Talk:Adult Baby

Dear Mr. Brenermann, May I quote directly from Mr. Wales? "If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this may be evidence of a need for an article. Conversely, if an article is repeatedly nominated for deletion, this is not in and of itself evidence that it should be deleted even if there are valid concerns about the quality of the article. (Cleanup may be appropriate.) In some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete!"

I believe that says it all.

Yours,

Dave 03:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The removal of this redirect
Is an attempt to subvert the results of Votes for deletion/ABDL. I'm replacing it. brenneman (t) (c) 04:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. It's actually a direct quote from our benevolent dictator. And if you think that his own words are contrary to what you like, well, take it up with him directly.

By the by, you'll note that the article is NPOV now. There's no how-to involved. It's an actuial anthropological discussion. That makes it different from what was here before. Since it's that new, let's open it up again for public discussion.

Dave 11:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've taken the photo off and listed it as a possible copyvio.
 * I've listed this page on VfD.
 * (Use Dispute resolution or WP:AN/I if you want to complain.)

brenneman (t) (c) 01:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You seem to be taking this very personally, and I urge you to try and see this as neither a personal attack nor an expression of moral outrage. Please notice the word I've emphasised in your quote.  (Which it would be good to provide a source for, but that does sound like JW.). Oh, and I did laugh at you mangling my name because I mentioned it last time... ^_^ cheeky bugger.

Wrong again. Permission was secured by Todaler, the owner, prior to posting. So, I'm restoring it. Also, it is a direct quote from Jim. It's on the page covering the rules for deletion. You can read, can't you? Dave 01:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

brenneman (t) (c) 03:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Abrasive.
 * You have uploaded an identical image twice: Image:Daddy and ben (46).jpg and Image:Todalersleeper.jpg. I tagged one of the pair with copyvio, and removed the other from this page, not realizing that you had doubled the image.  I will not remove or tag this image at this time in an attempt to demonstrate good faith.  Please note that when an image has copyright embedded on the image the burden of proof is on the uploader.  In the event that you don't address the copyright question, I will add the appropiate tag to this copy of the image, remove it from the page, and place it on Copyright problems.  Does that seem fair?
 * Yes, I can read. It would be quite a trick to have typed all these words without being able to do so, infinite monkeys and all.  Since you were a bit vague, I found the phrase in question on Deletion policy.  It took a while, because I was looking for quotes from JW.  However, you'll notice in this diff that 62.49.153.193 actually was the first to add those words to this page.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.


 * Abrasive? Maybe. Accurate? Certainly.
 * Whatever. I included his email address so anyone who was curious about it could contact him and ask. Something that you could have done yourself without jumping the gun. I wonder if maybe you did this because you have soemthing against this community, and this is merely one of the many attempts you have made to remove all references to it. Given your repeated attempts to delete or pare down the pages referring to it, that would seem to be the case, wouldn't it? Want to know what sounds fair to me? You back off and quit trying to delete any and all references to this community, and I won't request that your profile be deleted for violating official policy. That sounds pretty fair to me.
 * Well, if you can read, why do you insist on violating official policy? Is it that you just don't care what the rules of Wikipedia are? Are you resorting to vandalism?Dave 12:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Infantilism
brenneman (t) (c) 14:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Per the outcome of Votes for deletion/Adult Baby, redirected to infantilism. As this article is currently planning a major re-write, no information has been merged at this time.  When the structure of the infantilism page is determined, information will be merged from history.
 * Please join the discussion on Talk:Infantilism to discuss this matter.