User talk:AfD hero

Welcome!
Hello, AfD hero, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! TomStar81 (Talk) 10:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

My RfA
Hi. I would just like to clarify my comments in the RfA. I am aware of that not every rule should be written down, as there is a need to avoid instruction creep. I did acknowledge this in question 6 of my last RfA. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left a reply. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

thankspam
Thanks for your !vote in support of me. It sounds like you think a lot like I do. Love the name, too.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 14:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Aamir Malick
You're right. If this guy did English language stuff he probably wouldn't have been up for deletion, because people would've been able to find sources about the guy themselves. If you want to save the article, providing a few references is going to be more effective than just complaining about perceived bias. - Mgm|(talk) 16:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In notability discussions, it is important to consider not only what sources can be found, but also the probability that sources exist. Systematic bias is a real problem, I hope you will take it seriously. AfD hero (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Arborscuplture
As there is a dispute about what photos should be allow represent Arborscuplture. I've undone the addition of the photo that you added. Blackash (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, I disagree at the moment, where can we discuss your major change to the arborsculpture page ? Reames (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk:Tree_Shaping is probably the best place for discussion. I understand you advocate the term Arbosculpture, whereas Blackash advocates different terms. In wikipedia, it is of the utmost importance to take a Neutral Point of View. This means we simply catalog all sides of the issue, mention the controversy over naming, and leave it at that. We do not enforce one side over another. Since, as far as I can tell, the term "arbosculpture" is not universally agreed upon in the tree-shaping community or the media, I moved the page to the more generic name "tree shaping". I think this is solid reasoning, but I would also like to hear your side of the story. But first lets take this to the Tree Shaping talk page. AfD hero (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

[1]       Recommendation: "Artist Peter Cook sitting on a tree sculpture" I've change it to Artist Peter Cook sitting on a tree shaping. Maybe it would better to say Artist Peter Cook is sitting on a shaped tree? The reason I don't like sculpture, is it translates poorly and if you look it up in the dictionary it means to carve or carve away. The word sculpture originates from the Latin word sculpere, which means "to carve". So to minimise confusion I think it would be better to leave tree sculpture out of the page. Blackash (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Thank you for the recommendations, I made the changes as you suggested except this one below.
 * Latin roots aside, sculpture has come to mean more than just carved things in current language. For example, a lot of sculptures in modernism art are constructions of objects rather than carvings. Its not a big deal though, and your wording (tree shaping) looks good. AfD hero (talk) 12:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm still learning about how to word things and appreciate your help. Blackash (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought I read that it was considered bad form to solicit outside Wikipedia for opinions, but I can't seam to find it. Clarification of policy please. I will be contributing to the tree shaping page but wanted to learn more about the guidelines first. Reames (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Canvassing is the term you describe, and can be either good or bad depending on how it's done. On one end of the spectrum, soliciting the opinion of an expert is fine and perhaps even encouraged (if done in an unbiased manner). On the other end of the spectrum, getting a bunch of your friends to all vote a certain way is meatpuppetry which is frowned upon. I would highly discourage you from going around accusing people of meatpuppetry, as it is not constructive and only serves to inflame a situation. AfD hero (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes "meatpuppetry" does sound extremely inflammatory, it's just curious to me that three new opinions of people (who I highly regard and respect and know personally) who have no contrabutions to Wikipedia, just arrived at the discussion as if they were "cherry picked" for their opinions that do not align with mine. I hope that is not considered an accusation, but more like a observation.Reames (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear to everyone what happened, but don't worry about it. Just assume good faith and act accordingly. AfD hero (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Umm I thought I'd make a comment about this idea. When we first starting the discussion on the Arborsculpture talk page we send out a email to people that had subscribed to pooktre (about 500), we stated that we had issue with the branding of Arborsculpture and where we would be talking about it. So that anyone on our list was free to follow the discussion and comment as they wished. Blackash (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Tree Shaping
Hi, Some advice please. I've done a citation on the tree shaping page. When giving the reference for the information that has had a citation asked for, how much information do I need to give. I've given the title, author and page no, in a reference No. Is that all? or something else? Thanks Blackash (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The particular form of the citation is not really very important. The basic principle is to put in enough information so that an interested reader could find the source if they wanted to. The exact style guide is here: Citing_sources. You could also look at some featured articles to see how they do things there. This is all really unimportant, however. The point of the tag is that 1) some parts of the article are not backed up by a reference, and 2) it would be good to have more references in general. The style issues are secondary. AfD hero (talk) 08:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU
AfD hero, thank you for taking the time to comment on the request for comment Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction). I am happy that you also see how important this guideline will be, since it will determine the inclusion or exclusion of television character and television episodes. I agree with you, SoWhy, Smarshall, MichaelQSchmidt, and Townlake that it is more needless "bureaucracy". Ikip (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've watched over the years, mostly anonymously, as the project devolved, one guideline at a time, one AfD at a time, into the bureaucratic political mess that it is now. I look at what's going on and I see little kids running around kicking over the new kid's sandcastle. Wikipedia is probably too far gone to save at this point, which is really sad because I actually remember the feeling of collaboration in building something great, which everyone had when the project first started. AfD hero (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Its too late to save wikipedia, but it is sure fun being david among goliaths, and slicing off giant toes!
 * See our fight at: Wikipedia_talk:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation, notice how so many journalists universally agree with you!
 * In fact, the absolute best piece on wikipedia is excerpted here, and quotes you almost verbatium:
 * In the fall of 2006, groups of editors went around getting rid of articles on webcomic artists—some of the most original and articulate people on the Net. They would tag an article as nonnotable and then crowd in to vote it down. One openly called it the "web-comic articles purge of 2006." A victim, Trev-Mun, author of a comic called Ragnarok Wisdom, wrote: "I got the impression that they enjoyed this kind of thing as a kid enjoys kicking down others' sand castles." Another artist, Howard Tayler, said: "'Notability purges' are being executed throughout Wikipedia by empire-building, wannabe tin-pot dictators masquerading as humble editors." Rob Balder, author of a webcomic called PartiallyClips, likened the organized deleters to book burners, and he said: "Your words are polite, yeah, but your actions are obscene. Every word in every valid article you've destroyed should be converted to profanity and screamed in your face."
 * Ironically, the book that this author is reviewing, The Missing Manual, I fought in the Articles for deletion argument. Ikip (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also see: User:Ikip/AfD on average day showing that the majority of articles which are deleted were created by new users. I am going to expand this a lot. Ikip (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue of notability has caused a lot of harm to wikipedia, but it is only a side-effect of a growing culture of bureaucracy and mindless rule following that has crept into the project. There are rules and tests for every contingency in every subject. People can go vote in an AfD without doing the slightest research to figure out what the article is even about; without making an honest evaluation about whether it adds or detracts from wikipedia on the whole. Just zone out and see if it meets a few checkboxes. And people actually think this is a good thing. Deletion should not be easy. It should be a painful and messy process where everyone considers every possible aspect.
 * One of the great genius aspects of wikipedia is the inherently local nature of editing decisions - what works for one article frequently does not work for another article, and so editors consider each situation in context, keeping in mind only a few general guiding principles. Whereas that philosophy would never work in most traditional media, the wiki technology made it possible, and ushered in wikipedia's golden era from start to around mid 2006. The early members understood this, which is why we placed such great emphasis on ideas like "ignore all rules", "avoid instruction creep", "wikipedia is not a bureaucracy", "wiki is not paper", etc. Now with tons of global rules and strict following of guidelines, we are destroying one of the things that made wikipedia so great. AfD hero (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful argument

 * Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Individual_Space_Ghost:_Coast_to_Coast_episodes

I love it. Ikip (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Improper close of Space Ghost Episodes AfD
Just because you feel the closure was the wrong one doesn't mean it actually is :) I should point out that AfD isn't a vote, and consensus is not determined by counting heads but by the strength of arguments; one good argument is worth a score crappy ones. As I noted in closing, the nominator's point that they failed to meet WP:FICT is moot, as FICT is still proposed. Thus, the episodes must meet Television episodes/WP:GNG, as these episodes did not, thus qualifying them for outright deletion. I heeded the feeling that a list of episodes was at the bare minimum necessary and allowable, and as WP:LISTS is a bit nebulous I see no reason why some of the content could not exist in such a streamlined list form, in agreement with WP:ATD. You are correct, I would rather someone proposed on the talk pages to simply merge the articles into a list rather than bringing it to AfD, but that doesn't mean such decisions cannot and are not hashed out via deletion discussions. Also, I'm not seeing how I'm not impartial in this case; I have never heard of Space Ghost other than minor mentions before, and my only possible connection to the AfD (my work on crafting WP:FICT) doesn't amount to anything as it's not admissible as a guideline and I disregarded that argument. Cheers. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I somewhat agree with AfD hero. The problem in that discussion is that not all of those episodes are of the same "notability".  Whereas the others on the list can arguably be considered in the same context, Baffler Meal is absolutely not in the same league as the others, because it is the first appearance of the Aqua Teen Hunger Force and even appears on additional DVD releases than the Space Coast episodes (i.e. on the Auqa Teen DVDs).  That episode thus is notable in comparison to other Space Goast episodes because it is perhaps the lone Space Ghost episode to appear not just on the Space Ghost DVD release, but also on the Aqua Teen DVD release as a special feature, for being the first appeareance of characters in a franchise that spawned a video game and theatrically released movie, and as such is covered in a variety of secondary sources as a result.  Thus, no real opinion on the merges for the other episodes; however, "Baffler Meal" absolutely is a stand out episode that merits its own article and that does indeed have real potential for further improvement.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet no one brought concrete evidence of any of the episodes meeting WP:EPISODE or WP:GNG. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Had I a chance to comment in the AfD (I usually work on my arguments off-wiki before posting), I would have pointed to the Google News and Google Books results from which we can write the article in a manner that discusses its importance and reception. Further proof of why five days in insufficient on a project with no deadline.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then spin out the proper *single* article that meets the GNG and add the references. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This sort of thing is why editing decisions like merging are better made on the talk page than in an AfD. AfD hero (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully agree, but unfortunately either no one actually comments on the merge until it goes to AfD or some people just figure AfD's good enough for that role. AfD as cleanup is a longstanding issue which I don't think will ever be fixed. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but there is no deadline to get it right. Anyways if you suggest a merge on the talk page and no-one responds within a week or so, then its like anything else - you just be bold and merge it. Problem solved right there, and without the contentiousness of an AfD. AfD hero (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If only that simple--it's often when the article is merged that people come out of the woodwork screaming. Such is the wiki, I suppose. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouTube cat abuse incident
I take strong exception to your posting on the above page. Mentions of 4chan in users responses at that page were roughly evenly associated with keep and delete comments. Your poorly spelled accusation of hypocrisy was unjust, unwarranted and reflects little more than (I presume) the poor assumptions under which you labour. I respectfully counsel you to keep comments on your views on other editors under much better control than you managed to do on this occasion, and to start respecting that others may hold views that differ from yours without there being some flaw in the personalities of those others. On no account does wikipedia exist to support the publication of views such as you expressed. You should be ashamed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My remark was absolutely appropriate. Please see my response on the AfD page. AfD hero (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tagishsimon: You really ought to calm down and be civil with other editors. Your arrogance is impressing nobody. WikiScrubber (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for YouTube cat abuse incident
An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouTube cat abuse incident. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WikiScrubber (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I figured that to withdraw would have been controversial but also figured that someone could recreate the article if they wanted to, referring back to not one but two essentially "no consensus" outcomes. The sticking point for me is the international coverage it received... and the sheer scale of the coverage (internet, paper, tv)... though there are elements of "man bites dog". Anything historically notable will have follow up coverage so if even one article appears now then that should be enough. WikiScrubber (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have salvaged what I could from the Google Cache and inserted it here: Internet_vigilantism where it can be looked after by the existing article editors. WikiScrubber (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Eh, I have a habit of automatically hitting edit -> ctrl+s for all articles I bother to participate in AfD's for, and there are many sites out there now that have scripts to automatically archive any articles that shows up on AfD, so getting the material is not really a problem. It's more of a structural thing to me - of admins not respecting concensus - than it is about this specific article. AfD hero (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you. AfD hero (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Tree shaping
Hi I having a bit disagreement with Slowart (Reames) on the tree shaping page. There is a paragraph that he wants deleted. It is about the Controversy exists.... paragraph part of the Arborsculpture. I belive that it should stay. I have changed it to take out the personal reference to Reames. I think it gives a balanced point of view. But he disagrees. I'm not sure what I should do next. Thanks Blackash (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually like it better with that sentence removed. It was basically redundant to the first sentence, which reads Some artists such as Reames use the word Arborsculpture to describe tree shaping in general, whereas other artists use the term to refer to a particular style of tree shaping.. AfD hero (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The sentence that is in dispute, it's trying to make a different point than the leading sentence. But as I'm not a very good writer, maybe that point I was trying to make isn't coming across.:-(. Please bear with me and I'll try to explain the point.
 * That Richard Reames activealy uses other peoples work to represent Arborsculpture to promote his shaping methods. Effectively branding other artists work as his own. Regardless of their feelings on the subject.
 * Quote by Richard Reames, "Arborsculpture methods are any method any artist brings to the art form."

Here are some links I created this site becuse of the branding issue. This will give you an idea how small this artform really is. This is all the information that I could find online about anyone who shaped trees. There are only 19 known people, I also have a page for unknown shaped trees. There are 3. Before this site went live, I contacted everyone by email and ask for corrections and changes. Which most of them did, including Richard Reames. With out exception everyone has their own name for their art. The only person that has tried to name other people's trees has been Richard Reames.

 Here is a recent blog about Arborsulpture which shows John Krubsack chair and Quote
 * "To learn more about arborsculpture and Reames' techniques, or to sign up for one of his classes, or purchase his most recent book, "Arborsculpture- Solutions for a Small Planet," check out his website or  his blog"

This is a recent forum with the same misunderstanding. That Richard Reames's methods are how other people shape their trees. These couple of samples illustrate our point.

This is Richard Reames website.(No summary, I don't want to sway your view.) A effective brand leads back to a single source. If you put Arborsculpture into Google the links lead back to Richard Reames's web site. Blackash (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Can wiki talk page be use as a citation source? Can an email be used? Blackash (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The point you are trying to make may be true, but it is not appropriate for the tree shaping article. This article is about tree shaping, not Reames actions. And even if it were relevant, your point might be reasonably contested, so we would need to cite a reliable secondary source. That means something like a newspaper article written by a neutral 3rd party that discusses the controversy specifically. AfD hero (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I also checked about citations on the help desk page, a couple of editors there also helped to clarify for me about citations. Now I've removed the sentence. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackash (talk • contribs) 14:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Fabrictramp |  talk to me  20:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please give an opinion
Hi please go to Tree shaping talk page [] and give your opinion. I have also asked two other editors (Rror and HelloAnnyong) for their opinion. Both who had also done some editing. Blackash (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to Move: Tree shaping to Arborsculpture
Tree shaping article has undergone a series of mayor changes in the last few days. Here is the page before and now Duff has now proposed to change the article's name from Tree shaping to Arborsculpture. If you are interested please come and comment on Talk:Tree shaping. I am contacting everyone who has edited about arborsculpture Blackash   have a chat 08:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)== RfM on Tree shaping->Arborsculpture ==

Hello. You may want to ring in on the RfM survey at Tree shaping->Arborsculpture RfM at some point during the next seven days. Blackash  have a chat 10:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

RfM on Tree shaping->Arborsculpture
Hello. You may want to ring in on the RfM survey at Tree shaping->Arborsculpture RfM at some point during the next seven days. Blackash  have a chat 10:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC:

tree shaping discussion

 * Dear blackash,
 * It is clear that you are passionate about the subject and want your voice to be heard. However, I would request that you take a short break from talk:tree_shaping and allow other less personally involved editors to continue the discussion. Maybe relax and shape some trees or something. I can't order you to do anything, but please take this into consideration. AfD hero (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi AfD hero,
 * I've made a short comment to Vegaswikian about the title. I was going to reply to Slowart and Martin, but after reading your comment, I realised my reply would be just going over the same old ground again. So I won't bother. Thank you for reminding me that I need to think before commenting. I'll comment if I have new stuff to add and not just rehashing old stuff I've already said. Thanks again. Blackash   have a chat 10:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge of Redefinition_of_the_Metre_in_1983
Based on your user name, I wonder if you are interested in joining in this discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam
Thanks for your support at my RfA, which has been closed as successful. I hope my future actions will alleviate any concerns you may have. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Slowart COI
. Hi, Thanks for coming and talking at COI. I feel your comments leaves out/is not quite right. First when you moved the page from Arborsculpture to Tree shaping it didn't lead to any one artist, which is not clear in your comment. I have suggested other alternatives for the title eg Tree training, but it sounds to me, like you think we pushing to have the title as Tree shaping. We don't care what the title is as long as it not linked to a method or only leads to one artist. I've just goggled tree shaping Pooktre doesn't turn up until the 4th spot. If fact an interview about Richard is third. Blackash  have a chat 10:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

When I search for it, reames site isn't even on the first page. See the screenshot. I'm not going to comment on the motivations any further since I can't know what you are thinking. All I can say is that as it stands the name seems to be benefiting you whether you like it or not. AfD hero (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, its great seeing a screen shot of someone else's google, Thanks. I don't see www.treeshapers.net though. I searched my Google results and after 10 pages I didn't find www.treeshapers.net and I give up. Blackash  have a chat 10:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Good capper on the noticeboard, I always though it was just a fluke that you changed the title to Tree shaping. Did you know it was Pooktres desired term at the time ? And how the change was presented as evidence that real name was tree shaping, as consented to at Wikipedia?Slowart (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not know at the time. However, I still think it's the best of many bad options. I've always been open to other possible names (haven't seen a better name so far..), but returning to arborsculpture is unacceptable as far as I'm concerned. AfD hero (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Addendum: My comment was in regards to naming the wikipedia article so as to present a neutral point of view. In the "real world" I don't have any problem with the term "arborsculpture". AfD hero (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration Tree shaping
Hi, Martin Hogbin has requested Arbitration for myself and Sydney BlueGum. I'm contacting you to let you know I've mentioned you in my reply. Blackash  have a chat 01:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Arbitration case regarding tree shaping
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio  Let's talk about it! 10:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping
An arbitration case regarding Tree shaping has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) The topic covered by the article currently located at Tree shaping, interpreted broadly, is placed under discretionary sanctions.
 * 2) User:Blackash is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year . The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject.
 * 3) User:Sydney Bluegum is topic banned from the subject of tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre widely construed for one year . The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.
 * 4) User:Slowart is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year . The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject.
 * 5) The community is urged to open up a discussion, by way of request for comment, on the article currently located at Tree shaping to determine the consensus name and scope for the subject matter, whether it should stand alone or whether it is best upmerged to a parent article. To gain a broad consensus, naming and scope proposals should be adequately laid out and outside comments invited to gain a community-based consensus. This should be resolved within two months of the closing of this case. Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area.
 * 6) Within seven days of the conclusion of this case, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages in their user space or request deletion of them using the db-author or db-self template.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:List of Marvel Civil War Comics
Template:List of Marvel Civil War Comics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)