Debbie, what exactly are you doing with the archives?  If you continue on this path (assuming the page is not deleted) we will have a long list of archive links, some of which are minor.  Why not just archive via the standard archive method?     

 ::Arzel, It's a topical archive.  Wikipedia allows for either a chronological archive, or a topical archive.  Personally, I prefer a topical archive as it makes old discussions easier to find.  Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_page#Detailed_explanation   
 ::You should also make chronological archives, so that threads appear both chronologically and topically. It'd make reviewing them easier depending on why you want to read old archives.    
 :::*conduct vs. content - To be irritating (as may be my habit? heh - people seem to think the poll I set up immediately above is a bit): I think we should tend to question in specific a single fellow editor or group of fellow editors with suspicion about who edited (commented/&c.;) what, when, where, how not on the article's talkpage but (if necessary) (1) on each others' talkpages, if we've good enough mutual rapport, or else, especially if not (2) on certain of WP's many applicable bulletin board pages. So, instead of saying, "Arzel! WTF?" or "Debbie, whatintheheck?" we would simply say, addressing nobody in particular, "Hey, do you other editors think we should choose ____x option____ or ___y option___?" (Although I may not make a lot of sense. Been up all night.)   [Strike comment.]   
 :::::Titling and organizing an archive by an editor's name  "Material removed by Arzel" seems nasty at best. North8000   

 As requested, I added a chronological archive.    
 :OK, can you now delete the links to the "topical" archive.   —     

 ==This page is blatant political smear.==