DangerousPanda (talk | contribs) +rply |
DangerousPanda (talk | contribs) →List of M.I.High Characters: copied from their talk |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 197: | Line 197: | ||
:Let me know if I can help. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' Bwilkins / BMW '''</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track</font>]]) 16:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC) |
:Let me know if I can help. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' Bwilkins / BMW '''</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track</font>]]) 16:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
== List of M.I.High Characters == |
|||
I must say I disagree with your closure of this AfD. Procedurally, you are not an admin and I think only admins should be able to close contentious AfDs. This was clearly not a SNOW keep as there was a deal of straight "delete" votes. The closure also seemed like it had more to do with your personal opinion than that of the other editors. At the very best, no consensus was reached nor has ever been reached that "Lists are the preferred way of managing fictional characters" for all such lists. Please consider reopening it so that an administrator can close it properly. Thank you, [[User:Themfromspace|Themfromspace]] ([[User talk:Themfromspace|talk]]) 19:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I appreciate your note. I looked carefully at all the arguments. Remember, AfD is not a vote, it is the strength of the arguments that is vital. Certainly, the arguments posted by senior Wikipedia Administrators carry a strong degree of clout. There certainly was not a strong discussion to delete, especially when compared to the overall weight of the keep arguments. I have done many closures of AfD's ... and had minor complaints on a couple, all of which actually held up (one even at DRV). This could have stayed with "no consensus" which would, of course, have had the same effect as "keep". However, it does not take much (at least from an unbiased POV) to weigh the arguments. If you want to have it re-opened, contact an admin. Let me recommend one such as [[User:Gwen Gale]]. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' Bwilkins / BMW '''</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track</font>]]) 21:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:06, 24 February 2009
WQA resolved
Gerardw (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Bwilkins, heartfelt thanks for sticking with that WQA. You too Gerardw. Regards, Chuckiesdad 04:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey there
Hey there, just wanted to stop by and say Hello...saw your comments on the RfA talk page and realised it's been a while since I've crossed editorial paths with you. Hope all is well -- when you get a chance, let me know what you're up to. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hey there, mon ami! Things are well (and busy) in my part of the world/Wikipedia ... how's things with you? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- La vie est belle -- both here and in that annoying miasma called the real world! Be well and keep doing what you're doing! Ecoleetage (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, sometimes I do some mistakes, perhaps I work too much, but what about Siberia? Some of informations in infobox are not correct (outdated), and difficult to correct them, but I do not think deleting of infobox was a good idea. Better outdated information than deletion. I think so. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Leszek, sorry it took a few days to reply to your message on my talk. I recommend against using obviously wrong information in any infobox (picture some 8 year old kid getting an F on an essay!). Perhaps a custom infobox that says "Siberia (approximation)"?? All the best! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Your WQA comments deleted
See [1]. Would've reverted but HighKing added to another discussion before I got a chance. Gerardw (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- No problem - I re-added them. Thanks for the notification! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Please...
Your outbursts have just about zero relevance to my complaints. You clearly cared nothing about listening to my explanations about why I posted at WQA, or that it might have been a misunderstanding. You went straight for all the wild accusations that Lar started, which was nothing short of flaming. You did your absolute best to revive the old conflicts and then dumped all of it on me. If you've had genuine concerns over my behavior, you never appeared to have any genuine interest in explaining what you mean. All I can see is that when I complain of what I perceive as off-topic abrasiveness, you attack my complaints while ignoring accusations against me of everything from bullying (an odd thing to say in a dispute between only two people) and outright trolling. Peter Isotalo 17:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Peter, you really need to take some time to reflect. I will assure you that your post on WQA was read as such:
- the complaint
- any diff's
- the actual complainant's name
- In other words, I looked clearly at the complaint before I even knew who the complainant was. My first reactions were that there was no incivility - it was quite clearly a "let's go team" rah-rah, certainly did not have any attempt at exclusions. If you're going to over-react to comments because you have a history with an editor (mostly made up, from what I have observed) then perhaps you need to analyze where you choose to participate in Wikipedia and stay away from the source of your misunderstandings and anger. My answer was that you misread the statement. There was no incivility. There were no public attacks. I then looked at the "A" from the "ABC" model ... I know what the antecedent behaviour is, and I addressed it. Don't bother getting into fights with neutral editors such as myself simply because we don't share your misunderstandings. My responsibility is to help resolve an issue - the issue this time is your failure to WP:AGF (rather than having said, "read English"). Final recommendation: stay away from the source of your confusion. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
re: Icsunonove
Hi Bwilkins, I wouldn't have filed 3 reports, if someone had taken up the issue that I, user:Gryffindor, user:PhJ, User:HalfShadow and user:Gun Powder Ma were called, pigs, disgusting, genetically linked to Hitler, mental illness and so on... as no admin did put the brakes on Icsunonove I filed a report and then another. He will be back with more on Monday. But as he has stopped for today I'm finally back at doing what I like most: expanding Alpini articles :-) --noclador (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Input on essay requested
I've put together some thoughts on civility at User:Gerardw/Civility and would appreciate your input. Feel free to WP:BOLD and edit if you'd like. Gerardw (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Kindly watchlist?
Talk:Horses in warfare. I really want some more grownups watching over there. Una and Peter and I all on the same article worries me. Also Template talk:Equidae. See also context in recent history of Talk:Equidae. Montanabw(talk) 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am watching pages as requested :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest
Thank you for your interest. I don't believe I've ever denigrated anyone's religion - perhaps you could elucidate? As for calling taiwanboi an idiot (edit summary to Exodus, it's a simple truth. However, he might well take exception to it, being a sensitive soul, and so I invite him to remove the word "idiot" from the phrase "that idiot taiwanboi" and replace it with any word he wishes. Can't say fairer than that. PiCo (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think you might recall this comment?. You should have been blocked immediately. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
User deleting AfD template
I come to you humbled by the fact that, although I know how to start them, I do not know the proper procedure for closing an AfD. I do however know it's not done by deleting the AfD template from the article, like this. Could you please step-in and show us both the steps to take in closing an AfD? I know I'd appreciate it. Padillah (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you care whether the nomination was correct in the first place? Wikidea 23:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Then the AfD will not be successful, right? AfD is a discussion as to the admissibility of an article on Wikipedia. If the community believes it should stay, it stays. If the community says it should go, it goes. Once an AfD tag is added, a whole range of other pages are also created - simply removing the tag will not stop the process, it will only get the editor who removes it in trouble. If the article has merit, it will stay. If it doesn't, then it won't. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Bwilkins, in what sort of category would you place the behaviour of supporting a deletion nomination which no informed person agrees with and is clearly frivolous? And then you say everywhere is a place to teach lessons? I'm afraid I owe you no gratitude whatsoever. I'm the sort of person that contributes to this encyclopedia. Maybe you do too: do it more, and stop wasting time with this rubbish. Wikidea 20:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Monitoring my future actions???? Blimey! Can't you just contribute to the encyclopedia? This is what you'll find me doing. And as for "go away", I never would have been there unless two people had tried to keep this silly AfD going! Wikidea 21:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Look buddy, NOBODY wants the feckin' AfD to keep going, do you understand that? Try reading WP:AFD to understand that it's a process that generally lasts 5 days, and CAN NOT BE STOPPED until that point. Then benefit is that your article will have OFFICIALLY been blessed by not being deleted, or did you miss my explanation of that point? Perhaps you're right, I have been trying to teach someone who has no desire to read what I have been trying to say all along and instead attacks the messenger. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Monitoring my future actions???? Blimey! Can't you just contribute to the encyclopedia? This is what you'll find me doing. And as for "go away", I never would have been there unless two people had tried to keep this silly AfD going! Wikidea 21:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, alright: maybe there's just a miscommunication - teaching people lessons, the sarky erms, etc, I've just misconstrued; you will recall also threatening to block me: that's not terribly nice or civil either, you know. - but I don't understand how nothing can stop an AfD after it's started. I suppose my point then, if that's the case, is it shouldn't be. Whatever policy there is should be changed. Let's just leave it at that. I don't mean to annoy you, but try to understand, it's pretty bloody annoying for me to have had this in the first place. Wikidea 21:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Teaching" meant "about the process", as noted from the beginning. Threats to block come directly from the template. If you're this frazzled about something as simple as an AfD, you're either taking Wikipedia too seriously, or suffering from a little WP:OWN. Relax, Wikipedia is not life. Don't worry about the process, and don't worry about the policy - this article is not going anywhere. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
WQA RESOLVED
Recently, you were a commenting party in a discussion at WP:WQA#Abusive behavior from a Wikipedia user. This message is to inform you that the discussion has been closed, and marked
Thank you for your valued input and involvment in the discussion, as each one of these is an opportunity for all Wikipedians to grow in the community and learn from the experience(s). Edit Centric (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed the tags off of tghe Adam Bagni article and have merged the content from Inside the Tide and the Tigers and AUM Sports Show. It actually looks pretty. I also moved that bit about him directing interns at the station down to his career section where it noe has a hppy place. I shall simply tag those two merged articles for CSD:G6 as the contents have been merged per the AfD. Thanks much, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Despues de Todo
I'm not going to kick up a fuss, because I basically agree with the closure, but that was pretty dicey as a non-admin close. Two people arguing keep, one that refused to withdraw a delete, and one that added a delete after the opener said he was going to withdraw it is not a clear consensus for keeping. I suspect any admin closing it would have gone with "no consensus" and kept the article on that basis.—Kww(talk) 19:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I do agree with the diceyness on the surface. I went looking around using some journalistic sources , and came up pleasantly surprised. Rather than comment with "keep" and let someone else close it, I determined that it was worthy keeping. You're correct, I could have said "no consensus" (which I just did with another). (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runaway climate change
You recently closed this as keep [2]. I don't think you should have, since it doesn't meet the near-unanimous keep criteria William M. Connolley (talk) 10:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the note. I agree it wasn't unanimous, but it certainly appeared to be strong keep, especially based on the strength of the arguments presented, plus the additional journalism research sources I used. IMHO it was far more Keep consensus than a "no consensus", although both would have resulted in "Keep". (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artivist Film Festival & Awards
I've rolled back your closure of this, please see my closing comments. It's been asked that this be reviewed, discussion is currently at User_talk:Equazcion#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FArtivist_Film_Festival_.26_Awards. If the venue changes, I'll leep you informed. - brenneman 13:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- That would make it "no consensus" then, which would again be a keep ... there are other articles in AfD (and not!) that are specifically referring to awards won here. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Can we see about getting this userfied to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Artivist Film Festival & Awards if it is not returned? Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- As soon as the DRV is done (which should be now) it should return, based on the discussion. Otherwise, not much I can personally do as a non-admin. Brenneman should be able to assist if it happens. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Vandal
SteveWunder continues to vandalize the Ayn Rand page.......--Buster7 (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Removing WQA incidents
Sorry about that - as I discovered the block had been put on before I filed the WQA, I didn't want to pile on. Since nobody had commented or (apparently) acted on it, I thought it would be ok to remove. I'll make sure I don't do that in the future.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not an issue. The post will be archived, as it's always good to have a history of the complaints and the number of complaints. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
WQA 20090215
Bwilkins, the current WQA that we're involved in over there has another aspect to it, one that I'm sure you've picked up on by now if you've gone through user talk pages and logs. I'm not exactly sure how to or whether to broach that subject, but it IS directly related to this discussion... Edit Centric (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
BTW, the reason I confer with you on this stuff is 1, to keep me honest, and 2, because I trust your judgement based on past WQAs that we've both been involved with. Edit Centric (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you, joining my conversation. Comfort women is very sensitive article, so I appreciate your comment as a third national. Thank you. I try to contribute Wikipedia in other articles.--Bukubku (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
rollbacker
Given your experience and contributions, I have given you rollback rights. Please use rollback only to revert straightforward vandalism. If you don't want rollback, let me know and I'll shut it off. All the best! Gwen Gale (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Merci! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Makes two of us
I wish you the best, including seldom having to deal with editors like me who can't explain anything or Victor whose pat response to everything is "I didn't know." My favorite - after another editor reverted his partial deletion to reverse its meaning of one of my comments, he accused me of making the edit from his account. "How did your content get posted from my account?" arimareiji (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- If that's not proof that the other editor "doesn't get it", then what is? He believes editing ARTICLES and editing TALK PAGES work the same way - he even admitted it. Hopefully, that's changed. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've worked with more than a few people who really were slow to "get it." I can't recall a single one that sarcastically kept repeating variants of "Oh, now I understand" the instant someone corrected them on it. People who really don't get it... don't get that they don't get it. I hope that your short-term impression is right and my long-term impression is wrong, but only time will tell. arimareiji (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Your next step may indeed be an RFC, but I would encourage you to write it carefully, and actually show your AGF throughout. Jumping all over the guy for putting a heading (which actually was a great idea) where it slightly didn't belong was reallllllly a killer for your overall reputation (and your argument). (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Let me add ... if he WAS just being a WP:DICK, then moving that heading, and saying "good idea" would have stopped him cold, because that would have been being nice! :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- If you mean an RFC about him, it's unlikely in the near future. Your beliefs aside, I have animus toward his actions and not to him personally. If you mean an RFC about the article, it's already filed - which is the reason he's now being sugar-sweet. If you looked beyond that surface, I believe you would see a VERY different aspect. And so it goes. arimareiji (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just curious, after reading your close of EC's WQA (which I made a point to stay out of): Did you intend to assert that the resolution to Victor treating EC the same way he's treated me, Jwy before me, and others at the Charles Whitman page... is that Victor should open an RfC on me? That would be one of the most unique conclusions I've ever heard. arimareiji (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- The question wasn't meant rhetorically - I truly don't know whether you intended to assert that. That's how it seems to read, but I don't know whether that was how you meant it. arimareiji (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just curious, after reading your close of EC's WQA (which I made a point to stay out of): Did you intend to assert that the resolution to Victor treating EC the same way he's treated me, Jwy before me, and others at the Charles Whitman page... is that Victor should open an RfC on me? That would be one of the most unique conclusions I've ever heard. arimareiji (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- If you mean an RFC about him, it's unlikely in the near future. Your beliefs aside, I have animus toward his actions and not to him personally. If you mean an RFC about the article, it's already filed - which is the reason he's now being sugar-sweet. If you looked beyond that surface, I believe you would see a VERY different aspect. And so it goes. arimareiji (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- To be honest, as you two appear to be well beyond any forms of WP:DR other than an RFC, I was pretty much saying "Fine Victor, if you think you have the evidence against Arima, then go ahead, put your money where your mouth is". So, yes, I was challenging him to put up or shut up ... much like I did with the possible Sockpuppet issue further down the page. I doubt he'll do it, because I don't think he has a way to "win", but it should put this issue to rest whether he does it or not...at the same time, I suggested highly that it will become a joint RFC including both of you, and that's one he cannot "win". (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I appreciate you answering an extremely difficult question; thank you. arimareiji (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- To be honest, as you two appear to be well beyond any forms of WP:DR other than an RFC, I was pretty much saying "Fine Victor, if you think you have the evidence against Arima, then go ahead, put your money where your mouth is". So, yes, I was challenging him to put up or shut up ... much like I did with the possible Sockpuppet issue further down the page. I doubt he'll do it, because I don't think he has a way to "win", but it should put this issue to rest whether he does it or not...at the same time, I suggested highly that it will become a joint RFC including both of you, and that's one he cannot "win". (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I try to be honest, fair and open. Note how I recommended that you stay away from him as well :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
re: board post
I did get a kick out of the hell/handbasket post by the way =O ... — Ched (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
arimareiji
BMW, after all that went on in the etiquette discussion of me, and arimareiji's inability to stop and go on and on...would you please look at what has resummed on the Charles Whitman talk page?--Victor9876 (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- "My suggestion Wildhart, would be to report this guy for uncivil conduct re-re-re-re-peatedly. The etiqette page should show his propensity to deliberately antagonize a situation and Always have the last word, several times." (Victor)
- Following this, Wildhartlivie manufactured a rationale that my asking her to stop insinuating I'm a sock is a "highly contentious and assaultive comment".
- Feel free to ignore, if it's on my behalf. If it's on theirs, go ahead. arimareiji (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- The above user continually answers questions for other editors on the talk page, makes arguous and uncivil misinterpretations and as he did in the informal process he brought against me, will not, and apparently can not stifle himself. If anyone else wanted to come into the discussion, they may think they were accidently re-directed to examples of the "Tower of Babel" talk page.--Victor9876 (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Just as a matter of interest....
have you considered WP:RFA? You seem to deal quite calmly with foolish people. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Patience
I feel this might have been a suggestion to me, but I don't understand what the recommendation would be. I've spent most of the time picking up my dropped jaw at what I've seen on the talk pages. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- ... the comment was not about you ... it was related to the 2 editors who have been trying to out-urinate each other, and really have become an issue to the project overall (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, you mean where I recommend that he "also *stay away from* the editors who have tried to help in an overly patient manner"? Seeing as he began to harass Edit Centric, and cavassed me (and probably others) as well, I was trying to get him to stop the harassment. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there
I've decided that this entire thing is pretty ridiculous and that I have better ways to spend my time (e.g., graduating, volunteering with people who happen to cope with mental illness--people who don't appreciate being stigmatized). I don't belong to a fan website and wasn't aware that any "buttons had been posted to my profie." As I mentioned, the issue isn't whether the page is deleted; I'm concerned that particularly disingenuous information is being dispersed about someone and something that doesn't deserve it. It's an issue I feel strongly about.
Anyway, I'm incredibly disappointed that this wonderful project can be so easily manipulated by nefarious people. I won't be donating anymore money to this cause and I'll advise my friends, acquaintances, and print audience to do the same. Please advise me on how to delete my profile and information. I won't return. Thanks for your message (the delivery was delightful even if the message wasn't)! ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikFantastik (talk • contribs) 16:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Mik, Wikipedia can be an odd place - it is, after all, a community. Just like your community, there are standards: calling people mental is not permitted. What you did to one person's Userpage is truly a bad thing. It was since fixed. I gave you both a welcome and a little warning - most editors have had more than 1 warning, and even some of the current admins have been blocked at some point in their Wikipedia career. Everyone has something to add - nothing is ever bad enough to turn around and insult, nor to lose any sleep over.
- Take a day off. You have things to add to the Wikipedia project, and think about what they are. Glance at the policies I linked for you. You'll get a good feel of the flow around here, and someday you'll be doing the exact thing I'm doing, and you'll also have worked on and improved some great articles.
- Let me know if I can help. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
List of M.I.High Characters
I must say I disagree with your closure of this AfD. Procedurally, you are not an admin and I think only admins should be able to close contentious AfDs. This was clearly not a SNOW keep as there was a deal of straight "delete" votes. The closure also seemed like it had more to do with your personal opinion than that of the other editors. At the very best, no consensus was reached nor has ever been reached that "Lists are the preferred way of managing fictional characters" for all such lists. Please consider reopening it so that an administrator can close it properly. Thank you, Themfromspace (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate your note. I looked carefully at all the arguments. Remember, AfD is not a vote, it is the strength of the arguments that is vital. Certainly, the arguments posted by senior Wikipedia Administrators carry a strong degree of clout. There certainly was not a strong discussion to delete, especially when compared to the overall weight of the keep arguments. I have done many closures of AfD's ... and had minor complaints on a couple, all of which actually held up (one even at DRV). This could have stayed with "no consensus" which would, of course, have had the same effect as "keep". However, it does not take much (at least from an unbiased POV) to weigh the arguments. If you want to have it re-opened, contact an admin. Let me recommend one such as User:Gwen Gale. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)