KillerChihuahua (talk | contribs) →Levi Johnston: trying again |
Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 272: | Line 272: | ||
:::::::Yes, you're correct; he got Bristol Palin pregnant. His fame grew over subsequent weeks and months, and as a result he was extensively covered in thousands of reliable sources. Therefore, his notability is not limited to one event. Also, I didn't say most of the delete votes were IDONTLIKEIT—I said some of them bordered on IDONTLIKEIT. That said, I still feel my close was accurate. –'''[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]''' | [[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 23:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC) |
:::::::Yes, you're correct; he got Bristol Palin pregnant. His fame grew over subsequent weeks and months, and as a result he was extensively covered in thousands of reliable sources. Therefore, his notability is not limited to one event. Also, I didn't say most of the delete votes were IDONTLIKEIT—I said some of them bordered on IDONTLIKEIT. That said, I still feel my close was accurate. –'''[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]''' | [[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 23:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
Gonna ask a third time - just name one more event. What is the second event? [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 10:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC) |
Gonna ask a third time - just name one more event. What is the second event? [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 10:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
:Julian didn't bring this up but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FMicrobo_(artist)&diff=288892251&oldid=288471770 this edit] to an unrelated AFD caused the Levi Johnson AFD to be accidentally transcluded on the log for the 7th. When he closed it it's likely that he thought it had run for 7 days. That being said, from a quick glance at the discussion in question, it looks like their was plenty of participation and plausible arguments on both sides. A "keep" or "no consensus" close was reasonable but if it were me, I would have reopened it and let it run the other 2 days considering how close it was. --[[User:Ron Ritzman|Ron Ritzman]] ([[User talk:Ron Ritzman|talk]]) 11:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Deletion of Wind Turbine Syndrome == |
== Deletion of Wind Turbine Syndrome == |
Revision as of 11:37, 15 May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Make it better; do an FA review. ( ) |
Goposaur
You deleted Goposaur today, I believe. When I looked for it a few minutes ago, it was still there, with added references and information provided by someone else. However, the talk page had been deleted. I looked it up today because I got an e-mail from someone who wanted to further edit the article. On the basis of the recommendations, I too would have deleted the article, but I was wondering if the added information might suggest the article need not be deleted, since it locates Goposaur in the national media. I apologize if reestablishing the talk page violates any protocol. The article was posted in good faith in the first place supposing that people might be interested in the origin of the Goposaur. Jim Lacey (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Juliancolton, I would appreciate your restoring Goposaur to my page. Thank you! Jim Lacey (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
RfB?
Hey, Julian. Before I head off to work a shift at WP:ACC, I'd like to ask you something: are you interested in running to become a bureaucrat? I've thought about this for part of the day, and I think I can conduct a review if you'd like me to. I'd say that your chances are pretty high, given the comments at Wikipedia:Editor review/Juliancolton 3. If you're interested, I'm hoping that I can get a nomination up by June 13 (that way the RfB will close on my birthday :)). Best, Dylan620 Efforts · Toolbox 20:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, OK! (I have Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Juliancolton and Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Juliancolton 2 on my watchlist; depending on the choice of the nominator, your RfB (if you decide to have one in the future) could be either one!) Best, Dylan620 Efforts · Toolbox 22:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Changing username
Seeing that you comment much on Wikipedia:Changing username, I think you should take a look, because although I've made over 5200 edits, the bot checking it says I have made none. Could you help? themaeetalk 20:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Happiness protection
Your semi-protect on Happiness recently expired. Vandalism has again broken out. You may want to considering protecting the article again in some capacity.
Thanks. Anythingapplied (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
- Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Socking (2)
This time, for real: 75.155.127.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)[1] and Bmx8016 (talk · contribs) [2]. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Also, I need Wikipedia:Featured article review/Omnipotence paradox to be moved to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Omnipotence paradox/archive1. Thanks! Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks so much. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Omnipotence paradox needs to be deleted. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
RfA Thank You
My RFA passed today at 75/2/1 so I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. Special thanks go to GlassCobra and FlyingToaster for their nomination and support. Cheers! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
Hurricane Luis article under attack again
Excuse us, but we saw that the Hurricane Luis page was under attack again. There were unclean and improper edits by Wikipedia editors operating under IP Address number 81.248.133.92-they are vandalizing Hurricane Luis and undoing edits we made for the cleanup. Can someone please semi-protect the Hurricane Luis pages for at least sixteen days-possibly longer-we cannot print vandalized articles as research to our UWEC class. We performed clean editing on the retirement sections of Hurricane Luis by address number 12.227.185.235, although that was changed to other addresses and eventually this:173.26.80.178 (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC).
Also informing you that Hurricane Georges may need cleanup and revamping. We made some improvements to Hurricane Georges, but there's so many questionable/improper edits that the cleanup may be better done by professional editors working at Wikipedia. When our class prints articles-especially the ones being tropical and weather related-the articles must be really properly edited; we cannot use articles with bad grammar, vulgar language or vandalism on them. 173.26.80.178 (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much Julian. Kudos.173.26.80.178 (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hee Hee
I'm not knocking Simple English, I'm just saying that we don't need to link every word over here on the regular english wiki because people are expected to understand. (I could never contribute there without beating my head against a wall :P) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Admin coaching
Hi there! Wadester16's RfA finished today, so do you have a slot open for another student (or coachee)? The project is pretty inactive, so I would've registered myself there, but everyone else is overbooked. And congratulations on a successful student. =) AvN 18:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! I'm on my way out here, so I'm not logged in, but I'll be back in about 20 hours.
- Thanks for the opportunity. -AvN
- 122.162.176.133 (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
1966 Pacific hurricane season
I created the article a long time ago but the creation history is at User:Anhamirak/PSOTD. Could you merge the history to the 1966 Pacific hurricane season?
Thanks --Anhamirak 22:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
RfA Thanks
Thank you for participating in my recent RfA, which was unable pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Hopefully, if/when I have another RfA I will win your support. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, -download ׀ sign! 01:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC) |
I noticed that you deleted the article after an expired prod. I found out about the deletion at WikiProject Wisconsin. I looked him up on google, and I do find reliable sources, especially from the Wisconsin Polka Hall of Fame [3]. Would you consent to me restoring the page and adding reliable sources to the page? He probably meets WP:MUSIC criteria 6. "member of two or more independently notable ensembles" and maybe 7. "become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" but should definitely meet the general notability criteria of multiple reliable sources (1.). Royalbroil 03:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
When closing deletion requests, you should actually be reading what is said not just counting the votes as you can only have done in this case based upon the the speed of your edits. As Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators explains, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)". If you look at the two delete votes you should see that the first one is really just an "other stuff exists" argument and the second one, or at least the particular suggestion about notable awards has been shown to be questionable. I have to admit to not having a huge amount of experience regarding closing AfD's though but perhaps relisting to allow the discussions to continue and hopefully more editors to contribute would have been the better option. Adambro (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I keep track of nearly every AfD throughout their seven day discussion periods, which allows for me to close them efficiently when appropriate. –Juliancolton | Talk 08:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleated Artikel WILHELM OTTERMANNS
Dear Julian, You have been deleted the artikel WILHELM OTTERMANNS. May i please you to notice that not all knowledge of mankind can be found at wikipedia and google. Persons, their work e.t.c. should be treatet with respect, even if they are not found a hundreds of time at google inbecause google is not the nonplusultra of relevanty. However, if you would have been interested in finding pictures of Wilhelm Ottermanns you could have made a research for it. There are other ways of researche than wiki and google intern. Even here you could have found pictures: http://www.romkerhall.net/ukAtelier-Willi-Ottermanns.htm You would have become the possibility to make further research by contact the grandson, There are not all pictures to be seen, such as the political stored at archive by the family. However, erverybody can delete, deform, manupulate at wikipedia at anytime. For that reason i have to ask mysef if working on wikipedia makes any sens (for me) at all. But i have to say that pointing out that i have repect for those who have a serious interest in their, as well as OTHERS artikels. It is up to you. Kind regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.33.37 (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
GA Review of Bridge_to_Terabithia_(2007_film)
I have started the GA review of Bridge_to_Terabithia_(2007_film) here, but am not sure whether it can be promoted to a good article. Can you please help me out here? Thanks. Pmlinediter Talk 09:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am passing the article as GA. I had my doubts since I have seen the film and the details included in the article were sometimes trivial. But at any rate, I too realized that it was okay. Thanks for helping me. Happy editing. Pmlinediter Talk 09:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Pmlinediter Talk 09:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you please move Perseus Jackson (character) to Percy Jackson (character) per WP:COMMONNAME? Thanks. Pmlinediter Talk 10:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC) (on behalf of WP:PJTF)
- Thanks. Pmlinediter Talk 10:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of Template talk:GFDL-presumed
G8 explicitly exempts "any page that is useful to the project." This page contains alot of the discussion about the deprecation, and is probably linked from other pages. Could you please restore it? ViperSnake151 Talk 14:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
IP:78.188.21.157
Hi. This IP user:78.188.21.157 makes unconstructive edits (vandalisms) on t.A.T.u.. He/she made more than 10 edits today. More than 4 warnings have been given to this IP and yet he/she makes unconstructive edits. I gave him/her a final warning, but still, continues with edits on t.A.T.u.. I would recommend a block. Kind regards--Parvazbato59 (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Johnston AfD
This should be revisited in a few months, once the dust settles a bit.
Please, no. Don't doom WP to a replay of this. I do take the point you're making here, but could you perhaps consider adjusting the emphasis, if only by changing "should" to "may"?
[No need to reply anywhere.] -- Hoary (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
G11
I declined a G11 on Homestead Bicycles; you put it back. That's either wheel -warring or very close to it. Please revert it and reopen the AfD and let it run to the end. I am not sure the article should be kept, but it does not meet the speedy requirements, for it might be possible to rewrite it. I had already begun doing so. DGG (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't re-add the G11 tag, I simply closed the AfD per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- right, I should have been more specific, TPH put it back, which he has no right to do, and you abetted him in it. One does not make a snow close if an ed in good faith opposes. I had said in the discussion it was not a speedy. Amounts to the same thing. I've decided to let it rest, because the article isn't worth it. DGG (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, alright. I restored the page and re-opened the AfD. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- right, I should have been more specific, TPH put it back, which he has no right to do, and you abetted him in it. One does not make a snow close if an ed in good faith opposes. I had said in the discussion it was not a speedy. Amounts to the same thing. I've decided to let it rest, because the article isn't worth it. DGG (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Will you please Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delboy (musician), which is filled with many WP:SPA votes? The discussion has run for over 7 days, and I'm tired of having to revert the edits of SPAs who repeatedly remove my comments. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Julian,
could you please undelete this article and make it a re-direct to Foreign relations of Estonia, so the content can be merged? I or someone else will get around to doing the merge eventually, as time permits. Wikipedia's policy implies that if an article fails the notability criteria, the first option is to merge the article into another, rather than outright deletion [4]. Re-directs are cheap. Other admins have agreed to this approach, for example see here. Thanks. --Martintg (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- ditto for Estonia–Thailand relations, thanks. --Martintg (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
A couple questions for you...
What are the benefits of a tree structure?
The article doesn't say.
I'm interested, because I need to explain the benefits in the guideline on outlines I'm writing. (Outlines are a type of tree structure).
I've also asked the question at various reference desks, and these threads may help to jump start your brain on this question. :)
- Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#What are the benefits of a tree structure?
- Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics#What are the benefits to humans of using a tree structure?
- Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#In the humanities, what are the applications and benefits of a tree structure?
- Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#What are the benefits of using tree structures in linguistic communications?
- Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#With respect to the fields covered by this refdesk, what are the applications and benefits of a tree structure?
What are the benefits of outlines, over and above regular articles?
What benefits have you noticed?
How are Wikipedia's outlines useful to you?
I look forward to your answers on my talk page.
The Transhumanist 04:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like you've received helpful comments at the various refdesks. Personally, I've found outlines to be helpful in terms of organizing boatloads of info that you would otherwise have to trudge through manually; we're a huge encyclopedia, so they certainly make navigation more convenient. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "trudge through manually"? The Transhumanist 16:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose I could have worded that better, but I meant that in, say, United States, you have hundreds of links in no particular order, and it's nearly impossible to find what you want efficiently. Outline of the United States, on the other hand, provides all the links in an organized (and visually appealing) manner. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Nice comparison. That helps a lot. Thank you. The Transhumanist 16:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Another Coachee?
Do you have anymore space for another Coachee? Lemme Know. Thanks, Otisjimmy1 (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- I will do so. Thanks, Otisjimmy1 (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Advice/Opinion?
Hello,
This is sort of in regards to your Levi Johnson close, but really is mostly a general question. You closed it as "keep" and said most of the deletes amounted to "I don't like it" votes. I was expecting it to result in no consensus, which of course would have the same end result.
I was under the impression that fame didn't automatically equate with notability. If it doesn't, it is hard to imagine an individual being famous for less than Levi. Now, perhaps I am just wrong on this point, but I have seen AfDs close as delete for basically that reason - primarily for internet memes and such... So basically the question is, in your opinion should an article ever be deleted if the subject meets the letter of the law (coverage in multiple reliable sources)?
Is there some kind of general consensus about this, or is it strictly a case-by-case basis type of thing?
P.S. don't read anything into this, as I'm just trying to learn here. :)
Thanks, --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- So then, let me make sure I understand. 1) In general fame (and RS coverage) is not always sufficient? 2) It probably is in most cases, but there are exceptions as determined by AfD consensus? 3) In Johnson's case the sheer mass of coverage over a long period of time makes it not a judgment call anymore? --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Sniperking134
Howdy.
Blocked user, asking for you by name with a helpme. Am just passing the message along. User talk:Sniperking134#Help request. Cheers, Chzz ► 19:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thx, get well soon. Does make me chuckle tho, as it says you are 'under the weather' directly above the Tropical Cyclone banner :-) Chzz ► 20:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Levi Johnston
What is the second (or third and fourth, if more than two) event? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry? –Juliancolton | Talk 20:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- You stated in your early closing[5] "The subject's notability clearly goes beyond one event" - what are the other events, please? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:BLP1E, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." The individual in question is not low-profile (and is unlikely to be for a while), so that policy doesn't apply. Moreover, Johnston's notability is not limited to the initial media craze; he continues to be covered by secondary, reliable sources, as evidenced by Google News results from the past week alone. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's "not keeping a low profile". That's not "more than one event". I repeat the question: What is the "more than one event"? And if there is none, please rephrase your close to reflect your rationale, which seems to be "is not keeping a low profile" and not, as you put in your closing comment "clearly goes beyond one event". Thanks much - KillerChihuahua?!? 22:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's more than one event because the subject is being covered in reliable sources after the event itself; thus he is no longer notable for the initial event alone. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, its still one event. He got Bristol Palin pregnant. If there is another event, please name it here. I concur that he has not kept a low profile, but if it is "more than one" event, then it is two or more, and you can name the second event. Please do so, or correct your closing of this Afd, in which you very incorrectly state that "most of the keeps were IDONTLIKEITS". They were not, they were using the point I have made here. I am not challeging your early close, mind you, but I am asking for accuracy in your comments. Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 22:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you're correct; he got Bristol Palin pregnant. His fame grew over subsequent weeks and months, and as a result he was extensively covered in thousands of reliable sources. Therefore, his notability is not limited to one event. Also, I didn't say most of the delete votes were IDONTLIKEIT—I said some of them bordered on IDONTLIKEIT. That said, I still feel my close was accurate. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, its still one event. He got Bristol Palin pregnant. If there is another event, please name it here. I concur that he has not kept a low profile, but if it is "more than one" event, then it is two or more, and you can name the second event. Please do so, or correct your closing of this Afd, in which you very incorrectly state that "most of the keeps were IDONTLIKEITS". They were not, they were using the point I have made here. I am not challeging your early close, mind you, but I am asking for accuracy in your comments. Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 22:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's more than one event because the subject is being covered in reliable sources after the event itself; thus he is no longer notable for the initial event alone. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's "not keeping a low profile". That's not "more than one event". I repeat the question: What is the "more than one event"? And if there is none, please rephrase your close to reflect your rationale, which seems to be "is not keeping a low profile" and not, as you put in your closing comment "clearly goes beyond one event". Thanks much - KillerChihuahua?!? 22:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:BLP1E, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." The individual in question is not low-profile (and is unlikely to be for a while), so that policy doesn't apply. Moreover, Johnston's notability is not limited to the initial media craze; he continues to be covered by secondary, reliable sources, as evidenced by Google News results from the past week alone. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- You stated in your early closing[5] "The subject's notability clearly goes beyond one event" - what are the other events, please? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Gonna ask a third time - just name one more event. What is the second event? KillerChihuahua?!? 10:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Julian didn't bring this up but this edit to an unrelated AFD caused the Levi Johnson AFD to be accidentally transcluded on the log for the 7th. When he closed it it's likely that he thought it had run for 7 days. That being said, from a quick glance at the discussion in question, it looks like their was plenty of participation and plausible arguments on both sides. A "keep" or "no consensus" close was reasonable but if it were me, I would have reopened it and let it run the other 2 days considering how close it was. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of Wind Turbine Syndrome
Hello Juliancolton
While doing research I came across the deletion log for Wind Turbine Syndrome. Could you possibly clarify why this wiki page was selected for deletion?
Best Regards grdoorguy
05-14-09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grdoorguy (talk • contribs) 23:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Greetings
I'd like to ask about this file "tarkin 10.jpg" whether it has been deleted or moved. It would be nice to have it in the article of Peter Cushing. Thank you :) --62.216.117.62 (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Oops, it was "tarkin10.jpg". So without a space. --62.216.117.62 (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Can it be found..? --62.216.117.62 (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort
For future reference, it is considered inappropriate to attempt to use your experience as an admin to support your own argument. See WP:5EVIL, specifically pillar #4. a little insignificant 00:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I had no intention of doing so; I only mentioned my position in the interest of full disclosure. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I understand. Sorry for being so harsh. What I mean is that when supporting the temporary cease of AfDs, you stated only your experience and gave no specific reason for supporting it. a little insignificant 01:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
NPWatcher Request
Hi Julian, sorry to nag you but I put in arequest for NPWatcher several days ago and could really use it. Thanks and get well soon,--Skater (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you consider ...
Wikipedia:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY restoration ... it was deleted during an active discussion by speedy. It is a legitimate link to an essay I am invoking, and the opposition has nominated it and it was speeded, and now appears as a red link in those discussions --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This is already at DRV. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)