| Revision as of 03:22, 17 March 2009 editRenamed user Sloane (talk | contribs)7,015 edits jesus christ, stop manufacturing fake templates← Previous edit |
Revision as of 03:24, 17 March 2009 edit undoRenamed user Sloane (talk | contribs)7,015 edits archiving this retarded discussionNext edit → |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{archive box|], ]}} |
|
{{archive box|], ]}} |
|
==New discussions go at the bottom== |
|
==New discussions go at the bottom== |
|
|
|
|
== The Motley Moose == |
|
|
|
|
|
Good evening, sir! I caught your comment in the AfD discussion for ] and wanted to point out your specific points have been addressed. I do sincerely appreciate your input but please review the entire AfD discussion. However, if you do have specific problems with sources, let me know. Thank you for your input! ] (]) 00:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, sir, I am curious to know under what circumstances that ] isn't a "reliable" source; and how the other sources are still not considered either reliable or valid, given the arguments put forward. Just want to get your input here; obviously, you have a different and unique opinion, especially considered the policies set forward in ], so I was hoping you'd share them with me so I can make the article better. Thank you. ] (]) 02:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Sir, I reverted your "speedy deletion" clause once again, for the same reasons I cited originally in the AfD discussion, and have forwarded your actions to an administrator. Thank you for your understanding. ] (]) 03:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely, please note the comments of user "Fram" in the AfD discussion, he is the administrator currently involved with the thread. ] (]) 03:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Considering that article is two days into AfD, and that I have already notified an administrator, I suggest we both recuse ourselves from editing ] lest any accusations of acting in ill-faith come up. Though you've still neglected to enlighten me on your reasoning behind your original line of thinking, and why ] doesn't seem to need to apply. ] (]) 03:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
