User talk:Singularity/Archive 7

Hello my little french talking friend

--And bingo was his name oh 08:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Hello Sr13. You know that I would find your page and how to leave you a message!!!! Ha! Your friend: And bingo was his name oh.[reply]

Please respond

--And bingo was his name oh 08:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Please respond... I have lost communication with everyone else.[reply]

Okay, i guess

And bingo was his name oh 09:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC) I just came back from the east coast about 3 weeks ago. I turned in my laptop last week... and it seems that just about everyone else we know got their's taken away on the 25th (may). I wish i could make more movies... but I am out of a apple. They had a star wars lego movie making contest... but they didn't post any instructions and the due date was too early (the 31st of july). Anyway, i'll be writing to you a lot now that i know i can contact you this way. If you need to say ANYTHING... please say something... i'm desperate!!!!![reply]

Ged Dalton

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ged Dalton. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kingjamie 14:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Harry Potter

And bingo was his name oh 08:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Hello Sr13. I wondered if your going to the borders waikele for the harry potter 7 book release. I'll be there. If you are going, i just might see you there.[reply]

Harry Potter

And bingo was his name oh 08:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC) It starts at 9:30 pm until the lines die down. Go in the day to get a wrist band for a place in line. [reply]

Deletion review of TV Fakery

An editor has asked for a deletion review of TV_Fakery. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bsregistration 08:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong attitude

Every other administrator lets things simmer a little longer than four days when an article is nominated for deletion. Not only do you move way too quickly, your comments, which consist of "The article was deleted" add to the impression that you really don't care one way or another. My guess is that you have the deletion job this week, that you consider it drudgery, and that you want to run the mop over the floor as quickly as possible. Please note that your name is on all of the "sudden" decisions today, and I think it should be brought to the attention of someone else. Mandsford 12:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Nuuanu

I have some books borrowed from the library that will help you with the article. Coincidentally, I'm doing research on the subject. Reply if you're interested! Sr 13 23:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, any help is appreciated. Palm_Dogg 23:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Web Boxing League

This article was deleted after discussion on notability. We have just been notified that boxingtalk.com is going to do an article on WeBL. This should be sufficient to establish notabiity under Wikipedia guidelines. Upon publication of that article, we would like to know if the article can be undeleted. --Art of Pugilism 11:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I was not asking for you to take my word for it. My question was whether you would undelete the article if after publication you felt that the boxingtalk.com article satisfied the guidelines. Boxingrec.com is independent and authoritative in the area of boxing and is a well established source of news, information and commentary on the sport. You mentioned that you needed to see evidence of notability through sources. Are you talking about boxingtalk.com proving to you that they are a notable source or that they can show that they researched the article? We are trying to give Wikipedia what it wants. A little guidance would be appreciated. --Art of Pugilism_Talk 17:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- To answer your question, no we do not at this point have multiple reliable sources. However, we have a lot of people associated with the sport of boxing that play the game (we actually have a couple of professional boxers who play) and while that is only anecdotal and not notable, it provides us with a lot of networking possibilities to get reliable independent publications interested in writing articles about the site. So the short answer is that we are working on it and we feel confident that we can come up with a few more in short order.--Art of Pugilism_Talk 19:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please define "multiple" non trivial published works as a threshold concept to trigger undeletion. Would two be enough; three? As I mentioned in the deletion discussion, it is a real challenge for an online game to come up with the kinds of sources that Wik finds reliable. College professors are just not writing many peer-reviewed articles on games. Your help is appreciated. --Art of Pugilism_Talk 19:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Once again your reply is appreciated. In your reply, you did not address the issue above of how many sources we need to meet the minimum threshold for reinstating the article. Also, if it is reinstated, will we need to start from scratch or will the previous edits be retained? As to putting the cart before the horse, sometimes we don't know what we don't know until we learn by making a mistake. --Art of Pugilism_Talk 20:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WARRIORS

Hi, I know you said that Elfin created WP:WARRIORS, but she seems to not have been on for a while and since you are the other co-founder, I thought I could just take this matter to you. The current template for WP: Warriors doesn't have a section where someone can put a rating for the article, which I think would be very useful. An example of a project template that does have a section for assesment is {{NovelsWikiProject}}. I wanted it to look something like that, but obviously it would have the Warriors WikiProject info on it. User :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) offered to help with making it (since I have pretty much no idea how), but he suggested I ask someone in charge first. I just didn't want to go and change the whole template without anyone knowing. Thanks, Bella Swan_(Talk!) 01:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot and my apologies with the pronouns. Bella Swan_(Talk!) 11:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV for List of Missions for 3-D Pinball Space Cadet

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Missions in 3-D Pinball Space Cadet. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WaltCip 03:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing of AfD

Thanks for closing the AfD for Steve Moakler. We had also nominated his EP for deletion, The Weight of Words EP. Since it was co-nominated, but after the original nomination, does it still qualify for deletion under the consensus? If not, I will gladly relist it at AfD. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 05:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks for taking care of that so fast! :) Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 06:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWF Tuesday Night Titan

Is it possible for the history of WWF Tuesday Night Titan to be merged with Tuesday Night Titans? — Moe ε 06:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ^^ — Moe ε 06:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan talk pages project

Hi there. I see you recently joined the orphan talk pages project at User:R3m0t/Reports. I just wanted to point out the update to the instructions I made here. Apologies if you already knew this. Thanks. Carcharoth 10:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Afds

Sorry, I forgot to substitute {{at}} once (or twice?) but now I think I'm on track. Carlossuarez46 18:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question: I note that you change the "remove this template" in closing Afd's to "ns:0", why is that done? Just trying to understand the nuances of this. Carlossuarez46 18:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does that script work? I installed it and nothing happens. What should happen and how should I notice that something is happening? Carlossuarez46 20:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you re-added the script; thanks. But I still see no effects. Carlossuarez46 21:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC) I use Internet explorer. For a while, in doing CSD's a second box came up with a choice of speedy reasons, then that went away. Very strange. How do you bypass the cache? I may also try firefox. Carlossuarez46 21:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka! I got it to work in firefox, then rebooted and now it works in IE as well. Something magical about a good ole reboot. Thanks for all your help on this I wish I were more technically inclined but alas I enjoy humanities more than science. Carlossuarez46 22:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting my article remain. Poetry cellar 01:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper deletion

thank you for doing cleanup of various garbage. However IMO you are not processing deletions properly: you are not removing links to deleted pages fom other articles. I noticed this for Famous groups of people and List of street gangs. One problem with this is that a red link left seen is an invitation to recreate the article, which is in vast majority cases is undesirable. So I'd suggest you to double check your deletion logs. `'Míkka 06:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John 14:6

I see you closed this debate. It's funny how mankind has been asking for reliable sources pertaining to the Bible since it was first written. I suppose we are no different today. However, I would consider a sizable donation to your local charity, just to be on the safe side. Although...you only closed the debate - I began with a delete. Hmm. Maybe I should consider tithing... ;) the_undertow ^talk 06:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Unusual Adoption Request

Hi! Im an English teacher in Toluca Mexico (west of Mexico City). My Advanced B classes will be contributing to Wikipedia as the focus of their English course for Fall 2007. I am looking for people who would like to mentor my students (who will be working in groups) as they do the following assignments: Edit and article (adding a citation), writing a stub with a citation, translating an English language article for Spanish Wikipedia and for the final project, writing a full article for English Wiki (they can expand on the stub mentioned previously). What I would like to do is put a list of "mentors/adopters" on my talk page as a kind of short cut for my students, who have limited time to get things done. The semester begings Aug 6, but the real Wikipedia work wont begin until the beginning of Sept. If you would like to add your name to my list, please go to my talk page and add it there, perhaps with a short introduction, if you like.

Thank you!

Thelmadatter 20:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter [reply]

I'm Flattered

While the support is much appreciated, I think your supported me 2x during my RfA :)

Numbers 27/51 the_undertow ^talk 09:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure not to do this in my RfA. I'll only accept a minimum of 3 supports! Giggy _U^CP 09:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this barnstar for your great work on Wikipedia! Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Missions in 3-D Pinball Space Cadet

I can see why you deleted my article. It doesn't really fit the Wikipedia guidelines. And I saved a copy of the article to my hard drive as soon as it was nominated for deletion, so you don't have to e-mail it to me. But, do you know of any place where the list would be appropriate? - E2MB the museblogger 23:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Deletion closings

I feel most of the early closes I made were entirely justified as snowballs, even if I didn't say so all the time (past the third day or so, I think that logic no longer applies, and I had been following that day's log closely since the 23rd and could see where some discussions had just lost steam and consensus was pretty well established. I left some where early consensus could have been called, like Amateur radio in popular culture open despite a strong early consensus because there were a few keep votes that might have picked up; I see it was closed as delete (as I would have) today. In my experience as a newpage patroller, debates were often closed without explicit mention of WP:SNOW after two or three days if a consensus had been reached and no one was contributing to the discussion anymore.

Any ones in particular you think I closed a little hastily? Daniel Case 03:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I already got one from him ... and that was after one I let sit for a full six days watching how consensus was developing. He's a great editor, writing from an older perspective which is not found as much here, but I wonder if he sends these grouchy comments to any admin who closes on an article he wants to keep. There's borderline incivility there, and if he keeps it up it could lead to an RfC someday. Granted, you have a point about how an early close in a not-entirely-snowball case could lead to an overturn in DRV.

I did this partly because when I started closing AfDs a week or so after getting made :-) at the beginning of the month, there was a backlog of almost a week's worth over and above the current week. Within some of the AfDs reaching their five-day limit were some that should have been closed as obvious speedys and snowballs, ones where no one was improving the article (if there's a chance of WP:HEY, I let it stay open). So I started working on a single day's worth, moving to the newest day when those were done (a lot of July 17 closes were mine; so I started with the 23rd when that rolled up and it looks like I can start with the 28th soon). It seems we're a bit more caught up now.

I think just looking at all the five-day old ones and making snap decisions can be injurious to the process, too: it seems to me that some lengthy, involved debates are quickly closed as "no consensus" after five days because that's easier than really trying to determine what it was, which isn't fair to the participants; also, some debates which should be relisted are instead closed (often as deletes) because that's easier ... well, two delete votes for a non-speedy deletion are not enough for me to consider consensus in an encylopedia with thousands of editors. Also, by not watching a discussion shake out, it would be easier for someone to get a bunhc of last-minute sock or meat votes in, as some of a discussion's initial participants aren't always around to watch.

Just my thoughts on how to approach AfDs. Daniel Case 04:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete of page

Thanks for speedily deleting the project page that I messed up. Appreciate it. Pandacomics 08:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

question on userfication

Is there a quicker way to userfy an article that's been speedied? I restore the article, move to user's space, then delete the resultant redirect. Seems like there must be a faster way, just asking. Had it come up twice this weekend. Carlossuarez46 02:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop princess

Hi - can you explain your reasons for concluding this debate as redirect, rather than delete? I realise AfD isn't a vote, but five calls to delete against just two to redirect would seem to be to be consensus. I'm not saying you're wrong, just trying to understand more about the AfD process. – Tivedshambo (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News from Citizendium article (formatting)

Hi Sr13,

Thanks for taking a look at the footnote formatting for my Signpost article. I actually may leave them 'big' since a lot of content ended up there and I don't want to strain any eyeballs. :)

Best, --Johnsonmx 07:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty dab.

Please, delete Systemic Anomaly per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Systemic Anomaly (Error). Thanks! --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

My RfA

Hi, Sr13, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy _U^CP 04:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stroller history Error

I challenge the decision to "delete all", particularly since only one of the persons in the discussion voted to delete all three articles. Not only is it clear that those persons who were voting to delete were talking about the poorly written article "Stroller safety", there is no suggestion that anyone commented on the other two articles, and even comments made that the. I think one needs to be more careful when you get a nominator who likes to "piggyback" several articles onto one nomination. How do I get a deletion review? The decision on this one does NOT reflect the discussion at all. I realize that you administrators have hundreds of these debates to run through, but this is erroneous. Thank you. Mandsford 12:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Mandsford 00:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Behrle and others

Hi Sr13 -- you were the nearest admin I could find. Ill advisedly, an article was created about this guy Jim Behrle, and he's very mad and upset and kind of flipping out. I am putting db-attack on the pages, but it's all sort of a mess (he started doing page moves.) Can you help? Sdedeo (tips) 13:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Lists of fictional things

Hi, I would like to hear your reasoning behind the closure of this discussion as "delete". Kappa 03:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am also concerned about this closure. I was actually in the process of composing an argument to keep earlier today when I noticed that the page link became red when after I hit the "show preview" button. DGG, FrozenPurpleCube actually based their arguments on the content of the article (which was an index to various lists on Wikipedia), while the delete arguments, even after ignoring the many variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, were largely based on the flawed idea that the list was designed to be an all-inclusive list of every fictional thing that has ever been conceived of. I'm also concerned about what appears to be an ongoing lack of respect in AfD for the WP:CONSENSUS of the hundreds of editors who built this article and others like it over for the last few years in good faith, and who continually underrepresented in current AfD discussions. DHowell 03:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the article to deletion review seems best here, if you believe the closure was incorrect. Sr 13 08:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint:

WHY HAS MY PAGE BEEN TAKEN DOWN AFTER AN HOUR? I DIDNT HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO TRY TO MAKE IT SOMEHOW FALL UNDER YOUR DEFINITION OF RELEVANCE, THERE ARE TONS OF PAGES ABOUT INSIGNIFICANT MUSICAL ACTS THAT WILL STAY UP FOREVER BUT MY PAGE GETS DELETED IN AN HOUR????—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shmoviestinks (talk • contribs)

Hi, I have moved this comment from the top of the page to it's own section. --HAL2008talk 17:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Class for This Year

And bingo was his name oh 08:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC) What team are you in? I'm in 7Z in Higgings hall. [reply]

GlobalBeauties World Rankings - ooops!

Can you please tell me why when you closed this AFD you didn't go ahead and delete the image? Anyway, I've just tagged it for speedy deletion.... just thought I'd let you know. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 09:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 18:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I called the article an image :P PageantUpdater talk • contribs 23:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I thought... Sr13 is almost Singu larity 00:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

improper deletion

Excerpt from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents:

Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture

Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture was improperly deleted and I have restored it. A regular AFD nomination was begun at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture and someone deleted the article in the early stage of discussion. User:Kurykh and User:Sr13 appear very very hostile to Wikipedia's conventional norms and procedures. The latter's edit summary when he deleted it was dishonest, stating that it was done "after discussion". Michael Hardy 02:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

end of excerpt

"Because I don't understand it and I don't like it" is not grounds for speedy deletion. Saying that something has been deleted "after discussion" when the discussion is only three days old and the communities that may be interested in the article have not been notified is dishonest. Michael Hardy 03:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on this

Hi Just a note. I would suggest that you let discussions stay for full five days before closing them. Both at 1000000000000 (number) and at Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture apparently people got upset that the discussion was closed prematurely. Even if the outcome is clear, following process is a good idea I think. Thanks. You can reply here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg, Sr13's deletion of this article was not a good-faith edit; it was vandalism. To delete speedily when some users are arguing in favor of keeping the article is clearly forbidden. Michael Hardy 03:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out Michael's edit summary for the article: I've restored this after it was deleted improperly before discussion. No notice appeared at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and the "speedy" deletion was absurd.) Listing it at a project talk page isn't a requirement of the AFD process. RobJ1981 03:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Michael. Sr13 is doing a lot of good work in closing deletions. Here he was a bit too quick to delete it, but there is no need to call well-meaning people vandals. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not uncommon to close discussions a couple of hours early, actually, but I will look out for discussions which may be contentious and wait a bit longer in the future. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 03:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

orb?

i don't understand why orb was deleted. especially since now they have opened a site witch promises more information in the following months. heres the site http://crossbeamstudios.com/index.html if possible i would like it revived. Sabu99 10:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Parsons The New School for Design

Hi. When you were doing the history merge at Talk:Parsons The New School for Design, it seems you forgot to restore the history for the talk page. --- RockMFR 20:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History restored. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 21:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV notice

Since you more or less did the original closure, you should be aware of Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_6#Infinite_monkey_theorem_in_popular_culture. Regards.--Chaser - T 22:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

F&A

Nope, I have left a message at the newsroom saying I can't this week, but will probably do two editions before I go on my 4 week camp. — E ^talk_bots 20:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help :) — E ^talk_bots 06:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig....

Woah...does that indicate that you're getting an USURP/CHU, or that you're almost single? If the second is the case, can I break the news to your soon to be ex? Please :P Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 08:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awww....I'll just have to find someone else who's going to be single :P As for changing your name whilst a minor...tsk tsk, you're a naughty boy sometimes, Sean. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 08:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History merge

I was wondering if I could summon you for another history merge. The current article is located at List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni. Older history is located at List of World Wrestling Entertainment rosters by year. History was lost after a move. Thanks for your help. — Moe ε 15:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

RfD Question for Bobby Blackwolf Show

Sr13, I'm not really up on Wikipedia, so I asked a question on the RfD page of my show (which I have never edited) and I never received an answer before you closed the discussion phase. So I'd like to reask it here.

I cannot vote or edit the entry (as I am the person who runs the show) and I'm positive that this entry will be deleted since I very rarely edit Wikipedia articles at all, much less my own, but my question is - how would I submit sources of notability? I cannot edit the article as it would violate WP:NPOV or something else, and it seems like my listeners didn't do a good enough job writing this in the first place. I just see a lot of other podcasts that I work with not getting touched with RfD's and wonder how they've avoided the RfD-hammer. No, I don't hold a grudge or anything, I'm actually surprised it took this long to get RfD'd - but I would love to know that once I do get more notable sources than I do now how I would submit those to Wikipedia in the future without compromising any standards since I do have a vested interest in the article. (I can also provide listener statistics as well.) Thanks for your time, sorry it seems my show has cluttered up Wikipedia - I never asked people to put it here and I did not put it here myself.

I don't believe I have enough independent sources today to request inclusion into Wikipedia (but I have more than several other podcasts which are not being threatened with RfD's) but I did want to know the means to use in the future when I do - WITHOUT violating WP:NPOV. I am the person who runs the show in question and I respect Wikipedia enough to know that I have no business touching any page related to what I do, but I also hate seeing that my listeners didn't do a good enough job writing the page in the first place.

I'm not upset at the deletion, I'm just seeking information about being included in the future once I do believe that there's enough evidence of "notability" while still respecting Wikipedia's guidelines. Thanks for your time. --BlackwolfGA 17:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Once there's a few more articles written I'll get with you (and I think it's getting nominated for an award, which appears to be enough "notability" for other podcasts.) Before the user went in and created the article, it (and my name itself) was actually forwarding to All Games Radio, is it possible to reinstate those forwards or were those forwards also removed via the RfD? Thanks. --BlackwolfGA 17:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename clerking

Re [1] - please leave accepting or declining requests for the crats. There was a lot of controversy over this a few months ago and the crats asked expressly that the clerks never accept or decline requests. As a purely practical point, the archival Bot is programmed only to remove requests if the {{done}} or {{notdone}} tag is signed by one of the present bureaucrats so non-crats adding it doesn't really help the process :-). WjBscribe 13:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, don't worry about it. I'm sure the request will be declined. But sometimes a quiet life is worth a slightly bureucratic compromise :-) ... WjBscribe 14:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD closes

Thanks, I was looking through my contribs today to make sure I got them and noticed you finished some of the ones I missed ab for. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 14:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Comte d'Alton

"Forgive my mistakes, as english is not my maternal language" - this you said. I must say, that, for a non-native speaker, you speak extremely good English - better, indeed, than many natives! - Voxpuppet 16:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EfD closing

Thank you for closing my EfD with a "bye-bye" result. My boss and my friends will appreciate the several extra hours of free time I will enjoy each week now that I will no longer be editing Wikipedia. Best regards and farewell forever from a fast-fading deleted memory, Newyorkbrad 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Arjun

I don't know if you ever met him, but Arjun has announced that he's leaving. I thought you might want to know. Cheers!! Ninety ^wazup?^{Review me}_{My ToDo} 18:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever met him? Ninety ^wazup?^{Review me}_{My ToDo} 20:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did you do with all the links that used to be on your userpage? Ninety ^wazup?^{Review me}_{My ToDo}^{sign here!} 17:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did Michaelas10 leave? Also, do you know anything about what happened to Randfan? According to this, his most recent edit was on March 8, 2007, but I don't remember him ever saying anything about leaving. It sure seems like a lot of people are leaving. Cheers!! Ninety ^wazup?^{Review me}_{My ToDo}^{sign here!} 22:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You answered my random question twice, right? I'd like to know because I'm gonna make a tally of winnings. Cheers!! Ninety ^wazup?^{Review me}_{My ToDo}^{sign here!} 23:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Adams Elementary School (Seattle)

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adams Elementary School (Seattle) as delete both, but only deleted Adams Elementary School. Did you forget the other? It was brought up at Wikipedia:Help desk#Afd. PrimeHunter 00:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Singu larity 00:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Important E-mail

You have very important e-mail. BTW, wherever I put Sr13 in it, just replace it with Singularity. Please open your inbox ASAP. Thanks, --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 04:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]