Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:02, 16 July 2006

8 July 2006

Template:unblockabuse

This was improperly speedy kept and I was threatened with a ban for reverting it, despite serious problems with the template. --SPUI (T - C) 16:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Speedy Keep per the speedy keep reasons --Digitalme 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Which of the Speedy keep reasons does it satisfy? --SPUI (T - C) 16:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to assume good faith on the nom, but based on your past record of trolling, I really cannot, so WP:IAR and WP:SENSE apply here. There was only one real delete vote, as the other just got kickbanned from #wikipedia for trolling. Even if the TfD had gone for the full 7 days, all you would have gotten would have been a pile on of keep votes.--Digitalme 16:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Holy crap, you really love to assume bad faith. --SPUI (T - C) 16:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Except he's still not wrong. If he didn't nominate this, I was going to, so if it helps you at all, assume I'm the one nominating it here for the sake of actual discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Reopen. Speedy keep was uncalled for. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - well within admin discretionary power. It is unlikely that the TFD would pass anyways. --WinHunter ^(talk) 16:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Speedy Keep per above. --Pilotguy 16:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Speedy Keep per above. --GHe 16:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, appears to have been an attempt at making a point of this. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To the last three: based on what? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've sat in the antivandal channels for a bit and watched all the unblock requests. Some are repeated, they add helpme requests (viewable in bootcamp), and basically try, on purpose, to make a nuisance of themselves in order to get unblocked. As SPUI stated in the TfD: There's no such thing as {{unblock}} abuse; that template simply lets admins know that the user is requesting to be unblocked. Readding it for a second opinion is not abusive. --SPUI (T - C) 15:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC). Well, there is. A second opinion is fine, but once you hit the tenth and are ignoring all the well-meant suggestions, then perhaps it's time to just sit back and wait for the block to be over. TfD ~Kylu (u|t) 22:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy keep because it was a silly nomination made by an editor with a known history of deliberate disruption, who is currently subject to two separate probation orders. Next silly nomination will lead to a brief ban from Wikipedia under his first probation until he stops. Continuation may eventually lead to a ban from xFD and WP:DRV under the first probation. --Tony Sidaway 16:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Early_closure Is the policy that I closed this under, whether the specific terminology of speedy keep is correct or not. pschemp | talk 17:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So because m,any people wrongly cited speedy keep, you decided to close it anyway? That doesn't mesh well with the deletion policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mind that the section you're citing says: "Any substantial debate, regardless of how lopsided the keep/delete count may be, implies that an early closing would be a bad idea." Haukur 19:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Per above. — Fire Fox 17:16, 08 July '06
Relist. Good faith nomination from a good contributor acting within policy and process to address what he saw as a bad thing. Does not meet any of the speedy keep criteria. Haukur 17:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: The time was very, very brief -- 20 minutes from listing to closing. If the keep voters are right, there really isn't any damage in letting the debate run. "Speedy keep" is a pretty blunt instrument, and, whatever the past interactions with SPUI, the debate ought to at least run for 48 hours. Give other time zones a chance to wake up, if nothing else. (My version of "speedy" keep, other than shocking WP:POINT or vandalism, is 24 hours. The earth is round, after all, and some folks eat.) Geogre 18:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Deletion nomination was deliberate disruption. Aren't I Obscure? 18:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What did it disrupt? What would have been disrupted by allowing the deletion discussion to run for a few days? Haukur 19:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nomination was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. It was the right decision to close it early and stop wasting people's time. SPUI has a long history of disruption and testing the patience of other editors. Aren't I Obscure? 19:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Disrupting Wikipedia to make a POINT means doing something you don't agree with to make a point about something else you don't agree with either. There's nothing like that going on here - SPUI nominated a template for deletion because he thought, well, that the template should be deleted. There's nothing disruptive about that, it's just our deletion procedure - if you think a page should be deleted you can make a proposal to that effect, if most people agree with you the page does get deleted. It's a good system and SPUI was using it exactly as intended. Haukur 19:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Let it run its course. This was done improperly and the only defense for the speedy keep seems to be "but SPUI gets on my nerves sometimes." Will it get deleted? No, probably not. But it should still run the standard course. JDoorj a m Talk 19:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't comment about SPUI's behaviour at all. This is my reason: "If a clear consensus for non-deletion is quickly reached, discussion may be closed before the end of the typical period." - I saw a clear consensus. The only opposition at the time was SPUI and a kooky person who edit conflicted me. The consensus by trusted editors was clear. pschemp | talk 20:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would this template have a realistic chance of being deleted? With the strong opposition I saw at the TFD (and here as well), I don't think so. As a result, it would be a pointless excercise in bureaucracy to relist it, so endorse close. Tito xd^(?!?) 20:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I feel there is some merit to having a discussion on the future of this tag --Improv 20:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist for deletion, and defrock abusive admins violating blockpol as it pleases them. -- Omniplex 23:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Speedy~~Deletion~~ Keep per above. Naconkantari 01:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep as that's what I originally meant. Naconkantari 18:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fail to endorse early closure but don't auto-relist. I think it's a pointless and possibly harmful template, but it doesn't look likely to be deleted. I also don't have a problem with anyone re-opening something closed early if they have talked to the closing admin first. The small edit-war over this did no one any favours, though. - brenneman ^{L} 03:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Endorse) speedy deletion, per Naconkantari. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 04:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure and keep. Clear consensus at TFD; SPUI seems to be campaigning against the protection of blocked users' talk pages (as also seen in a recent request for unprotection of all user talk pages!). This is really more a (de facto) policy decision than a TFD discussion; as such, it really doesn't belong at TFD. Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion? The TFD was closed as Speedy Keep.--WinHunter ^(talk) 06:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Argh. I meant closure and keep. Whoops. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relist The early closure was carried out far too hastily, less than an hour after the listing. There was strong support to keep, but let's give the rest of the planet who were still asleep at least the chance to comment. Will it get deleted? Probably not, but this should run at least part of the course fairly, openly and transparently. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother? The speedy keep was valid and this review is just process for its own sake. Timewasting. --Tony Sidaway 17:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above --Cactus.man ✍ 12:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relist - obviously, it's going to be kept, but that isn't the point. So often, the bad feelings all around are because the process just gets ignored. If you'd let the thing stay on TFD, you would still get the result you want (and, in this case as an added bonus, the right result), but you would have the added benefit of not ticking anyone off in the process. It doesn't do any harm to let the TFD run itself out, but closing it this early just causes hurt feelings. BigDT 18:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That it may have been improperly speedily kept may be true, but this would be most likely be kept, so let this debate serve instead. -- Avi 20:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relist -- why not? Let the discussion run its course. Dragomiloff 00:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. Yeah, it'll probably be kept anyway, but I find it's better to let the debate run its course (at least for a day or two) rather then close a debate that quickly. When things get rushed like that, it just serves to tick people off. BryanG^(talk) 08:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure and speedy keep Per Mr. Sidaway.--MONGO 10:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not relist, not necessarily endorsing closure. Further discussion would be pointless and too full of bad blood at this point. If someone who doesn't have a personal grudge against this template nominates this in good faith in a month or so, there should be no prejudice. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I dislike the idea of putting keep decisions on DRV. jgp (T|C) 10:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relist, process is important. - Mailer Diablo 05:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure WP:SNOW applies in cases of (near) unanimous keeps. Eluchil404 06:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW is unable to apply to anything, as it's not policy, guideline, or anything at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for twitting you but WP:SNOW is an essay which I feel express good advice for dealing with this situations and other clear keeps (not deletes). I could a longer expression of my views but why not link to a more coherent expression of them. Eluchil404 05:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Closure And stop the trolling altogether --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 16:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure, and shame on the people who are going along with this nonsense for the sake of process. Process is very much a garbage-in, garbage-out phenomena. --Cyde↔Weys 14:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freebord

I am not aware of the reason for deletion of this article, as it was a prod candidate. I object to the deletion based on the following two reasons: Firstly, there has been a timely and justified objection to the deletion, albeit by an anonymous user on the talk page. Secondly, because I can fully follow his arguments. Freebording is one of the most popular skateboard downhill sports, next to downhill longboarding, and imho deserves an article. -- Ravn 15:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a PROD; see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. There were five days to object to the deletion and nobody could be bothered. I personally couldn't care one way or the other; I'm just the guy clearing out the category. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 15:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not supposed to just "clear out the category", you're supposed to look at each article and only delete it if you think it should be deleted and you're supposed to provide an informative deletion summary stating your reasons. Your deletion summary was: "WP:PROD listings tagged since July 3, 2006" (WP:PROD: "If you agree that the article should be deleted, delete it giving an informative deletion reason, such as that given by the nominator, not just expired prod."). Haukur 10:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone objects to a prod, even after the deletion has happened, we undelete. If anyone still wants this deleted it should be taken to deletion review. Does anyone mind if I undelete this now and close the discussion? Haukur 17:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anons should be considered to have standing to object. --Improv 20:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - They can remove tags, though. It's supposed to be an easy system - add the tag, if it's disputed, the tag is removed or the article is undeleted. AfD is the next stepif it's to be pursued further. Hell, I missed this tag, so if you're unhappy with the anon's dispute, I'll toss my hat in there as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, there. If there is an objection, it goes to AfD, not article heaven, doesn't it? If you tag it for AfD, I have no objection. Geogre 18:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll undelete and make a procedural AfD nomination. Haukur 19:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Haukur 19:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The article is apparently just not that big or well-monitored that a change may not go unnoticed for five days. And judging from the content, I can perfectly understand that it can get proposed by accident by someone who is not familiar with the subject. -- Ravn 21:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was now out-of-process speedy kept in the corresponding AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reverted Mikkalai's improper speedy close. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_relationships_with_age_disparity

The List survived a vote for deletion, but someone deleted it anyway. It was a heated discussion, so someone may have become overzealous. All the links to it still exist in other articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 13:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2nd (slightly more recent) AfD here, where, just bean-counting, there does seem to be a consensus to delete. The second one did start only just over a week after the first ended though. Maybe they remembered to pay the "Inclusionist Wikipedians group" a kickback the second time around. --W.marsh 13:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, it wasn't "just deleted", it was AFDed and deleted. It looks like the AFD was conducted properly too (unlike the first AFD which was subjected to mass spamming of Inclusionists by the DRV submitter User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )). Anyway, I don't see any reason to overturn this AFD on the grounds of process and there's no new information. - Motor (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've notified Proto of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Having closed the first AfD (after someone else did, so I reverted myself), I think I'll just make a comment. I thought that spamming inclusionists to get this kept was extremely tacky. I didn't care either way whether this article is kept or deleted, but what I wanted to see was a real consensus for this article. The second AfD was nominated very soon after the first one, but it's not so bad for a "No consensus" AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Valid per process and per policy. Disparity of five to ten years? Perfectly normal in my parent's generation (1960s). This list would potentially cover vast numbers of "slebrity" second marriages. Just zis Guy you know? 19:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Conforms to process and consensus. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 15:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse deletion, improper DRV request, there was nothing out of process in the deletion. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as closer, I looked at the consensus, which was way obviously to delete. Therefore I deleted it. Speedy close if possible, as nothing out of process, or even questionable. Unlinke some of my other closes which make it to DRV, I didn't even have to assess the quality of comment or reasoning. Proto///type 15:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vokzal

Deletion out of process. User:Mikkalai deleted the article with its edit history and immedietely re-created it as a redirect (although, wrong). The deleted article's edit histery contained an informative version which should not be deleted without discussion. Besides, the article is necessary for describe Russian railroad transport features in numerous articles.--Nixer 09:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have notified User:Mikkalai of this DRV. --W.marsh 13:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restored. It is an ordinary Russian word that happen to have several translations. Railway station, bus station, riverboat station. If a user wants to describe Russian rairoad transport, they better write an article Railway stations in Russia. We don't create article magazin, gazeta (wow! who would have known there is one), khleb, kolbasa, palto, obschezhitiye, etc., to describe shops, newspapers, bread, sausage, coat, dormitory, although all these things have Russian peculiarities not found elsewhere in the world. `'mikka (t) 16:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The legend of how vokzal came to be the Russian word for station is one of my favourite urban legends. It's undoubtedly encyclopaedic, but seems to be adequately covered where it is. So endorse status quo, a reidrect to Vauxhall. Just zis Guy you know? 17:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nixer's article (I undeleted the history) is nowehere close to encyclopedic. "usually contains waiting room, cargo safe chamber, cafeteria, mother and child room and other facilities" there is nothing particularly Russian: almost every reasonably large railway station in the world has this. `'mikka (t) 18:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List on AfD: Let the voters have a crack at this. To me, it looks like a general dictdef, which is a violation, but let's let the folks decide. If it passes there, fine. If it doesn't, fine. (It hasn't had a shot on AfD, has it?) Dictdefs are not candidates for SD, so it has to go through the slower channel. Geogre 18:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Mikka is right: the deleted article was completely generic and actually less informative than the redirect. Just zis Guy you know? 19:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you, but this was contested. I think the end result will be deletion, which would effectively mean a redirect instead (as anyone can take that action), but we might as well satisfy the objectors so that they know that it isn't some Rouge thing. The user wants to see it get considered? Fine. We'll let him or her see what happens when it is considered, as I doubt it will be kind. Still, we could be wrong. Geogre 22:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The redirect into Vauxhall is not relevant. Better it should be redirected to Rail terminal rather then a borough of London.--Nixer 23:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no english word vokzal, so redirect to "train station" or "rail terminal" or whatever is utterly confusing. My redirect to vauxhall article at least puts the word into English context. `'mikka (t) 02:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word is used in numerous articles about Russian rail transport. So when a person follows the link, he expects the description connected to rail transport, but what does he see? An article about London's borough.--Nixer 09:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. The content of the article consisted of folk etymology and original research so typical for User:Nixer. Vokzal is the Russian word for train station, hence my redirect to that article was justified. This is English Wiki, so please use English. There is no characteristic by which Russian train stations differ from train stations in other countries so as to warrant a separate entry. A slightly different case is kurzal which may deserve an article for itself. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 21:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Russian vokzals differ from other Russial train stations, so it shoul be described.--Nixer 23:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This "popular etimology" is by linguist Lev Uspenskiy--Nixer 00:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you ever heard about telephone game? Your desription does resemble the one given in vauxhall article, but, oh, man... `'mikka (t) 02:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted as per Ghirla. We won't make pages for each Russian word if a page in English exists... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. KNewman 10:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and re-add redirect, preserving edit history. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 15:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know - Vokzal means a terminal station - the end of the line - an ordinary station is a stantsia Spartaz 16:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted per Ghirla. No need for a redirect. -- JHunterJ 17:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.
 -->
-====[[Brilliant prose]]====
-Does the history of this page ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Brilliant_prose deleted] 15 April 2006) show how [[Wikipedia:Featured articles]] or [[Wikipedia:Brilliant prose]] orignated? If there is any page history, other than the redirect, can it be undeleted for interest sake?--[[User:18413746|18413746]] 23:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
-:This does have some archaeological content. We can't really undelete in place since it's in the main namespace but I suppose we could undelete it and move it unto userspace. Where do you want it to go? [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 10:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
-:Ok. Someone can place it on my user page at [[User:18413746]]. Thanks. --[[User:18413746|18413746]] 18:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
-::I prefer putting it in Wikipedia space as [[Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/old]] or [[Wikipedia:Brilliant prose]] or something like that, or merging history with WP:FA, as that page was originally created by copy&paste'ing [[Brillant Prose]]. [[User:Eugene van der Pijll|Eugène van der Pijll]] 18:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn and hist-merge with [[WP:FA]]''' if what [[User:Eugene van der Pijll|Eugène van der Pijll]] says is correct, for copyright reasons. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 09:17, 10 July 2006 ([[User:ais523|U]][[User talk:ais523|T]][[Special:Contributions/Ais523|C]])
-*'''Merge history''' with [[Wikipedia:Featured articles]], the latest version before being redirected [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Brilliant_prose&timestamp=20020404140950 here] (admin-viewable only) clearly shows content that should be in the history. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 14:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-*Yes, 'tis true. Compare [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Brilliant_prose&timestamp=20020404140950 this] with  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_articles&oldid=47610 this] and we see that this was originally moved via cut-and-paste. We can now right what once went wrong and '''merge history'''. Good catch! :) [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 15:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-*I have moved the old edits (14:09, April 4, 2002 and earlier) from [[Brilliant prose]] to [[Wikipedia:Featured articles]] and merged the histories together. Additionally I have made [[Brilliant prose]] point to [[Prose]] instead. Recommend closing this discussion now. — <small>Jul. 11, '06</small><tt> '''[17:32] <<u class=plainlinks>[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freak]&#124;[{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} talk]</u>>'''</tt>
-* '''Overturn deletion and restore as redirect'''.  Even though we've taken the time to merge the page histories, there is still value in leaving the redirect around.  It catches any external links to the page from before the move and it directs the original users of the page to the right place.  The current redirect to [[prose]] seems inappropriate since the phrase is never used in that article and has no special meaning outside the context of the Wikipedia policy article.  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 02:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
-**I'd hesitate to say that it has any special meaning within Wikipedia anymore. Nobody refers to featured articles as "brilliant prose" unless they're being sarcastic (see [[Cool (song)]]) or outright trolling. I'm beginning to think the redirect should be deleted altogether. — <small>Jul. 13, '06</small><tt> '''[02:53] <<u class=plainlinks>[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freak]&#124;[{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} talk]</u>>'''</tt>
-***Brilliant prose has meaning to me ''outside'' of Wikipedia. I don't know how common the term is, however. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 13:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep closed as a redirect to [[Prose]]''', reinstating the cross-namespace redirect is unacceptable.  --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 14:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 ====[[Template:unblockabuse]]====