|
[[Image:Praying_mantis_band.jpg|frame|Dennis Stratton (left, in blue jacket) as a member of Praying Mantis in an undated photo]]
=== Difficult to read ===
'''Dennis Stratton''' (b. [[November 9]], [[1954]] in [[London]], [[England]]) is a guitar player who was a member of the [[Heavy metal music|heavy metal]] band [[Iron Maiden (band)|Iron Maiden]] from [[January]] [[1980]] to [[October]] [[1980]].
This VfD:Precedents page is extremely difficult to read. Major changes will be contributed over the next few coming weeks and any assistance would be appreciated in improving its readability.
During this time, he participated in the recording of the group's first album, [[Iron Maiden (album)|Iron Maiden]], the ''Women in Uniform'' EP, some subsequent singles and the ''Live!! + 1'' live album.
=== VfD discussion ===
Since his departure from Iron Maiden, Stratton has played with bands such as Lionheart and, more recently, Praying Mantis.
I was going to list this on VfD, but to avoid the accusation that I am somehow "trolling" I'll bring it up here first. This page is completely useless. It tries to make broad reaching precedents based on single examples with a small number of voters. This fallacious reasoning (proof by a single example) takes a decision such as to keep [[Affectional orientation]], which had 1430 google hits, and attempts to say that this creates a precedent that "article[s] with 1430 Google hits merit inclusion". I modified this to at least at the word "could", indicating that not all articles with 1430 Google hits merit inclusion, but that makes this example rather useless as a precedent. Further, as the number of VfD entries increases, the breadth of opinion on a single VfD article becomes very thin. The proper way to set such precedents, if anything, is to take the broader issue (does a certain number of google hits merit inclusion) and discuss it directly.
==External links==
I think this page should be deleted. If not it needs to be seriously reworked. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 14:30, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
*[http://www.getreadytorock.com/10questions/dennis_stratton.htm Interview With Dennis Stratton (2003)], Accessed July 10, 2005.
*[http://leatherwarriors.web.infoseek.co.jp/Lionheart/dg1_j.html Dennis Stratton Discography], Accessed July 10, 2005.
*[http://www.praying-mantis.com/ Praying Mantis fan site]
There is no need for precedent in wikipedia deletion policy, each article should be judged based on its own merit. [[User:Darksun|Darksun]] 14:41, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
*Certainly not in current Wikipedia deletion policy, in which the actual reasons for the decision are rarely articulated. Even if this part of the policy were fixed, I'm not sure we should have precedent set in a situation where a quorum of 50% of eligible voters is not reached. There are just far too few votes in a typical VfD vote to be binding on future decisions of Wikipedia in any way. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 14:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
{{IronMaiden}}
I hate the Google test! [[Mary Devenport O'Neill|Here's]] an article whose subject had 2 Google hits at the time it was written, but who clearly merited inclusion. She now has 347, thanks mainly to the Wikipedia entry! A lot of knowledge resides off the Internet, even still and using Google hits as a measure of worth is '''just not always valid'''. That's that off my chest. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] 14:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[[Category:Iron Maiden|Stratton, Dennis]]
:The Google test works in most cases, but not all. It should be applied in conjunction with other reasons for deletion, but should never be used as a stand-alone reason for deleting. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 16:30, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[[Category:1954 births|Stratton, Dennis]]
[[Category:British guitarists|Stratton, Dennis]]
[[Category:Londoners|Stratton, Dennis]]
[[es:Dennis Stratton]]
::Hear! Hear! One of Wikipedia's strengths is that we have contributors with expertise in subjects not yet well covered on the [[World Wide Web]], if they are covered at all. Naturally, some articles they write will fail the Google test.
[[fr:Dennis Stratton]]
[[no:Dennis Stratton]]
::I've been thinking for some time that we need to provide some more help for people making their first listing on VfD. This is one thing it should point out. Another possibility is a gentle suggestion that it's good to list only one article per week for your first few attempts. Some newcomers list several articles only to see them all fail to get consensus and there is ill feeling generated all around. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 20:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:That page should have a note in the lead paragraph indicating that none of the precedents are generally considered binding just because they are precedents, especially as arguments given in discussion for retention or deletion do not necessarily reflect all or even any of the reasoning used by other individuals in casting their votes. Something like that should neutralize it. However, since no-one ever seems to cite this particular page on VfD, it seems actually quite neutralized and harmless as it is. It is not unhelpful to have a compendium of old discussions. The Google example cited by Anthony is indeed rather strange since I know there have been a number of retentions with less hits. Another one, besides the one [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] mentioned, had only 11 Google hits and is discussed at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peryton]. Google tests are usually reasonably evaluated by commentators. Most people can see when apples are being compared to oranges and when relative Google hits are very relevant and when they don't matter very much. [[User:Jallan|Jallan]] 18:14, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
::I created this page and I do think it is important to recognize that VfD largely operates on precedent, whether you like it or not. For instance this time last year about every second VfD nomination was a list of obscure trivia, the first such being [[List of songs whose title does not appear in the lyrics]]. After several close votes it was determined that such lists are encyclopedic. Today these lists are an accepted part of Wikipedia, pages like [[list of films by gory death scene]] rarely appear on VfD. When they do the votes are overwhelmingly to keep, with even RickK supporting their inclusion (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of song titles phrased as questions]]). This policy on list of trivia is nowhere written down, but is based on the long debates of a year ago. Similar consensuses have developed for 9/11 victims, misspelled redirects, surnames, towns with under ten people and many other areas. In the future I am certain that similar unwritten rules concerning high schools, micronations and conlangs will evolve. The vast majority of these precedents are only recorded in the memory of longtime users. This helps make VfD accessible to only a minority of experienced Wikipedians. VfD Precedents is an attempt to preserve early and trend setting debates that clearly affect a whole class of articles so that these precedent setting cases can be easily found and read by those without a long history of reading VfD. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 20:13, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
: I've just looked at this article and I think the information in it is quite useful. [[User:Paul August|Paul August]] 21:37, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
I think it has potential. So far, the selection of cases is too much the work of one person, but I think that it would be useful to build up a body of "case law" to complement our equivalent of "statute law". -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] 22:56, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
:The concept of "case law" doesn't extend well to situations where 4 or 5 of the 100,000 interested persons express their opinion on a matter. At the most a VfD vote should set a precedent for a single article. To require someone interested in voting on a broad issue to vote on hundreds of individual articles is ludicrous. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 15:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
::Small numbers of people voting is exactly how case law works. In the real world one, or at most a handful, of judges makes a decision that affects every subsequent decision. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 17:24, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
:The problem isn't the small numbers of voters. The problem is the miniscule number of voters compared to the number of eligible voters. To bring the analogy to the "real world" you would have to have panels of unpaid self-appointed judges deciding whatever cases they feel like. When John's five friends decide that John was only doing 75 in a 55 and doesn't deserve a ticket that would then be a precedent when Mary does 72 and five friends of the cops show up to judge the case. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 01:42, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:::Bogus. The ''real world'' of VfD is a ''free'' vote outside of any ''case law''. There is no ''case law'' here. A legislative body or corporate board of directors is similarly not ''bound'' by past decisions except insofar as individuals knowingly allow themselves to bound and to the extent that previous practice may weigh with individual voters. But the body may choose to totally reverse themselves or to be inconsistant with past practice, may vote for something ''unprecedented''. No vote by itself establishes a precedent that ''must'' later be followed unless that is what the vote is about. And even then such a rule can be reversed. I see what Anthony is getting at. It looks like a single sysop is setting up rules which gives him an excuse to ignore consensus if consensus doesn't agree with the particular rules he (but not necessarily anyone else) thinks are binding, to attempt to claim that some results of consenus would be ''illegal'' and therefore should be ignored. But I am aware of no policy that voters on VfD or elsewhere in Wikipedia cannot vote against past precedent and no policy that if consensus is against any supposed past precedent, a resulting consensus can be overruled on those grounds alone. If suddenly ''all'' articles on minor individual fictional characters in any book or television show or comic book and so forth were accepted on VfD when submitted, regardless of how trivial that character was, that does not mean that a year from now, having seen the results of that, one might not find almost all articles of that kind being rejected regardless of what was being done in the previous year, and that many of the same articles that had been accepted placed again on VfD and rejected. People change their minds. Organizations change their group minds. Precedents on VfD may be cited as argument one way or the other, but they aren't law. [[User:Jallan|Jallan]] 22:02, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely. Case law evolves over time, and we have no equivalent of a Supreme Court. But it is very useful to track things like this over time and see if we can identify a consensus over time on certain issues. Like the records of trial courts, it will show many conflicting decisions, but over time it will presumably help us evolve toward consensus policies. If, for example, we can see that certain types of things ''always'' get deleted, we may have a new criterion to add to what may be speedy-deleted. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] 01:56, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
:I guess the page is worth keeping, as a number of people find it useful. It still needs to be cleaned up, though. Right now it seems like a dump of random VfD entries. Is there any reason the votes need to be listed on the page? This page should have more original text and less copy/paste. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 00:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
==Cleanup==
Since this page was a mess, not to mention severely outdated, I've moved it to [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents/Archive]] and put a new listing here that should reflect common procedure on VFD. Please copyedit, and such. Note that the intent for this page is ''not'' to be a guideline, but instead to document what regularly happens on VFD. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] July 4, 2005 12:23 (UTC)
== "Students are not notable" ==
Perhaps this be changed to "Students are ''generally'' non-notable". It's entirely possible that someone may have notability solely for the fact that he is a student at a particular school (as opposed to having notability for other reasons but also happening to be a student at or an alumnus of a particular school). [[User:Kmweber|Kurt Weber]] 20:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
* I just saw your comment since I haven't been to this page in a while, but I would agree. [[Child prodigy|Child prodigies]] such as [[Gregory R. Smith]] and [[Michael Kearney]] are definitely notable, as are students who have been in national news (such as the more prominent victims of the [[Columbine High School]] shootings). I'll go ahead and change it. --[[User:Idont havaname|Idont Havaname]] 18:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
== Source ==
What is the source for these precedents? For example, "''Bars, pubs, cafes and hotels should be listed on WikiTravel''". [[User:Bovlb|Bovlb]] 16:54:54, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
Good point. There are plenty of counter-examples:
* [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Boll Weevil (restaurant)]]
** 7,000 google hits
* [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fifteen (restaurant)]]
** But Bill Clinton dined there and there was areality TV connection.
* [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The White Lion, Thornbury]]
** Merge to [[Thornbury, South Gloucestershire]]
* [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Herbfarm]]
** Listed as #15 American restaurant in Gourmet magazine. AAA gave it five diamonds.
* [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pizzeria Napoli (Baghdad)]]
** Italian owner, downtown Baghdad ___location. An explosive combination!
This isn't to say that all restaurants and pubs are considered notable, but quite a lot of them are. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 07:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
==Remarks on notability==
This list says clearly at the top: ''Items that generally get no consensus should not be listed here.'' Thus I've removed ''Schools remain the subject of much debate<nowiki>...</nowiki>''.<br/>[[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(t)</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(c)</sup></font>]] 03:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
: As the very low success rate of school deletion listings (less than 15% over eight months, more like 5% over the past four months) is an excellent counter-example against this piece of advice, I've decided to remove that rather than the correct statement on the unlikelihood of school articles being deleted. See the detailed figures below. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 07:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I suppose there may be said to be a difference between whether there is no consensus of the first type: that schools are not notable (which is true) and whether there is a consensus of the second type: that schools are notable (which is not true) but in practice all that is needed for a school articles to be kept regularly is a failure of consensus of the first type. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 07:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
==Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s revert of an edit by [[User:Aaron Brenneman]]==
I recently edited the wording of the text on schools. Before the edit, it said:
* ''High schools remain the subject of much debate, but are highly unlikely to be deleted on VFD. See [[WP:SCH]]''
* ''High school teachers, clubs, classrooms or lessons are not notable.''
In the past eight months there have been some 270 school article deletion listings, but fewer than 40 school articles were deleted as a result of these deletion listings. This is a success rate of less than 15%. Moreover most elementary and middle school deletion listings also fail, though there is a slightly higher success rate with elementary schools. Even infant schools are sometimes kept where they are a regulated part of a state educational system. The only class of "school" that is regularly deleted if listed is the pre-school.
In August, [[Millburn School, Wadsworth, Illinois]] (K8), [[Andover Elementary School]], [[King Middle School, Portland, Maine]], [[Duveneck Elementary School]] were kept and [[Townsville_Primary_School/Temp]] (a rewrite of a copyright violation) looks likely to be kept. [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/York Hill Elementary School|York Hill Elementary School]], [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Netivot Hatorah Day School|Netivot Hatorah Day School]] and two preschools were deleted. High schools are almost invariably kept--indeed although we may soon see an article about a high school built only an eight-years ago deleted, the last time this happened was [[Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/St._Stephens_High_School|St. Stephens High School]], listed April 15.
I changed the text to remove the word "high" from both of the above lines.
Aaron has removed the first line. We then had nothing in this document describing the massive difficulty of successfully listing a school article for deletion. I have reverted to my version which I believe most accurately represented the current state of affairs:
* ''Schools remain the subject of much debate, but are highly unlikely to be deleted on VFD. See [[WP:SCH]]''
* ''School teachers, clubs, classrooms or lessons are not notable''
So...I'm relatively new and not sure what the policy should be regarding University dorms of no apparent distinction. In this case, the article is [[Clara Dickson Hall]]. Its page, recently marked by me as disputed, claims that its capacity of 450 makes it the largest dorm on the eastern half of the US. However, I have shown this to be untrue, meaning that there is evidently nothing special about this dorm building: there are hundreds or thousands like it across the country. Should I mark it for deletion, or go somewhere else first and ask (maybe I should've been bolder and just marked it)? [[User:Fsiler|Fsiler]] 09:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
====School article AfD results Jan 1-Sep 8====
{|border="1"
|Month
|Nominated
|Kept
|Deleted
|Merged/redirected
|Other
|-
|September
|align="right"|10
|align="right"|1
|align="right"|0
|align="right"|0
|align="left"|pending: 9
|-
| August
|align="right"|23
|align="right"|16
|align="right"|4
|align="right"|1
|align="left"|pending: 2.
|-
| July
|align="right"|28
|align="right"|26
|align="right"|1
|align="right"|1
|align="right"|
|-
|June
|align="right"|44
|align="right"|41
|align="right"|1
|align="right"|2
|align="right"|
|-
|May
|align="right"|75
|align="right"|74
|align="right"|0
|align="right"|1
|
|-
|April
|align="right"|20
|align="right"|18
|align="right"|2
|align="right"|0
|
|-
|March
|align="right"|29
|align="right"|19
|align="right"|8
|align="right"|2
|
|-
|February
|align="right"|35
|align="right"|23
|align="right"|12
|align="right"|0
|
|-
|January
|align="right"|12
|align="right"|2
|align="right"|9
|align="right"|1
|
|-
|To date
|align="right"|276
|align="right"|220
|align="right"|37
|align="right"|8
|align="right"|11
|}
--[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 07:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
== Explanation of [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman's]] revert of an edit by [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] ==
*Articles for deletion/Precedents is in state "A - line about schools included".
*[[User:Aaron Brenneman]] changes to page state "B - line about schools removed" and places note on talk page.
*[[User:Tony Sidaway]] reverts to state "A - line about schools included". Nothing on talk page.
*[[User:Aaron Brenneman]] changes to page state "B - line about schools removed" with edit summary "see talk page."
*[[User:Tony Sidaway]] reverts to state "A - line about schools included" and then uses on talk page.
*As discussion is current, [[User:Aaron Brenneman]] places page in ''state it was in when discussion began''. That's state "B - line about schools removed", by the way.
[[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(t)</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(c)</sup></font>]] 04:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand any of the above. Seriously, I've no idea what the above paragraph is supposed to be about. Could you try to explain it in a clearer fashion? Ring Foo? Jabberjaws? Is this some kind of joke? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 04:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry Tony, can you understand it now? [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(t)</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(c)</sup></font>]] 04:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but you don't provide an explanation on why you reverted. You only describe your perception of the sequence of events. In fact I created an extensive and detailed explanation of why I reverted your removal of material. You simply hadn't noticed it, or I hadn't finished writing it, when you reverted. Never mind, the restoration of the text you insist on excising can wait a few weeks if necessary. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 05:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Could you explain your rationale, by the way? Have you read somewhere, perhaps, an erroneous interpretation of policy to the effect that the presence of an ongoing discussion is an acceptable excuse for revert warring? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 06:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
== Be bold is fine to a point==
Tony,<br/>
I'd like editting on the main page to slow down while we discuss the changes here first. I've asked on several occasions for you to come to the talk page here, but I'm not sure that I'm fully engaging you when you're still making changes, including to the material in question. I've asked on [[WP:ANI]] for some other input, but I'd also ask you to consider the respect you've been shown in the discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion]] and see if you think that you've given me the same respect here.<br/>[[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(t)</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(c)</sup></font>]] 09:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Aaron, I've made numerous entries on this talk page, all of which you seem to have ignored. Please stop calling for people to stop and discuss when you're clearly not interested in responding to discussion. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 11:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
With all due respect, please examine the edit history of this and the main page as to why this statement is in error. <br/> [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(t)</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(c)</sup></font>]] 23:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't see what good the editing history will do us. I'm looking at three sections on this talk page right now in which you have failed to respond to me, and this fourth one which you have created instead in order to say " I've asked on several occasions for you to come to the talk page here" as if I haven't! --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 08:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
=== Pointless discussion ending now===
Tony,<br/>
I notice how ''"I don't see what good the editing history will do us."'' neatly avoids you actually examining it. Time is clearly divided into the '''before''' where there was something you didn't like about the main page and you cheerfully reverted several times without discussion and the '''after''' where the main page was as you liked and you're happy to use the talk page. However, rather than allow further obfuscation, I'll discuss your behavior no longer and concentrate on the matter at hand. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(t)</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(c)</sup></font>]] 11:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
==What has happened to this page?==
Why is this page now a list of deletion rules? When it was created this was a place to store copies of ''precedent'' setting deletion decisions, those that helped form current policy. A list of rules is not a list of precedents. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 23:12, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
: I have to say I did prefer the earlier version. It gave references to concrete precedents, whereas the current version isn't a lot of use because just about anything it says is a generalization that is contradicted elsewhere. Does anybody know why the old format was ditched? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 11:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
== Contentious changes to the main page ==
===Removal of ''"Items that generally get no consensus should not be listed here."''===
This material should be replaced. Items that get no consensus but ''generate ongoing discussion'' are clearly beyond the scope of this page. <br/>[[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(t)</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(c)</sup></font>]] 12:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
===Removal of ''"Schools are frequently nominated for deletion..."''===
No point in having ''this'' discussion until the first one is completed. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(t)</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(c)</sup></font>]] 12:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
==Will this ever become official policy?==
Just curious. Please respond on my talk page. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 02:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
| 