- G._V._Loganathan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Endorse nominating a verifiable article for speedy deletion. This is not a memorial09:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Despite strong opinions on both sides, admin called deletion discussion "a waste of time" and judged a "speedy keep". Clear violation of WP:CSK (see Cordesat's entry below). Besides lacking consensus for such a decision, at the very least we need much more time to discuss, and we must pay STRICT attention to users' opinions making sure that they are based on policy, not emotion. Pablosecca 21:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Give it the full hearing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure, despite being a recent victim, meets WP:BIO and is notable. More should be added about his work before death however. He is undoubtedly published extensively. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorta endorse the closure, in that this article really should never be deleted but redirecting it might be a good idea. Redirecting won't require an AFD though, so the AFD was pointless. Not meeting a specific notability guideline doesn't always mean delete, we should think merge/redirect first, if the person clearly exists and has media coverage. --W.marsh 22:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“**I could live with reopening but obviously I think people who want to delete are incorrect. I should really learn to just form opinions that can easilly be expressed in a bolded word or phrase huh? --W.marsh 22:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly worth an AFD now (see how easy it is to bold a phrase). Either he really was notable before the shooting, and given some time people will find sources to prove it, or he wasn't before the shooting, and given some time people will fail to find such sources. Once we know that, any AFD discussion will be significantly more likely to obtain consensus on that point, so that we can evaluate notability versus not a memorial. GRBerry 22:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure - He's published and at least marginally notable anyways.Bakaman 23:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure the result of the AfD discussion was a clear keep, and rightly so. Regardless of admittedly somewhat doubtful academic notability, he was the subject of at least two independent newspaper stories in major Indian media, and that makes him N. . We may need discussion of the N of any of the victims who do not become not subjects of independent news accounts, but the ones who are are N by the basic criteria. DGG 23:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn: Process not followed properly. Also, what would 2 or 3 more days of talking about it cost anyone? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 00:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. He is probably a notable academic, but the full process should be followed per MalcolmGin . --Crunch 00:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Simply being a murder victim is insufficient notability for an independent article. (It is sufficient for a redirect to the incident.) As for whether his academic achievements are sufficient is what AfD is there to determine. I personally think that the creation, the nomination for deletion, and the closure of the deletion debate were all done way too hastily. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd fully accept the article being kept, though I am opposed to it; However I think the salient issue that should be discussed here is whether it was appropriate to end the discussion early not whether the article should be kept -- especially in light of the fact that Jocelyne Couture-Nowak is still being discussed. The admin in question ended the discussion decisively. Pablosecca 02:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure I think that although he might not merit an Encyclopedia Britanica entry, he should not be removed from Wikipedia, which probably has a more extensive range. At this point in time, everything about the shootings should be posted, and that includes the histories of the victims' lives. I would reccomend incorporating an abbreviated version of this article into the main Virginia Tech Massacre article after the public interest in the matter has declined. Wikipedia is a significant source of information for most people, and should be able to provide that information when it is needed. 68.88.74.37 02:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Sarah[reply]
- Endorse Closure. Comment: I think one should not impose double standard as to keep Liviu Librescu article and delete article of the other deceased faculties. If this article is to be deleted, Librescu's article should be of the same standard, which should also be deleted. Moreover, I am sure the deceased faculties has contributed many things to the research and publications of his field, hence their Wikipedia entry will not be limited to only being one of the Vtech shooting victims. Therefore, considering both the faculties' scientific contributions as well as being one of the shooting victims, the all the deceased faculties can be considered as notable and deserve a place in Wikipedia. However, the same standard does not apply to the deceased students because they might not have contributed significantly to the scientific community, hence, their names should be in the VTech shooting article, but does not warrant an individual article for each of them. I hope my opinion can be considered. Chaerani 02:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure — this person like many other academics not yet on Wikipedia meets WP:PROF standards as a journal editor with extensive publications in his field. — Jonathan Bowen 02:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per nom. Librescu's article both shows significant lifelong achievement, as well as action during the massacre, and so is standalone in that respect. Chris 03:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure and keep this page. He was a well respected scientist with publications and an editorship to his credit, quite apart from his unfortunate, posthumous notoriety. - Peter Ellis - Talk 04:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong overturn and relist per nom, the speedy keep was invalid - per WP:CSK, if there are any substantial arguments for deletion, an article cannot be speedily kept nor an AFD speedily closed. This is not a case for IAR, and process should be followed here regardless of the circumstances. --Coredesat 07:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure and keep this page. As noted before, wikipedia is wide and should have all articles. It meant a lot for those who get inspiration from him. Guruparan18 11:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure and keep this page. Has turned out to be quite notable, the incident triggered the creation of the page. --MoRsE 12:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure He is notable as a scientist with publications and editorship.Lan Di 12:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn and list per nom. I don't think clear consensus has formed.SYSS Mouse 13:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure - as per Peter Ellis and Jonothan Bowen. Notable scientist with his puublications, etc., despite his death. JRG 13:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure even if it was done improperly, the result clearly will be same. Totally passes WP:BIO due to life's work Cornell Rockey 14:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure -- I agree with the decision to close the debate on deletion. I'm sorry, but this is sour grapes on the part of those who's only contribution is to request and argue for deletions. There was clear support to keep the article, and as one of the users trying to spend time actually gasp providing content to these articles it is a TOTAL and frustrating waste of my time to have to fight people who's only contribution is to question stubs. Wikipedia has plenty of stubs, why aren't there more frequent requests for deletion of stub articles? I think the answer is that once somebody has created a stub-class article that it is assumed that the author and others will slowly add to the article. Look at the history of edits of this article and my user contributions. You will see that I have been active on similar topics and have been here. Please give me time. MCalamari 14:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Outrageous out of process closure. Flavourdan 15:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn: while he's notable per WP:BIO IMO, and I'd vote to keep, there were enough opposing arguments that the debate should have ran its course. Krimpet (talk/review) 15:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Overturn per comments below. There seems to have been an overall kneejerk "delete them all!" reaction, which I don't regard as being in good faith. to any article related to anything having to do with the Virginia Tech massacre save the main article itself, regardless of the individual notability of the topic or individual covered in the prodded articles. It is clear from this article as it stands now that this man was notable per WP:BIO prior to his death, though granted the article could still stand expansion & improvement), & another AfD debate is simply a waste of time. The prodders have already wasted enough of our time. --Yksin 17:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote change -- per Core's comment below, I reviewed the procedures for Speedy Keep and must agree that no, the admin did not follow procedure, & should have seen the process out properly. All the same, I stand by everything else I said above, & hope we don't have to go through another AfD debate... but if we do, we do. --Yksin 19:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please keep in mind that this is not an AFD. The notability of the subject is not the issue here - the issue is whether process was properly followed. I urge the closing admin to take that into consideration when closing this DRV. --Coredesat 17:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-
- "Sublime" sources? Anyway, your decision to end the AfD discussion was not based on policy taking into account the controlling rule of WP:CSK. You abused your privileges as an administrator. Pablosecca 00:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is probably one of the most visited articles on Wikipedia, given the recent times. It was only sensible to close the AfD speedily, specially when good quality and reliable sources were available on the subject. Imagine what it looks like to the outside world when they try and visit one of the most visited pages on Wikipedia and see notices of deletion and deletion review for five continuous days. I don't have any habit of closing AfDs prematurely, so please don't give me that abused your privileges baloney. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I was extremely surprised that this was closed so quickly, especially after there was still such strong debate going on back and forth. I was also going to echo Coredesat's comments, that this is a discussion about the process of the speedy discussion closure, not whether the article should actually be deleted or not.Tejastheory 19:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Despite views on the actually article, policy does dictate that speedy delete should not happen when there is an equally opposed argument to the keeping of the article. Allow it another chance through the deletion process so that it can be decided properlly. --Jimmi Hugh 00:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. This DRV is a review of the AfD, which was speedy kept. How on earth did the decision fall under WP:CSK? The answer is it didn't. There was an obvious improper closure of the AfD, and it should be overturned and relisted for five days. Rockstar (T/C) 01:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse status quo without prejudice for two weeks - this series of articles is high visibility. Having AFD, TFD, DRV, Merge, and other templates on them is not a spectacular thing. --BigDT (416) 02:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good point, in all fairness to wikipedia we should not let such arguments blemish its face to the unediting pubic. I say we contact a clear headed admin immediately and have him delete all the unneeded articles --Jimmi Hugh 02:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good grief ... or just leave it like it is for a few weeks and confine all xFD templates to talk pages. Talk:Virginia Tech massacre is active enough that thousands of people will see any deletion notice - there is no need to clutter up encyclopedic space. This topic is different from most of our experience here. As a general rule, if something is high-visibility, we don't usually consider deleting it. But in this case, we are so we should keep those templates out of the article. --BigDT (416) 02:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist in two weeks or overturn outright Loganathan was prior to this of borderline notability, possibly meeting WP:PROF and full AfD will likely result in this article being kept. However, WP:MEMORIAL is highly relevant, and in general victims of tragedies are not notable for that alone. Furthermore, the standard coverage of victims due to their being victims is not generally considered sufficient sign of notability (see for example many precedents of articles about people killed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). In any event, the community needs to determine whether we wish to keep these as separate articles. BigDT also makes a good suggestion in that it is likely that a little while from now when we have more perspective and a bit less emotion involved things may turn out differently. However, in the meantime closing this AfD was grossly out of process, unhelpful, and if it stands will create a very problematic precedent which will drastically encourage problems of systemic bias. JoshuaZ 02:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by closing administrator: I strongly recommend that WP:MEMORIAL is reviewed. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered. I can assure everyone that the deceased subject of the article is neither an acquaintance of mine nor a relative. :) The subject, whether he received fame on his death, is not relevant for the encyclopedia, what is relevant, however, is the fact that he has received enormous coverage through various media outlets, the links to which are provided on the article itself. I believe that I applied IAR here, and to the right effect. The exercise was clearly pointless. Accusations of systematic bias sound like straw man arguments. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think that anyone is asserting that WP:MEMORIAL necessarily makes this article unacceptable. However, in general being a tragic victim is not enough to have an article. As I pointed out above, every single victim of a suicide bombing in Israel gets extensive coverage in Israeli newspapers, and you have corresponding levels of coverage of many Palestinians in the Arab press. I think everyone here agrees that such people don't merit articles. Therefore, notability should be justified at least to a large extent by the subject's academic work. It is not obvious at this time that this is feasible. As to the matter of a "strawman" argument- I'm a bit confused by what you mean by that. As strawman argument means making a caricature of an argument and arguing against that rather than the actual argument. I don't see how the comment about systemic bias fit into that category. Do you mean that you find it to be a weak or unpersuasive argument? JoshuaZ 16:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Brrr, need to read that article often. Red herrings and strawmans give me a headache. :P I would like to see some precedents, please. Did the Israeli victims get the same kind of coverage that Loganathan's death triggered throughout the world? BTW, his story has appeared in CNN, BBC, Rediff.com, The Times of India and the Indian Express. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure and Keep this page. This guy is now an important person. Effer 02:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No. Dying doesn't in general make you notable. Dying in a tragedy doesn't make you notable. This is long standing precedent, and it would be an extreme and unhealthy form of systemic bias to make an exception simply because the associated event happened to be large and occur in the country that many editors reside. JoshuaZ 02:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually there is no 'correct' opinion here, despite how this is argued. In some cases dying in a tragedy does make one more notable. The example that has been brought up before are the Shuttle Astronauts (sadly you can pick your shuttle). Granted, most of them would have had their own articles being astronauts, the scale of this event clearly has generated an interest in hearing about the people whom were most effected by this event. Few people are arguing that the holocaust survivor (I call him that, as I feel that is a factor in his popularity) does not merit an article, but there is really no difference between the next tier which includes Loganathan and Granata. I believe Granata's article is not being subjected to this same degree of scrutiny because his current article had more user contributions at the time that a few users called for speedy deletes on all the VTM stubs. While this "debate" is about a procedure, people are forgetting that the speedy delete debate on Loganathan was ~36 to keep compared to ~14 delete on Loganathan at a time where Granata's discussion was much more in favour of keep. I strongly believe that had Loganathan's family life been better detailed that the vote would be even more lopsided towards keeping. The admin's decision seemed to suggest this. MCalamari 06:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist in two weeks. This guy isn't notable, but an AFD right now would simply be overrun by people who are ignorant of wikipedia policy and are trying to eulogize him. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and in two weeks we can reopen the AFD and probably get rid of the article once everyone has gone. Titanium Dragon 02:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant argument. The person is clearly notable as per WP:BIO. Is there anyone who can deny this? The subject's life is also being detailed in various obituaries released throughout the world, and especially, the Indian media. Whether any subject becomes notable on birth or death is no concern of Wikipedia, as long as there are multiple, non-trivial and independent sources available on the subject. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can deny that he is notable. If you read WP:BIO, you find the sentence "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." While the coverage for Loganathan may not have been trivial, it is strictly incidental. The Oxford English Dictionary defines incidental as " 1. a. Occurring or liable to occur in fortuitous or subordinate conjunction with something else of which it forms no essential part; casual." This individual's notability is subordinate to the narrative of the tragedy at VTech. OED, QED. Pablosecca
- I think you have refuted your own argument by citing the definition of "incidental". The death of the subject, at the V. Tech. is in no way a non-essential part of the tragedy, or something you can term as casual. There is no denying the fact that Loganathan became a very well-known figure after the shootings – the sources speak of more than his death in the article pages dedicated to him over newsprint and other media. The biography article is "a credible independent biography"; the subject has "a wide name recognition", has "multiple features in credible news media".
- Also, you have conveniently overlooked his contributions as an academician, which are available on Google Scholar – [1]. Hence fulfilling the requirements for notability as per WP:PROF.
- By your interpretation, perhaps, you would be also inclined to say that the perpetrator of this crime, Cho Seung Hui, is not a notable subject, per se; just because the coverage on him and his conduct is strictly incidental to the fact that he was a mass murderer at the Virginia Tech. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Acegikmo1 19:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy overturn and relist for four more days - The AfD as closed early does not meet Wikipedia:Speedy keep. No substantial arguments have been provided in this DRV to establish that the AfD meet the Wikipedia:Speedy keep requirements. The speedy keep closer admits that the close did not meet Wikipedia:Speedy keep[2]. Failure to relist speedily will disrupt the validity of the ongoing AfD. -- Jreferee 20:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse without prejudice to a proper discussion a week or month when (sad to say) everyone but his friends and family will have forgotten him entirely. Clearly impossible to have an impartial discussion about him at this point. —Cryptic 20:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure and KEEP article is informative and is on a notable prof. --Grubb 21:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure and KEEP article is informative and is on a notable prof -- RaveenS 23:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Err... I'm a bit confused about those last two votes... Rockstar (T/C) 23:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm beginning to wonder if votes were canvassed here, actually. --Coredesat 00:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I gullible to suspect that Grubb and RaveenS are the same person? I am ignorant as to how to check. Pablosecca 00:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Looks like that's not the only thing I'm ignorant of. ;) Pablosecca 04:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Pablosecca. Since RaveenS and Grubb both are long term contributors, RaveenS is a significant contributor with over 5,000 edits, and the only page both RaveenS and Grubb have ever contributed to is this page, you might want to strike your 00:44, 21 April 2007 post. -- Jreferee 02:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to have caused the confusion by voting the same way as some body elese but bottom line, those who know me, know all my massacre series articles that I have created and all categories that I created for massacres by country, so naturally I will gravitate towards a major massacre of this century in North America. To insinuate that I was canvanced to come here is also totally wrong and should be striken off. Thanks RaveenS 23:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure Perfectly verifiable. Qjuad 00:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure and keep. As the article states, Loganathan has published at least 62 research papers, almost all in peer-reviewed journals. He is hardly a minor academic, so I can't see why he isn't notable enough to warrant an article. Further, his colleague Kevin Granata's article was kept. --Buyoof 05:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment well given that THAT article was closed after only 7 hours of discussion (not even a full 24-hour cycle for people to log online!), I don't think that the "keep" decision there was very valid either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tejastheory (talk • contribs) 06:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment I think those are key points, and I'd like to suggest that the merit of this article and also the speedy deletion decision be consistent with that for the Granata article. There are a number of similarity in the articles between the two, though I find it troubling that people have tagged this article for deletion. MCalamari 21:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I note that the article now mentions that he won the American Society of Civil Engineers' (ASCE) annual Wesley W. Horner award in 1996 for his research. I quote from the ASCE's website: "The award is made to the author(s) of the paper that makes the most valuable contribution to the environmental engineering profession" [3]. I think we should all take a step back from this debate and look at G.V. Loganathan as an academic - IMHO, I think all the given evidence meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. I was a little uncomfortable with the speedy closure of the original deletion discussion (which I'm sure would have ended up as a 'keep' anyway), but I don't think there's any point having this discussion now... --Buyoof 13:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave it alone for a few weeks and relist then, if it's still called for. Some people do become notable due to being a crime victim, we certainly have articles on Elizabeth Smart and Amadou Diallo, and I don't think anyone would seriously consider deleting those. Let's let the issue settle a bit, and in a few weeks we can generate a lot more light with a lot less heat. Right now, it's too up in the air. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure and keep this page per Guruparan18 --Rita Moritan 13:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn It is for the community to decide whether the debate is a waste of time, not for one person who jumps in to close a debate prematurely. Brandon97 20:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was under the impression that decisions for deletion were not based on a democratic vote, but rather on the quality of the arguments provided. However, had the debate been allowed to continue, the 2:1 margin against the speedy deletion would likely have continued. Essentially there were ~36 people who wanted the stub-class article to survive just like countless thousands of other stub-class articles, which is contrasted by the ~14 who wanted the stub deleted (some of these people even have admitted that the article in question passed WP:PROF). MCalamari 20:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AfDs are decided on consensus, unless the consensus is wrong (like speedy keeping an article when it does not fit under the CSK). DRVs, on the other hand, are often decided using a majority. Rockstar (T/C) 21:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you really think there was going to be any consensus reached to delete the article when over 2/3 of those replying were opposed to a speedy deletion of a stub article? Is not the point of a speedy deletion process to see if there is overwhelming support one way or another in a short timeframe? I'd call a supermajority of opinions reason enough to not do a speedy delete. MCalamari 21:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, the article doesn't fit the criteria of CSD, but the early closing of the AfD did not fit the criteria of the CSK. The DRV is a review of the AfD, which ended in "speedy keep," obviously a mistake by the closing admin. Rockstar (T/C) 22:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - I voted to keep the article, but it doesn't seem to merit a speedy keep. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 03:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Closure and Overturn - Let me clarify. I fully agree that this article should never have been nominated, under WP:PROF, BUT I disagree with the admin in question's judgment in speedy closing the AFD of a controversial article. It should have been given more thought and allowed to run it's course. Also, from the comments on the page, it should have been closed under No Consensus, not Keep or Speedy Keep... Unless we're going to create Speedy We Can't Decide. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 04:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave it alone for a few weeks, and relist per Seraphimblade. Textbook case of recentism - emotions are raw right now, let's let the dust settle a little. – Riana ऋ 12:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn; deserves full hearing, as is taking place with pages on other VT victims --Mhking 15:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- as above, Endorse closure and KEEP: article is informative and is on a notable prof. --Vince |Talk| 19:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Closure It's too early to determine if the articles should be deleted just yet, especially given the emotional resonance still in play. A more neutral evaluation of their worth can be made in a few months, once the articles have had a chance to be fully fleshed out. GarryKosmos 21:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Closure And I don't understand when people complain ONLY for process reasons. As a result of our own obsessions with bureaucracy, this highly visible article is decorated with a large ugly box... Please note that WP:PROCESS is merely an essay, while WP:IAR is official policy! If you have any real non-internal non-bureucratic non-masturbational objections as to why this admins action has harmed Wikipedia, then please present them. Thank you! --Merzul 01:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|