| Revision as of 19:30, 5 August 2008 editA Nobody (talk | contribs)53,000 edits spelling← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:30, 5 August 2008 edit undoNandesuka (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,890 edits →Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of CogsNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| ==]== | ==]== | ||
| Given the compelling arguments to at least redirect, could you please undelete the edit history and redirect? Plus, the nomination rationale was not policy based, but were arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: ] and ]. Even others arguing to delete indicated that the material is covered elsewhere (i.e. valid redirect location) or in their subsquent comments said they agreed with a redirect. As the article was not a copy vio, hoax, or libelous, i.e. there is nothing dangerious in its edit history, we can undelete the edit history, but allow for a protected redirect as suggested even by those arguing to delete. Thanks! --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, ]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | Given the compelling arguments to at least redirect, could you please undelete the edit history and redirect? Plus, the nomination rationale was not policy based, but were arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: ] and ]. Even others arguing to delete indicated that the material is covered elsewhere (i.e. valid redirect location) or in their subsquent comments said they agreed with a redirect. As the article was not a copy vio, hoax, or libelous, i.e. there is nothing dangerious in its edit history, we can undelete the edit history, but allow for a protected redirect as suggested even by those arguing to delete. Thanks! --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, ]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| : The consensus on that page clearly was against a redirect, and "cogs" is far too generic a term to redirect to ]. Kind regards, ] (]) 19:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
Revision as of 19:30, 5 August 2008
Archives: Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Cogs
Given the compelling arguments to at least redirect, could you please undelete the edit history and redirect? Plus, the nomination rationale was not policy based, but were arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT. Even others arguing to delete indicated that the material is covered elsewhere (i.e. valid redirect location) or in their subsquent comments said they agreed with a redirect. As the article was not a copy vio, hoax, or libelous, i.e. there is nothing dangerious in its edit history, we can undelete the edit history, but allow for a protected redirect as suggested even by those arguing to delete. Thanks! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- The consensus on that page clearly was against a redirect, and "cogs" is far too generic a term to redirect to Toontown Online. Kind regards, Nandesuka (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Female genital cutting
I'm curious as to why you chose to archive this discussion a full two minutes after my last comment? Am I to take this as a sign you are no longer willing to discuss the issue? Blackworm (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)