| Revision as of 02:55, 26 September 2006 editKappa (talk | contribs)36,858 edits please help← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:01, 26 September 2006 edit undoCentrx (talk | contribs)37,287 editsm Reverted edits by Kappa (talk) to last version by NatmakaNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| :to avoid wasting their time I will only do that if the proposal raises interrest, for example if at least 5 different people chat about it, if not I may dump it into the ] oubliettes :-) ] 12:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC) | :to avoid wasting their time I will only do that if the proposal raises interrest, for example if at least 5 different people chat about it, if not I may dump it into the ] oubliettes :-) ] 12:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == Please help - inclusionism is "absurb" now == | |||
| Sorry to bother you, but as an ] things are getting desperate and I need to appeal to your for help. We are facing a situation where a deletionist admin is free to declare inclusionist arguments "absurd" and ignore them at will. If you don't agree with this situation, please share your opinion ]. ] 02:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:01, 26 September 2006
Hello! Concerning your proposal, it would be good if you posted it at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals). Also check this guy´s idea. Best, Subramanian 04:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Hello! Perhaps you would like to put a link to the village pump stability suggestion at Angela's and Jimbo's talk pages. - Subramanian 21:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- to avoid wasting their time I will only do that if the proposal raises interrest, for example if at least 5 different people chat about it, if not I may dump it into the meta:Article_validation_proposals oubliettes :-) Natmaka 12:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)