Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Gammamute

Vandalism
Several users have attempted to vandalize this page.

Someone made the statement that it was incomprehensible. I understood it just fine. It does, however need more sources, still. When I attempted to look for Gammamute online, I found little. But when I looked in a book called Aerodynamics by Marco Rodin, I found a great deal out about the symbol Gammamute uses, also called gammamute. The book, however doesn't belong to me. Perhaps someone should add some info from this book, to validate the sources (which are indeed accurate, by my finding), instead of instantly discrediting it because it isn't on the internet....good lord. 208.233.32.44 04:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Policy
This is bullying. Please at least have a rationale for your claim against this article. That's what the discussion page is for. If you have the courage and mind to challenge an idea, have the same courage to stand up and voice it. If it is your opinion that the article needs revised, have the common decency to do it, or at least explain how to do it for the author of this article. This is not professional behavior.


 * Reasons for deletion/keeping occur on the deletion page itself. The talk page of an AfD is rarely used for anything at all. Users have given their rationals. Do not accuse people of bullying with no basis. Please see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. JoshuaZ 19:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * : Sir, the factual basis is in the history of these pages, and any user can verify that. Can someone tell me how to contact the administrator?  I realize there are rationales, but they do not adhere to a specific part of the article.  No one has any way of telling which part of the article is under scrutiny.  The link to civility you gave me stated

"Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and stops Wikipedia working well. Try to discourage others from being incivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. Mediation is available if needed."

I will say it again, please comment on the actual article, instead of attacking myself and/or the author. I will look for published sources adhering to the guidelines, now that I have read the terms of verifiability.