unless they have a "prosperity gospel" or say mean-spirited things, or earn some kind of notoriety or sell their stories and make lots of money. Ian makes no profit off the DVD's, books, etc, that he has made. They are all sold for cost of manufacture and shipping only. This makes it rather difficult for him to earn a bestseller listing or a secular article about him. I'm still thinking about the secular vs religious news sourcing argument. I'm not sure we should try to establish a religious (any religion) speaker's notability based on secular, mainstream news alone. I thought Ian had more than enough notability on religious sites like CBN and SIGHT MAGAZINE to warrant an article - I was okay with some debate about sourcing, POV, etc, but the immediate AFD was excessive, I think. When taken all together (interviews, DVD's, books, Youtube presence, Google-able presence, upcoming film, etc) I think there was enough to warrant an article. I agree that once the film is officially announced and the actors are picked that it adds another weight on his side of the debate. For the moment I am content to wait till then - unless I come across more 3rd party independant sources :). Thanks again, ChildrenOfLight (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• I would have counted coverage in major Christian media (such as Christianity Today) toward McCormack's notability, if there was a significant amount of it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• So, you'd take a publication that (according to Wikipedia) reaches a "readership of 290,000" over a televised broadcast that reaches, on average, 1,000,000 viewers a day to establish notability? Just a thought. Have you read the Wikipedia page on CBN and 700 Club vs. Christianity Today? I hope you know its Evangelical, which is a particular Protestant Christian theological stream that would frown on Ian's charasmatic roots (especially this publication). Again, unless you can convince me, it just seems like more subjectivity over what people "know" already about something and not looking at the facts. People ought to give a little more weight when they aren't quite sure - i.e. I'm an artist, but not a fantasy artist. With a knee jerk reaction, I wouldn't be able to determine if a fantasy artist was notable or not because I don't know enough about fantasy art. I wouldn't kill something if I wasn't positive it was truly terminally ill - that seems to be the difference here. I'd discuss it first with the parties and if I was still convinced against it, then I might swing the axe, but I'm not an intellectual murderer :) and have a hard time with the strict death penalty people employ so easily here. Thanks for your answer,

ChildrenOfLight (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't mean to disparage the coverage in CBN and the 700 Club, although I may not have given it as much weight as it deserved. With regard to the the issue of which Christian media are evangelical as opposed to charismatic, I have to admit that I'm not that aware of the particular theological streams that any of these media sources are affiliated with. If I were you, I wouldn't give up on the idea of having an article on Wikipedia about McCormack in the future, but I would recommend developing it further in your userspace (that is, on a page to be called something like User:ChildrenOfLight/Ian McCormack) before trying to bring it back to the mainspace (which may require a deletion review). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. Where would I start this page? Would I put it where my short bio is (is this the User Page)? Or would I start a new article template with the title you suggested (User:ChildrenOfLight/Ian McCormack). Thanks for the help. ChildrenOfLight (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Click on this link. You will see a notice that the page has been deleted before, but under that there will be a regular editing box in which you can start re-writing the article, and then below that there will be a button for you to save the page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. ChildrenOfLight (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Toomorrow

This is a belated response to your question. I explained the TOOMORROW thing while my page was being discussed for deletion. I'm guessing you read the answer there. If not you can read it still, even though my page was deleted, the "debate" to keep it or not (NOT!) is still viewable (don't ask me why!). In brief, yes, that film was based on an unfinished home-movie in a VERY roundabout (and totally UNofficial!) way. I'm told not to mention names due to possible legal problems (that I don't need, thanks!). Doesn't matter now. The page was rejected. I'm now 0-6 in submissions! I get the feeling I'm not very good at this. Anyway, thanks and best. Abbythecat. Abbythecat (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Although many of the pages that go through the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process get deleted, which is what happened to Richard H. Campbell, co-author, The Bible On Film: A Checklist, 1897-1980, the discussions about deletion of those pages stay on Wikipedia permanently (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard H. Campbell, co-author, The Bible On Film: A Checklist, 1897-1980). I did read the explanation about The Gang and Toomorrow. However, as I'm sure you understand, a situation where a writer gets "No credit. No money. Just the note of thanks" for his inspiration of a film is very hard to verify through reliable sources. Same thing for a person being filmed for a scene in Kolchak: The Night Stalker which was edited out of the episode and never actually broadcast -- there's no obvious way to verify that. I'm sorry things didn't work out with your past articles, but I hope you will stick around Wikipedia and find some other articles you can contribute to. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• I do understand. I'm not sure why TOOMORROW or STALKER even play into this. Perhaps it is my fault in writing too much in defense. For the record, as a relative of Mr. Campbell, I know he still has that note as well as 2 or 3 color snapshots of him and his friend with Mr. Darren McGavin. I know, I know ... the note can be a forgery, and the photos could have been doctored, so none of this is proof. The STALKER thing was written up in a local paper and some fanzines ... again, I know, I know ... they aren't considered good enough reference sources. Gee, I dunno, maybe Wikipedia requires too much proof? I may try to submit some more someday, but, as Frank Sinatra sang at the end of CYCLES, "please, just don't ask me now". Abbythecat. Abbythecat (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Daric rawr

Could you take care of this redirect to a page you deleted? Thanks! 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That was immediately recreated... 69.181.249.92 (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to check it out and see what I can do about it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Zarin87

Hi, Excuse me, I was trying to find the user Zereshk, because I've used some of his images in a work I had, and I had to cite his name, and was trying to find it out till I saw that you had deleted his page in February. I wanted to ask you if you did it as a normal task or if you have any information abut him. The truth is that I really can't put the name 'Zereshk' on my work for the images. I will truely appreciate your help if you can answer me. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarin87 (talk • contribs)

• In regard to your first question, I deleted their user page as a normal task, because they requested its deletion, and a user can request speedy deletion of their own user page and user subpages (but not their user talk page) under Wikipedia:CSD#U1. I haven't had any other dealings with Zereshk that I can remember. However, I looked at their user talk page, and I found that User:زرشک is apparently Zereshk using a different language name, or at least someone purporting to be User:Zereshk. User:زرشک has edited Wikipedia using that name as recently as yesterday (5 July 2010), so they might respond if you post to their user talk page. Hopefully Zereshk/زرشک will be able to help you because I don't normally get involved in image work myself. Good luck. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much. You helped me a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarin87 (talk • contribs)

DYK for Larissa Riquelme

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Nastomic

Please reconsider your decline of the speedy on this one. Note that it's a user page for an indef blocked account, one blocked for username policy violation. It's promoting/detailing a company outside of article space, usually a clear indication of a spam page. Why keep it around? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Because I didn't believe it was a company. It appeared to be promotion for an amateurish webcomic for which I couldn't even find the actual comics on their website. If this is determined to really be a business, I would reconsider my decision. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Are the first and last lines of the page not enough? "Nastomic is the company that owns..." and "'Lucas is the company's president and Anthony is the vice president" seem pretty conclusive that it's meant to be one. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No, they're not enough, because it really seems to me like this supposed "company" exists only in the minds of two or three children as something they pretend to have as a business. I seriously doubt that it is a company in the sense of being incorporated, having a business license, or selling goods and services to the public for a profit. Look at how they describe the organization of their "Buissness" (sic): "Nastomic is owned by Lucas K. And (sic) Anthony P. Lucas is the company's president and Anthony is the vice president." Few adults identify themselves and their associates by their first name and last initial, but that's not uncommon among schoolchildren. I don't see Microsoft identifying its CEO as Steve B. and its chairman as Bill G. The company web site, which is where I would expect to find their comics if they had any, doesn't seem to include any actual comics that I can find. If "Nastomic" is just a few kids playing at the idea of a business without actually selling anything commercially, then the User:Nastomic page isn't an advertisement. But, on the other hand, if it is a real business, then the page is just an embarrassment due to the childish writing style: CST is Nastomic's best comic. Origanly made by Anthony P. CST is now 1year old and is still Nastomic's best comic. CST was made after Anthony read the Captain Under Pants series. "Ton" came from the first 3 letters of his nickname Tony. From "Ton" he decided to make his "super powers": Flying, and "wheing a Ton". So he could fly over someone and crush them with his wheight. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Email Help Request

Hello again, I'm sorry I trouble you so, but, I had to ask for help and I really didn't from whom I could ask. Could you please guide me on how to email a user, when they don't have the link after their name? I looked for the link everywhere in the page but I could not find it.

I will be truely thankful for an answer. 80.191.41.189 (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't sign it. The above message was from me.

Zarin87 (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Somewhere on the user's userpage, there should be a "toolbox", probably on the left rail of the page, that will have some or all of the following options there:
  • What links here
  • Related changes
  • User contributions
  • Logs
  • E-mail this user
  • Upload file
  • Special pages
  • Permanent link

If the user has an "E-mail this user" link, you can click on that and it will take you to a page where there will be a form to send them an e-mail. Please note that not all users have enabled e-mail to them. For example, you will not see "E-mail this user" on my userpage, because I prefer to get all Wikipedia-related communications on my talk page, not by e-mail. I hope this helps. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Great work!

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For your magnificent rewrite and sourcing of the article Paul N. Carlin at AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

List of famous Catholics

The AfD was closed by nom on the grounds of a page move, but I have renominated it under its new title. I thought you should know. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, I did see that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Famous Americans/Wikijunior

Tell me more! (I'm taking it for granted that the article dies here, it's 12:1 two days in). Hit me at my place Purplebackpack89 04:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)