User talk:Black Kite/Archive11

User:71.184.9.231

FYI, I posted a note about WP:ANI about this guy and the mess at the article. Man, I get quite a few nuts here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As someone who is defintiely not a wiki editor pro.....I really respect the great resource that the wiki-volunteers have created. I do use wikipedia quite a bit and always end up using it more than I expected. So thank you! My problem is I do have a strong POV. I'm a libertarian, peace advocating, anti-government, atheist who believes people should have a large amount of individual freedom, even if it means they'll believe and do many many many things I'd never want my children doing.

Coincidentally, I believe that much of "official history" is pretty wrong about some of the big issues and that many "conspiracy theories" have some merit. Furthermore, I believe that even if a conspiracy theory seems pretty unlikely, that we shouldn't go around deleting information about the theories or the people that make them. The theories should be confronted, countered, debated etc. Deleting mentions of names and books seems an awfully close intellectual cousin of book burning....so when people learn that Edward Griffins entry has been deleted at wikpedia it is going to raise my blood pressure. It is a fact that "The Creature from Jekyll Island" is a widely read book. It seems that the worst sort of vandalism wiki can encounter is memoryhole deletion tactics....it is censorship....why not jsut go to the discussion page and say your opinion about him being a conspiracy nut or present some scathing crtiques written in the NYT on his book or something? why resort to deletions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabeh73 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hammerandclaw

Hi BK,

Just a quick note that I appreciate you, and several other admins, stepping in on this. It kind of resolved itself more messily than perhaps necessary, and might have been a little less so if I had known exactly what I was doing from the very beginning. But I did learn alot about how this kind of thing works, and feel much more confident in being able to handle the next one more smoothly. --barneca (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Deja vu

Hey, this deja vu is giving me a headache. Do you have any insight into how I might relieve the tension in my head? Shoot me an email maybe? --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Optimus Prime

Hey, I realize you are trying to clean up the Optimus Prime article, but surely with an article as big as Optimus Prime, and with him having so many varried forms, more than one picture is justified. Perhaps just a few of his varried forms over the years? Let me know, I don't want to get in trouble here, so maybe we can talk about it. Thanks much in advance for your help. Mathewignash (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I had hoped to get one picture of him from each media/company that he appeared in, but I guess that would be too many. I'll see if I can get a few of the most varried examples. I have several of the toys, so perhaps I can get one picture with several of them in it? That way it would only count as one picture? Mathewignash (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I readded SOME of the photos. Current count is the original Optimus Prime has 6 photos, the movie one 2, and the rest 1 or none (there are several different guys named Optimus Prime you know). The original Prime has his box art, one picture from the TV series, and one picture from each of four different comic book companies that have had Transformers titles over the years. Can we keep this while I research some new photos? Mathewignash (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Talk page of Weighted least squares might be kept as is and not redirected?

Hello Black Kite. Though I understand that the article Weighted least squares was redirected due to the AfD, I don't at once see the rationale of redirecting the old Talk page as well. For one thing, that leaves no place to put the {{oldafdfull}} template to record the result of the AfD. Would you consider undoing the Talk redirect? EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

Sorry for the intrusion but could you look at this article? A series of anon IPs (same person based on comments) has added an unusual addition under popular culture with no attribution other than his/her viewpoint/OR. Of a more serious nature, the editor has also made inappropriate comments on the article's discussion page and my talk page. Thanks for your assistance. FWIW, I may be asking a number of admins for their review of the article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

Blocked a range you've been dealing with

I've blocked 118.137.0.0/17 for a week due to the massive amounts of vandlism only edits coming from that range (for example, on the article Sunrise (company)). As you've blocked several of the IPs in this range, I thought you'd want to know. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

NFC tagging of Stargate articles

You're currently tagging a lot of Stargate articles. I have no problem with that, in fact, I already made a sweep one or two weeks ago in the technology-related SG article-lists, usually only leaving about five images per list (in FAs, five is often considered the upper limit for the number of non-free images). I haven't yet got to the character articles because there was no agreement whatsoever on WT:NFC the last time I checked, especially in the light of the "new" merge-everything encouragement by WP:FICT. Would you explain how many images you consider appropriate so that I can help in cleanup, without getting rid of all images, just so that we're on the same page? – sgeureka ^t•c 03:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you've recently edited the article on Kosovo. What do you think of this proposal for a change in the history section Talk:Kosovo#PROPOSAL_FOR_THE_HISTORY_SECTION?--Getoar (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/B

Please remove the link in the lead, that goes to the MfD. it was deleted/redirected for a reason. this is just more harassment. β^_command 21:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI notice

As I said over on the AN subpage, the ANI thread is here. Carcharoth (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV

My mistake.. Was just about to revert when I saw that he was last warned on the 20th, not today. Thanks for keeping an eye out though, and keep up the good work! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Jon Hobynx likely reincarnation of R:128.40.76.3 et al

Could you review this?

• WP:ANI#Jon Hobynx likely reincarnation of R:128.40.76.3 et al.

You blocked at least one of the other socks; [1]. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Request

After my this edit AlasdairGreen27 and Ashwinosoft insist on edit warring in national sport. I posted comments in talks of both these editors but they ignore consensus and mediation!!!! AlasdairGreen27 removes a statement, citing 3 sports considered Australian national sports, proposed by himself and voted by me too in mediation: is it a provocation or vandalism? I request your edit in this article or your action against this form of vandalism!!!! Regards,--PIO (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet User:JackQPR

Hi, sorry to put this on you, but I think that JackQPR might be back editing again. Back on 15th February you fully protected the List of hooligan firms article to try and stop JackQPR. However, a new user, StevenDB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is adding what seems to be identical content. Clearly they can't add content to the above article but they have done so to the Football hooliganism article and have created the article, QPR Youth wing using exactly the same sources as JackQPR used. It was content about the "QPR Youth wing" which started all this in the first place. Any chance you could have a check and see if it is indeed the same person or at least likely to be? Thanks.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted article

Thanks. The article had a main linked version - with the attack info in it, as well as what was liekly the original version without the attack words. I cleaned it up. I'm not sure about notability or size of market. May be worth spending a little time looking for more information. — ERcheck (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I missed some if the bad stuff. Thanks for catching it all. — ERcheck (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems that it has been in the article since January 11th [2], inserted by 75.37.215.70. — ERcheck (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Vic Porcelli

Thanks for commenting...I am kinda wiki-ignorant and keep removing the negative post, and it keeps reappearing!

Advice on a redirect

I should have mentioned at the recent AFD for the Mickey Renaud article, that we should likely redirect it to the Windsor Spitfires article. As opposed to just recreating the article as a redirect, what would be the best way to make that proposal? Flibirigit (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You've been Blocked

		You've been Blocked
		Presented for much appreciated efforts at sorting out whom to use that button on. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

good cop/bad cop?

see;

• Special:Contributions/68.5.189.128
• Special:Contributions/Mocktard

Maybe it's just bad faith on my part, but it looks like the same user to me.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review

Since the lister hasn't informed you, a deletion review has been requeston on one of your recent AFD closures. Wikipedia:DRV#Mickey_Renaud. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Michael Willis

Hi, You had semi-protected Michael Willis, I think after the exchanges at ANI. DumbBot has just removed a template from the page. I don't understand how protection works, but I wonder if you have a moment to take a look and see if everything is as it should be, please? TIA, --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin talk page

The article on G. Edward Griffin has been recreated by the admin who had deleted it previously, so the talk page can be unprotected now.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

VivianDarkbloom

Per this discussion, I believe VivianDarkbloom to be the bad hand of a good hand/bad hand pair. Thought you might want to take that into consideration.Kww (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Head up - I was indef blocking per discussion while you were counseling waiting a bit longer. Any response at ANI, I should think... Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Image:David,larry.JPG		My RFA
		Thank you muchly for your support in my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth! Kidding btw. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

help desk comments

Hi - those comments are largely incoherent so I have no idea what they are on about, but thought you should know about them. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

List of hooligan firms

Well it took just two days for the edits to start again after full protection was changed to semi-protection. And the same edits yet again. I did think that the user StevenDB was another sockpuppet of the blocked user and it would seem that is the case as it is exactly the same edit yet again. I have again reverted them, but have had to do so twice now within only a few minutes and I suspect he will be back again to just add itback in yet again. I have tried (yet again) to point out why the edits are being reverted, but it always seems to "fall on deaf ears". Any chance you could have a look, and maybe find out if StevenDB is a sockpuppet? Thanks.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

arghhh. Just as I was leaving you the above message, StevenDB simply ignores my message on his talk page and adds the edit back in yet again. That is three times just today. I have already reverted it twice and I don't want to revert again today (3RR and all that!), but given that StevenDB has also twice tried to create the "QPR Youth Wing" article then surely he must be a sockpuppet of JackQPR? Hope you can help when you are back on wikipedia, thanks and apologies for bringing this up yet again.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, I am just sorry to have had to ask you. To try and resolve it I've searched online for a reliable source but can't find anything unfortunately.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have similar thoughts to be honest about the Luton Town MIG article. I will have another read through it again later today and maybe see about at least adding some tags/removing some stuff. There is no doubt they exist/existed, it is hard at times though with hooligan firms to "cut through the crap" (to put it bluntly) and see what is real and not just either made up or totally exaggerated! StevenDB seems to be unwilling to take on board anything said to him though! Thanks. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the request by "Bengio" for someone to add QPR again. I wonder then if Bengio is yet another sockpuppet of QPRJack to add to the growing list? Especially as two of his sockpuppets use "Ben" in the usernames (Ben10023 and QPRben). Head, band, brick, wall...... :) ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Block of 68.118.186.200

Hello. At first, I thought it was a shared IP. but then I realized: my cousin comes over to babysit me a lot, and he wanted to create a Wikipedia account. He was very interested in vandalism, laughing out loud as I showed him some. It must have been him; I would never vandalize WP. WP has a special place in my heart. I will talk to him and tell him to stop vandalizing. Anyway, thank you for doing the right thing and blocking that bad account. ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 12:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you've misrepresented what my user page actually said; I could discuss it better, except you've censored it and I don't feel like digging through my history to prove a point, when I don't believe you are genuinely interested in justice. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

a kiwi sock?

See Special:Contributions/Samneric. I'm especially curious to see what happens on Martin Banwell. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• compare two edit summaries: [3] [4]

Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thatcher (talk · contribs) seems to have confirmed that Samneric (talk · contribs) and Vickiemc (talk · contribs) match Jon Hobynx (talk · contribs) et al;
  Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/R:128.40.76.3.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s. see [5] with the edit summary 'tidy' — an edit summary I often use. User is playing. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

re:

Irrelevant? Huh? Roddy Piper = RP. Starcade = SC. How is that irrelevant?

142.162.189.143 (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

If you look and see, Padraig has reverted just about every single edit that I have made in the last few days. I have not responded by edit warring, each of my edits have been different each time. He just reverts without any edit summary. Astrotrain (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Each of your edits have been to remove your attempts to promote the Ulster Banner as a current flag for Northern Ireland which ceased to exist in 1973, you failed in the mediation on this issue to provide WP:RS to support your claim, dispite numerous sources being provided to show that it isn't and never was the flag of Northern Ireland.

On the talk page of tl:British flags I again ask for sources which you fail to provide, but continue to remove the Union Flag and replacing it with self made images to promote your POV, these are being reverted as WP:OR, remember this issue was subject to the Troubles arbcom, and one of the rulings of that was was to enforce WP policy on WP:RS on troubles articles, any editor in this of this and continuing to edit war is subject to blocks and the 1RR per week ruling.--Padraig (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that it takes two to edit-war, and "but he started it" isn't a valid defence anywhere. Black Kite 16:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite, I agree it takes two to edit war, but Astrotrain has continiously ignored requests to provide WP:RS on this issue, and engage in discussion, this was brought to mediation where he failed to provide RS to support his claims and continued to edit war throughout the mediation resulting in the mediation being abandoned due to his actions, and it was then made a part of the Troubles arbcom, which Astrotrain failed to take part in although he was a named party deciding instead to stop editing until the arbcom was finished, he is now starting again to edit war on a number of templates and articles to push his POV.

I have asked two admins to intervene on this issue over the past few days and both to date have failed to act, my edits have been to remove WP:OR inline with Wikipedia policy, and if you want to check Astrotrains block history he has had about ten blocks for edit warring on this issue and personal attacks against me and other editors.--Padraig (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In general, I agree; however, it looks like SirFozzie is not interested in intervening at the moment ([6]). I will try to help where I can; however, at the moment this might be limited to protecting articles that are causing problems. Black Kite 16:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it the case that no one can edit any of the flag articles without Padraig reverting them? The mediation effort failed because he would not compromise and his constant request for sources was dimissed. It cannot be the case that one user can stop images he does not like. Astrotrain (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about Astrotrain's editing on WP:TER. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh and FYI (now I've realised what your old account name is....) the 90.etc IP editor getting stuck in the edit war on the Northern Ireland Portal etc is this editor here, who's causing problems editing as an IP in various areas. If you need me to open a SSP case to prove it let me know.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. However, he is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Enforcement of this remedy is specified here.

Furthermore, the parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question, and are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. Please also note that the temporary injunction enacted by the Committee on February 3 in relation to this case now ceases to be in effect.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir

Would you be able to succinctly explain to me why Lir was baned? Cheers--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

FFS?

I like what you did here, but forgive me, what's FFS? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. In that case in was the perfect edit summary. I had a good laugh :) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Riana's request for bureaucratship

Dear Black Kite, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Christopher Mann McKay

I don't really object to this unblocking. Perhaps indef was too long but it seemed to me that having reached an impasse on WP:ANI over the use of that image, he was then upping the stakes by not only taunting User:Prester John (for whose stance I have equally little tolerance), but also adding an even more offensive caption to the original image. However, CMM seems to have realised that this sort of behaviour is not going to go down too well. Regards. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Collabedit

Should Collabedit be deleted? It seems non-notable especially since it's not even a month old... -WarthogDemon 23:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello! I have returned for a long wikibreak and i saw the improvements on Wikipedia! Wow! I'll get straight to the point, can i request rollback? --Lolipod (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you

Hi Black Kite! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1). I take all the comments to heart and hope I can fulfil the role of being an admin to the high standard that the community deserves. Seraphim♥ Whipp 17:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sub-articles for Eliot Spitzer

Before nominating them for deletion en masse, (which with regard to the surveillance controversy, and the electoral history, I think would be unwise for brevity's sake), would you be adverse to seeking a WP:3O prior to AfD? There was definite consensus for splitting the data into subpages. Perhaps the Early Life/Professional life articles can be merged into one, but the others, I believe, including: Electoral history of Eliot Spitzer, Eliot Spitzer drivers license controversy, Notable cases of Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, and Eliot Spitzer political surveillance scandal, merit their own sections. Mrprada911 (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. My only issues with merging the controversies into one article are that it might be difficult to follow (Troopergate, the licenses, the loan investigation, and the prostitution controversy are all separate), and it would create a long article again (25k, 15k, 5k, 20k), almost as long as the first. It would also create a giant controversy article, which I think is a bit WP:UNDUE if the controversy page is longer then the bio itself. See JamesMLanes comment on Talk:Eliot Spitzer. My preference would be to have them as separate daughter articles, perhaps we can elicit further comment on the talk page of the main article? Mrprada911 (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

sub-Planck

There is nothing to discuss; this is a legitimate physics topic that for some reason you and the other editors are clueless about and shoot on sight or confuse with the related Planck Scale pages.

You obviously know little or nothing about physics; all of you; I put down enough references to make you all happy. If you are seriously curious as to IF THIS IS LEGITIMATE get the two BRIAN GREENE books NOW, read them or at least look at the pages and pages of use of the word "sub-Planck" perhaps then after realizing that he is not reference to "Planck scale" objects, you will believe me.

It is just sick that 1 person who knows something -- me can be thwarted by editors who do not--what flaws I had writing the article should be improved by others instead of attacking as whitchcraft that with which you don't understand... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicman123 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Admiral (Honorverse)

Dear Black Kite, as addressed in this discussion, because the article has been merged, the deleted article should be restored and redirected to the article to which the information was merged. I'll note that in that discussion as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. We need to decide how best to handle this, as Help:Merge points out that any substantial copy requires that the source article be left around for GFDL compliance. I've proposed at the AN discussion (linked above) that we go one of three ways: 1) restore and redirect, 2) history merge or 3) selectively delete the merged material. I hope you'll weigh in there. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It's got nothing to do with the notability of the article. It has to do with GFDL compliance. In some way or the other, it has to be addressed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Re-reading your note, I'm surprised to note that you characterized this as an argument. I certainly intended nothing argumentative about my tone. I'm not upset. This is a simple issue of copyright compliance. I've wound up doing a whole lot more merging of articles than I would have ever anticipated doing, so I'm pretty familiar with the merge requirements at Help:Merge. If you haven't already read the AN thread on this, you might find it helpful. As Someguy1221 noted there, "copyright policy very clearly states that Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used when copying content to another website. I can't even imagine a logical argument that this can be ignored when copying content to another Wikipedia article." Merge policies require that article histories be retained for the sake of GFDL compliance. We either need to merge the history with the article that received the material; restore it as a redirect in the {{R from merge}} category, or delete the merged material so that the copyright violation no longer exists. We just can't leave it as it is, because we are in violation of our own copyright policies. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wait: it occurs to me from your revisions to your closure (which I just noticed) that maybe you didn't realize that the material had been merged, just not by you? It was merged on March 11th, right here, by User:Dougweller. He is evidently inexperienced in mergers and did not note his actions in the edit summary. (I've left him a note explaining how to do that for next time.) As you can see, this is a verbatim copy of the entire text of the article, except for the first sentence. This is why GFDL is a matter of concern. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely; tomorrow is soon enough. I'm sorry about real life issues, but glad to hear I'm not coming off as aggressive when I'm not meaning to. :) I share your concerns about leaving around the redirects. A history merge is also possible. I'm pretty good with those, if you decide to go that way and if you'd like me to do it. :) Trial and (my share of) error. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Anther P.S. I don't mean to imply that you are not good with history merges. You could be the master of them, for all I know, and laugh at my puny merge-fu. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. I raised concerns about this very issue during the AfD discussion. It would seem that by boldly merging during an AfD, a deleted result can be precluded per WP:GAME. User:Dougweller said he would remove the merged material if the result was delete; what happened with that? Same thing appears to have occurred with Tucker's kobolds. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  Maybe undo per Doug's (and my) comments at the AfD? Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  FYI, User:Dougweller has undone his merge of material from High Admiral (Honorverse) to Grayson Space Navy — at my suggestion. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  Okay, I've selectively deleted the versions of the article that contained the merged material to protect against accidental copyright problems by future restoration. For that reason, the redirect is good to go. I'll take care of it. If you would rather, feel free to undelete and redelete. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)