Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:50, 20 September 2005 view sourceAndroid79 (talk | contribs)10,494 edits →[]: KD← Previous edit Revision as of 17:56, 20 September 2005 view source Texture (talk | contribs)19,623 edits →[]Next edit →
Line 27: Line 27:
*'''Keep deleted''' - very little content in the article to start with tbh. If someone were to write a decent article and then that got deleted then I might be arguing a different point of view, but this is not worth worrying about. -- ] ] 17:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC) *'''Keep deleted''' - very little content in the article to start with tbh. If someone were to write a decent article and then that got deleted then I might be arguing a different point of view, but this is not worth worrying about. -- ] ] 17:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted'''. Perfectly valid speedy deletion. I suggest we keep the can of worms firmly sealed. <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 17:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC) *'''Keep Deleted'''. Perfectly valid speedy deletion. I suggest we keep the can of worms firmly sealed. <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 17:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - valid deletion - '''my left shoe exists''' but is not notable enough to justify an article in Misplaced Pages. (My right shoe might be another matter...) - ]]] 17:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


===September 19=== ===September 19===

Revision as of 17:56, 20 September 2005

Template:Vfu header This page is about articles, not about people. If you feel that a sysop is routinely deleting articles prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators. Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

Content review

Editors who wish to see the content of a deleted article may place a request here. They may wish to use that content elsewhere, for example. Alternatively, they may suspect that an article has been wrongly deleted, but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted. As a subset of this, sometimes an article which is appropriate for a sister site is deleted without being properly transwikied. If the page is undeleted temporarily, it can be exported complete with history using Special:Export, and then redeleted. This will be especially useful once the import feature is completed.

History only undeletion

History only undeletions can be performed without needing a vote on this page. For example, suppose someone writes a biased article on Fred Flintstone, it is deleted, and subsequently someone else writes a decent article on Fred Flintstone. The original, biased article can be undeleted, in which case it will merely sit in the page history of the Fred Flintstone article, causing no harm. Please do not do this in the case of copyright violations.

Votes for undeletion

September 20

The Olmos

A school yearbook is a perfectly acceptable topic for inclusion in Misplaced Pages, as the correct standard for notability is simply "does it exist?". Kurt Weber 17:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. I'm going to resist opening this can of worms completely and just point of the entire content of this "article" was "A Yearbook of unprecedented quality." Perfectly valid speedy deletion. Gamaliel 17:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Here is not the place to argue notability questions. That was a contextless substub and speediable under A1. There were 5 words in the article, and 4 tags preceding them. -Splash 17:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - very little content in the article to start with tbh. If someone were to write a decent article and then that got deleted then I might be arguing a different point of view, but this is not worth worrying about. -- Francs2000 File:Uk flag large.png 17:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. Perfectly valid speedy deletion. I suggest we keep the can of worms firmly sealed. android79 17:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - valid deletion - my left shoe exists but is not notable enough to justify an article in Misplaced Pages. (My right shoe might be another matter...) - Tεxτurε 17:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

September 19

Myopia

An entry in Myopia/Combination of Genetic and Environmental factors, was speedied by User:Edwardian on September 15 with the argument that “rv to previous version - nearly all of the text was copied or changed only slightly, from <http://aarcolin4.net>’

It is clearly wrong that it was copied or changed only slightly from the page on the external link

1. The page on the external link has a word count of 2,970; my addition to the section has 1,129, ergo it is wrong to claim that it was copied.

2. As to the charge that it was "changed only slightly", again, wrong: the difference between the two is 1,841 words. Would any fair-minded person claim that there is only a slight difference between the two?

researich2

  • This was just a reversion of text, not a deletion of an article and does not need to come to VfU. You should discuss the question either on the talk page of the article or the talk page of the editor you mention above. Note that it need not be the case that the whole document was copied: any part of it (save for individual sentences, usually) are also copyrighted and may not be simply copy-pasted in. Anyway, the discussion belongs on the relevant talk pages rather than here. -Splash 18:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

September 16

Misplaced Pages:Association of Debationist Wikipedians

Improperly speedied. See Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Association_of_Debationist_Wikipedians. Vote was one keep and one delete, both by the same person. Five day period had not elapsed. Does not meet any criteria for speedy deletion. Reason given was "Nonbio that fails not to make any assertion of non-notability." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a good thing you're failing to make a point here or I'd have to block you :-) --fvw* 20:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Just to spell it out for those who might not visit the AfD page (at the risk of spoiling the joke) there was a nomination for deletion, one keep vote, one delete vote, one comment pointing out that the same voter voted both ways, and one note that the article had been speedied. All of these were by one editor, who has now nominated the page for undeletion. This editor is also the only editor to have edited the page in question. Keep deleted because it was speedied by the creator and sole editor of the page. Thanks for the comic relief. -:) DES 20:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


Logs

Del log ǁ Daily AFD Log ǁ Move Log

Copyvio

  1. {{copyvio|url=}} ~~~~
  2. {{subst:article-cv|PageName}} from . ~~~~ Log

AFD Nom

  1. {{subst:afd}}
  2. {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
  3. {{subst:afd3 | pg=PageName}} Log


  1. For 2nd or later nom, use: {{subst:afdx|2nd}}

Template:Afd top & Template:Afd bottom

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''

<!-- Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->


:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

DRV templates

<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #C7BEFA; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">

:''The following discussion is preserved as an ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.''


:''The above discussion is preserved as an ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.</div>

Closing AFD

Deletion

  1. Close AFD using {{subst:at}} RESULT. ~~~~ and {{subst:ab}}
  2. Go to article page. Click "What links here." Delete any redirects, or redirect them elsewhere. If the page you are deleting should never have an article, remove all links to it.
  3. Delete Talk and any related subpage.
  4. Delete article, placing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/"Article" in "Reason for deletion" box.

No consensus, merges, redirects, keeps

  1. As above.
  2. Remove AFD tag from article. Link Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/"Article" in edit summary.
  3. On Talk page, place {{subst:Old AfD multi|date=date of nomination|result=result|votepage=article name}}
  4. If redirecting, fix double redirects.

Miscellaneous

  1. Merge and delete decisions: Refs Rossami's and Dan PB Smith's comments. Methods here.
  2. When closing out a day's AFD log:

AFD-dictated merger templates

{{afd-mergeto}} and {{afd-mergefrom}}.

  • {{afd-mergeto|Destination article|Source Article (2nd nomination)|25 December 2024}} produces
This article was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on {{{3}}} with a consensus to merge the content into the article Destination article. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use the destination article's talk page. (March 2009)
  • {{afd-mergefrom|Source article|Source Article (2nd nomination)|25 December 2024}} produces
The article Source article was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on {{{3}}} with a consensus to merge the content into Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page. Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with {{afd-merged-from}}.


00:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

September 14

List of gags in Airplane!

AfD discussion

I'm bringing one of my own AfD delete closures here. It was undeleted without discussion by User:Dan100, and I have redeleted it since we have this process for that purpose, and it was not a speedy. The debate is pretty thin on meat. At a simple vote count, and discarding the final comment from an anon, it's 6d-3k. The 'weakness' of 23skidoo's comment does not invalidate it, and I'm being a little generous (per WP:GVFD) in including the unreasoned 'comment' of BrenDJ. Reading the debate, the deleters are better reasoned than the keepers: the point about Wikiquote in particular. There's nothing in the debate to persuade me that two-thirds is not a useful guideline, and I am within my discretion to discount the anon (note also that the debate was blanked by an anon) so Keep Deleted. Since I've been open enough to bring myself here, I'd request that this remain deleted for the 5 day period, even if I got it wrong. -Splash 04:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Your close was quite in order, and User:Dan100 was wrong to undelete as he did. However I as a closer would probably have kept (even if I adopted the 2/3 criterion you use) not least because the stated arguments for deletion are very weak: "it sets a precedent that would require similar articles for just about every comedy listed in Misplaced Pages", "Most of the content is already on Wikiquote", "The whole movie is one long string of gags". I find the article refreshing and it appears that it has an encyclopedic purpose. Despite the claim, most of the content would be unsuitable for WikiQuote because there are many sight gags. So undelete and relist on AfD. --Tony Sidaway 04:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you basing your vote on the AfD closure or on the article's content? android79 13:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I base my vote on my reasoned belief, as articulated above that, as per undeletion policy, "Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored". Editors in making votes on VFU absolutely *should* consider the content of the article, else they would not be able to make that judgement. According to undeletion policy, it matter not whether an AfD was "properly closed", only whether Misplaced Pages would be a better place with the article than without. Deletion out of process is a consideration, but it is not the only consideration. All votes on this thread that deny undeletion solely because the AfD was closed correctly should be disregarded because they are utterly contrary to the undeletion policy. --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Valid judgment call by Splash, and I probably would have closed it the same way. "Very weak delete" counts just as much as "super strong delete" (Saying for example that a "weak" vote counts as half-a-vote is wrong, "weak" and "strong" has to do with the reasoning a person uses and if s/he is certain or riddled with some doubts). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This was a perfectly valid closure by Splash. As in the case of the Harry Potter trolling AfD, the question to be answered here on DR is not how any of us might have decided it if we were the closer; the question is whether the User who did close it did so in accordance with the relevant guidelines and policies.—encephalonὲγκέφαλον  12:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • No, VFU's scope is far broader than that. It is acceptable--even advisable-- to vote undelete here if one thinks the article was actually quite good. We're here to save the good articles that slip through the cracks in an imperfect process, not to act like a bureacratic rubber stamp. --Tony Sidaway 16:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Woops, I hadn't seen this comment. Your argument is not unreasonable, Tony. I'd like to say a few words about the slew of topics that have been discussed here over the last two days or so—the arguments on both sides are very intelligent and compelling—but I think we should all be calmer. I'll wait for a bit.—encephalonὲγκέφαλον 22:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
      • It's no wonder most Wikipedians avoid AFD with such contempt being displayed for their opinions. —Cryptic (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Remember, VFU is about articles, not people. This is a court of appeal. There can be many reasons why people vote delete or keep during the course of a debate, but sometimes those votes are overridden by other considerations. A copyright violation will always end up being deleted, not matter how many people vote "keep". An article for which the conditions set by the nominator have been satisfied is always kept, no matter how many people vote "delete". An article that enhances Misplaced Pages should always be kept, no matter how many people voted delete--and that is why VFU exists. Remember, Misplaced Pages is about an encyclopedia. The community doesn't exist outside that purpose. The decision-making processes, VFU included, exist solely inasmuch as they make Misplaced Pages a better encyclopedia than it would be otherwise. --Tony Sidaway 17:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
        • When did the "nominator" get to determine the terms of a deeltion debate. An article may be nominated for being PoV, other people disagreee, but vote to delte becauae it is uverifiable or unencyclopedic. And if there is a consensus to delte, that is a consensus on the fact that the article does not "enhance Misplaced Pages " no matter how many people who visit VfU later disagree. DES 17:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
        • When did the nominator get to determine the terms? I guess when the deletion policy was written. If the nominator sets a condition, and the condition is satisfied, then the article can be kept no matter what anybody else thinks. That's the deletion policy, along with "if in doubt, don't delete", which so many people are trying to sweep under the carpet. --Tony Sidaway 02:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. Valid closure. android79 13:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted perfectly valid closure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted valid AfD close. I'm not sure how I would have voted on AfD, but the process was fine, and that is what we are supposed to reveiw here IMO. DES 14:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. Closure was valid. Carbonite | Talk 15:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Although I disagree with the result, the AfD was valid. User:Zoe| 18:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Valid afd. —Cryptic (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. My reading of the undeletion policy is that VfU is the proper place to review deletions that may or may not have been proper, and that such reviews are focused whether the deletion was out of process. The closure seems to have been perfectly valid, and putting this back on AfD just because I, personally, happened to like the content does not seem appropriate. Nandesuka 17:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    • How do you account for the wording "Misplaced Pages would be a better place with the article than without"? This seems to me to focus on the article; I don't see how you could possibly apply it to the validity of the process by which it was deleted. --Tony Sidaway 17:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Put that phrase in context. The full quote is "Article wrongly deleted (ie that Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored). This may happen because they were not aware of the discussion on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion (AFD) or Misplaced Pages:Miscellaneous deletion (MD), or because it was deleted without being listed on AFD, or because they objected to deletion on bona fide grounds but were improperly ignored." The items mentiond after "This may happen because" all sound like process issues to me. See Misplaced Pages talk:Undeletion policy#Process or content for more discussion of this issue. DES 17:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Tony, I account for it by using common sense: if I interpret that clause in the way that you propose, it moots and voids the entire rest of the page. I don't believe the community intended to allow a parenthetical example (it does, after all, say "ie") to contradict the plain meaning of the words we chose to express our policy. Every other clause in both that paragraph and on the page refers exclusively to process. To interpret that explanatory sentence to mean that the paragraph means the exact opposite of what it discusses is to be doing legalistic backflips. If you're going to insist that I choose between the plain meaning of 95% of the text of the undeletion policy, and the plain meaning of a parenthetical example in one clause of the undeletion policy, I'll choose the former. Nandesuka 17:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. VfD was validly closed, but quoting possible reasons for undeletion from Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy: Article wrongly deleted (ie that Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored). This may happen because they were not aware of the discussion on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion (AFD). You don't have to vote "keep deleted" just because it was closed validly, but can make the same kind of content judgement you would have made at AfD. I think this is silly but encyclopedic content. — Laura Scudder | Talk 17:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I'm a big fan of the movie, but please! DJ Clayworth 17:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Properly deleted in process. I HATE this recent phenomenon of admins overriding other admins closes, will people PLEASE CUT IT OUT? And I don't buy Tony's interpretation of policy. BUT... paying attention to the article... I read the discussion while it was in progress. I looked at the article, decided that I was personally on the fence, decided I had nothing to contribute to the discussion, and decided not to comment. Hey, let someone else sort it out. But alas, that didn't happen. Well. Since the article was factual AFAIK, well-written, and not stubby... what the heck, let's run it through the wringer again. Because, it's the article, not the principle of the thing. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Your vote here is, quite specifically, a request to override my closure. -Splash 18:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
      • With respect to the large "role of VfD" question, this seems to me like an example of how VfU works as a review mechanism, by the way. From my perspective "overriding" another admin's close, in the bad sense, is when one simply takes unilateral action without seeking consensus at VfU. Just my $0.02. Nandesuka 20:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Dpb, I'm not sure I can reconcile your vote and your comment. Do you mean KD?—encephalonὲγκέφαλον 21:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I mean undelete (and relist on VfD), despite having been was properly deleted in process, despite it's having been improperly undeleted by User:Dan100, and despite the fact that I respect Splash and Splash's judgement. My rationale for this is that a) it was a borderline article, b) it was a borderline deletion consensus, c) it's a borderline VfU. I'm trying real hard not to let myself get drawn into believing that this is some kind of great big deal. I was on the fence in AfD so I followed my personal rule, which is "when in doubt on an AfD, don't comment at all unless I really have fresh points to raise. Now I'm on the fence in VfU and I'm following my personal rule, which is, "when in doubt, undelete." I must say thoughthat I won't lose any sleep at all if the consensus is to keep deleted.
  • Comment, Tony, please knock it off, you're getting to be worse the Ed Poor. I find the article refreshing and it appears that it has an encyclopedic purpose, good for you; the community that you have so little respect for seems to have disagreed. Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored, right, and that is exactly what the commenters on AfD are determining. Why do you believe that you are the better final determiner of encyclopedic content than the community? Look, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of adminship on Misplaced Pages. You work for the community, and not the other way around. Func( t, c, @, ) 21:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    • May I ask you to avoid personal attacks? Undeletion policy says we can decide to undelete an article if Misplaced Pages would be better off with it than without. I am surprised that so many people have a problem with the undeletion policy, or the concept of an encyclopedia as a place where we care far more for content than for process. If I thought AfD and Undeletion policy were key determinants of the contents of the encyclopedia, I'd be quite upset at this. In view of my recent investigations of trends in the rates of article creation and deletion, I can afford to adopt a more sanguine view. --Tony Sidaway 02:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Valid deletion, and whatever Tony's wikilawyering, consensus is that VfU is for review of process, not a second bite of the apple. Besides, Misplaced Pages would NOT be a better place with the article than without, unless your vision of Misplaced Pages is of a Geocities fansite. --Calton | Talk 21:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Then consensus is not reflected policy and you guys should be taking this up over there, rather than here. Policy makes it rather clear IMHO that this is as second bite at the apple. — Laura Scudder | Talk 18:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, the AfD was valid, and this isn't a forum where we argue how we would have voted. By the way, I was BOLD and tagged it with {{vfu}}, because I found it very disconcerting that there wasn't a single indication that it was being debated anywhere. Feel free to revert that one if you think is appropriate. Titoxd 20:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: AfD is to delete pages if a consensus for deletion can be established within the given time period. A 2/3 vote split does not remotely equate to consensus - "if in doubt, don't delete". Dan100 (Talk) 20:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it's very reasonable for an individual admin to decide that for him, concensus demands a very high ratio of one type of vote to another, say 4:1 or 3:1. It is no less reasonable for other admins to have a different standard; indeed, the very document you reference allows a perfectly valid concensus at AfD to be called at 2:1. This is, incidentally, the way concensus is defined at many important institutions with a long and established history. The U.S. Senate, for example.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 20:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Good of you to respond at last. You can have what notion of consensus you like, I appear to have a different one. But you still should have used my talk page, or this page first rather than just undeleting and not telling anyone. -Splash 23:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (again) and Keep Deleted. While I am able to AGF with regards to the first undeletion, I'm unable to find a compelling reason for Dan100's behavior in a second undeletion. Am I missing something? - brenneman 00:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment People, this is uncool behaviour. Unless and until we come up with a deletion review process on this page's talk page, the way to handle AfD closes with which you disagree is to leave a sweet, polite, inquisitory note on the closing admin's talk page, and then to discuss civilly what the next step should be. It is not to unilaterally change the closing decision, and then have someone else list it here, and then have an argument about whether VfU is about content or process. I have no opinion on this article, but I have serious issues with how the "re-closing" admin handled this. That's not to say a "first-closing" admin should never be questioned, but they should be respected, and that means having a conversation to find out why they did what they did. moink 17:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • KD as per moink --Phroziac 01:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. The AfD, while possibly closed "correctly", was a 6-4 vote (6-3 ignoring an anon). One of the delete votes was "very weak". In any event, this is not consensus. Another AfD seems in order. Ral315 15:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted as per moink --Allen3  15:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted and hang, draw and quarter as well as desysop anyone who recreates it again --Kiand 15:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, AfD was correctly closed. --fvw* 15:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deletedGeni 16:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. With all due respect to Splash, I believe he was too aggressive in reading this AFD as a delete consensus. Dragons flight 16:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I've just noticed that List of gags in Airplane! is currently blue-linked, ie. it has apparently been undeleted for the third time, without any attempt at discussion prior to taking that action. What's happening folks? I'm quite shocked at this behavior, and the wanton disregard for what the community is saying. If someone thinks there was a process violation, by all means explain what it is, in VfU. If it's a real process violation, every past experience tells me that the decision will be promptly reversed by the editors here, no matter what their personal views of the article. Acting in complete disregard for what the community is saying is an appaling way to behave for someone charged with upholding the community's policies and decisions.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 16:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

For round three, see: this thread on AN/I Dragons flight 16:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Categories: