Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 Threads older than 20 days are typically archived. Some may be archived sooner.

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Hi @ Northamerica1000: Take a look for which one you prefer at the "Release history" table: "Distributor", "Licensee", "Marketer" or "Promoter". 2001:D08:2910:6981:17C3:AC68:5A64:93C9 ( talk) 18:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi. I'm going to pass on becoming involved in the discussion there. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Clementine cake has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. X ( talk) 08:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Full rack of fifteen balls, ready for the break shot Hello, Northamerica1000. The article for improvement of the week is: Pool (cue sports) Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Antarctic • Fire safety Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions reply

I respectfully disagree with the closing statement, although I agree with the close. There was a consensus against deletion of the content. There was not a consensus to retain the content. In particular, the MFD participants did not review the content. The reason that this makes a difference is that I think that the editors reserve the right to review the content of any of the individual pages and nominate them for deletion. Would it be possible to change the closing statement to say that there was a consensus against deletion at this time, or that there was not a consensus to delete? We didn't agree that the content should be kept, but that the nomination was flawed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply