I can't believe you deleted my companies page back in April of 2008. I didn't receive any e-mails stating that it would be done. It was an informative piece about our company that was encyclopedic in nature. We were not recruiting or promoting. Simply giving a background of the company. I know it was over a year ago but if you remember please explain yourself. The company is a visual effects company by the name of Look Effects, Inc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look_Effects,_Inc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookfx2 (talk • contribs)

I don't understand why the page i created on Gamma Phi Sigma was deleted. Can you explain this to me?? (16:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gphi1992 (talk • contribs)

That's interesting I'll play with it for a while. As for various spellings - mispellings or changes in orthography - if you find an official (Azerbaijani gov't spelling) and the article is at the wrong spot, feel free to move it; that would be best. GEOnames has a mish-mash of old orthography and new, and as for misspellings, what is cannon today is a misspelling tomorrow. Hopefully, I haven't injected the misspellings by a bad copy job. What to do about the places that aren't on the official lists? Best to check Google for anything, and failing that: let's ask the editor who has access to the Russian language sources from the Soviet days. If it appears there, it's a former village; if it doesn't appear there, I'll concede it's best to axe it until something else turns up. By the way, several of the villages seem to have either consolidated or split over time: even the one over which we had the afd seems to have spun off an upper and lower version of the place. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'd suggest is comparing the settlements you;ve created with the Azerbaijan sites that Phlegm suggested and highlight the "grey" areas, e.g the articles which cannot be confirmed on more than one site other than a computer generated database. I know we don't have web inforamtion on most of thes eplaces sadly yet, but we can still compare with these more up to date sites from Azerbaijan to get some sort of verification for current naming and existrence. What would you say to this? If we find settlmeents which cannot be confirmed on the Azeri sites would you be willing to filter them out and stick to the ones that are confirmed on these sites? The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you add the new reference, please don't delete the old one. I am putting pointers to the direct page at GEOnames. And, strictly speaking, it's GEOnames that is the source for much of the data - like the coordinates of the village and it's alternate names. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went through Barda Rayon, and Kazykurdaly has been moved to Qazıqurdalı (new spelling). The others are likely among Bala Ərəblər ,

Cimcimli, Cumalar, Dilənçilər, Hacallı, Hacılı, Hüseynalılar, Hüseynbəyli, Kafarlı, Kolayır, Mirasəfli, Nazırlı, Nəzirli, Qaradağlı, Qarağacı, Qaraməmmədli, Qaraqoyunlu, Qaratəpə, Qayalı, Qazaxlar, Qazaxlar, Qəhrəmanlı, Şahvəlilər, Təhlə, and Uğurbəyli at the Azeri source without articles. Now we need to tie them together. For Armenia, there was a good source for the renamings, and somewhere there is likely one for Azerbaijan - just needs to be found. The search begins... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure most of the places exist under different names. I hope the TCSC site helps you in your search. Watch out for ones that are close to the edges of the rayon; they might be in a neighboring rayon. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the advice. There are quite a number of repeated village names within a rayon. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised given that the US was settled and named more systematically but there ends up being sometimes several places of the same name in the same state. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Azeri sources you found are quite good - which with some searching lead to various Azeri government sites that mention many of the villages not otherwise mentioned. Cites are being added. Which with help of my Turkish dictionary and rudimentary knowledge of Turkish I am now absorbing. So what have I found so far? The lists at TCSC, and other subpages, which you found, are quite accurate by way of being confirmed by other sources: Azeri media, sometimes gov't, the postal system, etc. I would regard the TCSC as a reliable source. Excellent job. The other related source here, and other subpages, is also reliably confirmed by various other sources, including basically the ones mentioned above. Excellent job, again.

So, what has been gleaned. The govt of Azerbaijan has divided the rayons into the capital city and a slew of (singular) bələdiyyəsi (most often translated as "municipalities"). The first source mentioned above gives these, with their populations. The second gives which villages (if more than one) belong to each bələdiyyəsi. I would add the municipality status information - and the population figures for the municipality - unless you and the Bald One think that it should not be added or that bələdiyyəsi should not be translated as "municipality". Do a quick google of the term and see what you get, but it seems that municipality is what the government sites in Azerbaijan use, and that's probably good enough proof for WP.

I'll put a notice on villages not found anywhere - have done some already, and I'm keeping a log of what's up: rayon by rayon here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe you are correct on both points. Municipalities as used in most of Europe fill up the next larger place (exception: Germany has a few "free" areas that are mostly inaccessible or public park lands). Given the ethnic tensions I have little doubt that the Azeri authorities have renamed anything and everything Armenian; not necessarily so, Russian (as some names do survive; many with the ending "-ov"). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• On ethnic names, "-lar" is plural, and there are many names that have Kurd-, Arab-, Turk-, Turkmen-, Tat-, Hay- (few now), Ayrim, etc. from various ethnic groups. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch by the way on finding the Azeri sites with the population. I was virtually certian there was nothing The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos's work today is looking very impressive I think. Çərəcə etc is now a valid stub and his system of rooting out the places not covered on the Azeri sites is an excellent step to verify and ensure the content is notable and recnognized today. The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• At some point an article on the Municipal System of Azerbaijan needs to be written. They even publish a journal about it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.

• Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
• Your contributions are also welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You oppose breaking up the article into manageable chunks through transclusion, but you support transcluding entire separate articles with their subhead structure? Huh? Homunq (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, because I think they are not manageable. The fact is that transcluding is weird, and I don't see how it solves any problems between editors and admins. Sorry. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded *semi-protected* pages. It solves problems by reducing the stress on BLP-defenders, and thus the reasons to want full protection at all. If the whole thing stays protected, it solves little. But my original question was: how do you reconcile the two positions? If you are anti-trans, why are you also pro-trans? Homunq (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Political positions of Sarah Palin article has already been full-protected. This problem needs a social, not a technical, fix. Phlegm Rooster (talk)

In reviewing edits to Sarah Palin's article, I have some feedback to give you.

This edit has two problems. First, you restored the age despite clear consensus (in the formation of which you participated) archived to Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 13#Levi Johnston's age to not include this young man's age in this article. Second, you marked the edit as minor despite knowing that your idea was strongly disagreed with. GRBerry 03:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• [1] Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'd like to ask you not be so quick to revert others, like you did with my edit a few minutes ago. You made a number of edits to the article and it's not easy to determine which were edits and which were reverts so without being careful you can easily go through the limit. Hobartimus (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverting it piecemeal counts as once. Please check my edit summaries on why your addition was inappropriate. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just be careful since you have a lot of edits to the article. As a side note I saw that you were misunderstanding/not reading a few sources and replacing "voters" with "Americans" for example which is false, these are different groups, so with doing this you disconnected the text from the source. For example let me quote you Rasmussen "Now, following a Vice Presidential acceptance speech viewed live by more than 40 million people, Palin is viewed favorably by 58% of American voters.". Hobartimus (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't voted yet, and Zogby is known for sloppiness. The only poll with voters is an election. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually qouted Rasmussen above not Zogby or I don't know what you meant. Look, you misunderstand "voters" is a subsection of "Americans" it's a completely different group they are not interchangeable when you change it you actually misrepresent the stats. Not every American is a "voter", and actually the numbers are different in the "Americans" category than in the "Voters" category. Consider this, for example if 1. A candidate has a big support among 18-25 year olds and 2. We know that only 10% of them are voters then this support must be discounted proportionally to get any sort of meaningful poll. You can't publish a poll in which you count this group with the same weight as a group that votes with 80% frequency. I suspect they ask questions like "Are you registered to vote?" or "How likely is it that you will vote on election day?" to determine who goes into the "voter" subsection but it is definitely not the same as the complete population and they have different numbers actually for the full population. Hobartimus (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes they even specify "voters" further as "likely voters" "registered voters" etc etc. Hobartimus (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I used the term "potential voters" in the same section. Somebody else has rephrased it as "respondents", so I think the point is moot. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok it was a minor point anyway. Cheers. Hobartimus (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will Do Sorry For the Incovinence CelesJalee (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat puzzled about your redirecting South Loop Printing House District, which is listed on the National Register, to another article about a different National Register district. I reverted you. I find it puzzling you did this directly without putting a merger proposal in place, commenting at the talk page, contacting me, or otherwise giving any notice. doncram (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, sorry. Two districts. I relied on my memory of a tour of Chicago. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

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) 21:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comment on copyright law, and I wanted to try and clear up the misunderstanding. Copyright law does allow "fair use," which means we can include an image of something we're talking about for "identification." Time probably isn't going to sue Wikipedia, so we can all rest a little bit easier tonight.  :) Take a look at wp:nfc for some additional info. Take care.   user:j    (aka justen)   23:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Before I start to read the "talk of today" at Sarah Palin, I wanted to connect with you. We seemed to have been the last one's in the room last night. (Maybe we should have turned off the light). O well...on a serious note. What is happening at the discussion is akin to two mighty rivers converging. The result is the mud and silt of the current talk page. (I havent read the article in 4 days) True...good soil for the crops of differing ideas, but confusing and difficult to wade thru. And, I am VERY MUCH un-concerned about the state of the article during its metemorphasis. My basic and initial problem was the imprisonment of the article by well-intentioned, but I believe, misguided, administrators. This act of disconnecting the article from the vast array of worthy and good faith editors and holding it in bondage where only the privileged few could sculpt it, goes against everything wiki. But, I'm afraid that in all the hubbub about the candidate, the REAL problem that occurred will be swept under the rug. You can be sure the ones with the brooms (or is it mops?) will NOT bring it back up. I firmly believe that a seperate thread should be started to keep what happened in open discussion, But there is just TOOOOOOOOO much going on at Sara Palin. Any suggestions?--Buster7 (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like it is a good idea, but I'll have to think about it. Maybe someplace will occur to me. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have full permission from the author(s) of this information to create the Society for Healthcare Strategy and Market Development Wikipedia entry and re-post content that may also appear within their website. I emailed permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org with proof of permission. To elaborate for detail, a committee from SHSMD empowered me to use the provided text as the basis for the entry. Specific proof was emailed. Thanks for the concern though! - dbrowell —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Weekly Delivery

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) 05:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phlegm I see you were one of the contributors to the essay against inherent notability so I'm asking you and given that you also objected to the original Fritzbot proposal. I've proposed to User:Fritzpoll that the bot starts the articles on the municipalities of Nepal as with Valam . This of course would only be a start. We anticipate that they could be expanded like Sandhikharka given time. I believe it meets requirements givne that a]it has government sources b]it is officially recognized as an adminstrative division of Nepal by the government c]it has international recognition on United Nations documents d] it has information not only on population but on demographics which in part relay some information about the livelihoods of people within that area e] The vast majority have a population over 2,500 people living in them. I believe this meets the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia and also would not be detirmental to the consensu agreed at Fritzpoll vilage pump discussion in the summmer. I.e no sub stubs and use propoer sources with some useful content. Could you let us know at User talk:Fritzpoll your thoughts as Fritz is quite rightly concerned that if you was to run the bot he would get attacked again. I;ve also proposed a run to start all the missing municipalties of Mexico some of which cover an area of 5,000 km2 and should have been started 5 years ago. An example would be Guachochi (municipality) but using far more data from the external link that is given. Would the community be outraged to see such a creation? Let us know your thoughts. Thanks The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you suggested merging this article into Cortes Wesley Randell back in May. Could you check the discussion page and see if you are ok with this? Discussion Page. Thanks --10stone5 (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably I have come to inform you, that this bot project will not go into operation and therefore the project will be closing down. Thanks everybody for their time and support but there is a clear reason why it failed. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

Weekly Delivery

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) 10:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Office of the president elect as the nominator has withdrawn from the AfD. While this does not always warrant a closure of the AfD, the article in question (United States Office of the President-Elect) has substantially changed in such a way that a closure is warranted in my opinion. If you wish, you can renominate the page for AfD, but the concerns would surely have to be different. Thanks. DARTH PANDA^duel 03:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered TheSabre while randomly perusing University of Virginia pages and couldn't help but think that that page is non-notable. It's an article about a fan sports gossip website – who cares? Since you are more knowledgable about notability, please take a look at it and determine whether it should stay on. I don't think so, but I want a second opinion. -Jrcla2 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

Weekly Delivery

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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 20:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 00:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article you created: Ugliness may be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ugliness.

The faster you respond on this page, the better chance the article you created can be saved.

Finding sources which mention the topic of your article is the very best way to avoid an article being deleted {{Findsources3}}:

Find sources for Ugliness: google news recent, google news old, google books, google scholar, NYT recent, NYT old, a9, msbooks, msacademic ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.

Also, there are several tools and helpful editors on Wikipedia who can help you:

1. List the page on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.

2. At any time, you can ask any administrator to move your article to a special page. (Called userfication)

3. You can request a mentor to help explain all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.

4. When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you. Here is a list of acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.

If your page is deleted, you also have many options available. Good luck! Ikip (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered at 04:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

Weekly Delivery

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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

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.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 5, Issue 7

Weekly Delivery

2009-02-16

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Individual growth, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This phrase is too broad to be "owned" by a single psychological theory. Also, the phrase DOES NOT APPEAR in the article (Erikson's stages of psychosocial development).

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. DoctorW 20:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Liz Cackowski, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 12:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Comparison of MD and DO in the United States. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of MD and DO in the United States. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In the circumstances that this site is continued to be used enmasse to reference articles and false population/altitude data in thousands of Pakistan, India and African articles, can you comment here and offer your thoughts on this website. Thanks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jennifer Mui. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Mui. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]