Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Nottinghamshire v Yorkshire 26 June 2005

I wonder if the Wikipedians who have voted 'merge' in this VfD would clarify if they would be happy for this to be accomplished via transclusion of subpages, as was the case before User:Bryan_Derksen's involvement. --Ngb 29 June 2005 23:39 (UTC)
 * These articles are still transcluded. I didn't touch the transclusion, I was even careful to check that they'd still transclude just the same via redirect before I went ahead with moving all of the subpages. Look, if you think I'm really out to vandalize WikiProject Cricket, would you please just go ahead and make accusations or request arbitration against me or something? You can stop worrying about "assuming good faith" if you like, I'm not concerned with that at this point. I'd rather you just come out and put your cards on the table. Bryan 29 June 2005 23:47 (UTC)
 * Please read my question more carefully: I say "via transclusion of subpages". I am wondering if those Wikipedians who have voted 'merge' would be content for this merging to occur by moving these articles back to where they started, as subpages of 2005 English cricket season, and maintaining the transclusion. Please note I did not accuse you of vandalism, nor did I suggest you had removed the transclusion. --Ngb 29 June 2005 23:54 (UTC)
 * You can't say 'I'm supposed to assume good faith, but this user's attacks are becoming wearying' and then claim that you never actually said I was doing something in bad faith. Anyway, this is not the place to argue between the two of us. Could you take it to my talk page or some other forum appropriate for making complaints about user conduct? Bryan 30 June 2005 00:12 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you just seem to be trying to justify the fact that you completely misread what I wrote here by making my question about another issue entirely. I'm not in this for an argument. --Ngb 30 June 2005 00:17 (UTC)
 * Then quit trying to make this personal. You've mentioned "Bryan Derksen did this" three times in this VfD so far and I don't see how it's relevant even once. Bryan 30 June 2005 00:29 (UTC)
 * Of course it's relevant! If you hadn't moved them (against the wishes of the WikiProject Cricket contributors, and with no clear consensus to do so anywhere it was discussed) they wouldn't have been put up for VfD in the first place! --Ngb 30 June 2005 11:52 (UTC)
 * The fact that they were moved might be relevant (I don't think so personally, but I can see how one might differ on that account) but I don't see how it's relevant that I am the one who happened to be the one who moved them - if you think my personal editing behavior is inappropriate, go complain about me in a more appropriate forum already. As for the "against the wishes" part, I've already pointed you several times to the talk page where I raised the issue. There were no objections other than that the articles might appear here on VfD, and I've also explained why I don't feel that objection was appropriate. We're turning into broken records on this and I don't know how else to put it. Bryan 30 June 2005 16:00 (UTC)