"

 Saber's Beads 

This is not a repost. The article has been rewritten and updated with additional canon sources. It has also been an accepted external link for New Moon for several months. -saberscorpx
Regardless, -you- invented this so called phenomenon and self-aggrandizement is not allowed on wikipedia.  
How does an astronomical glossary term not rate WK?
God invented it. I just discovered and reported it. And I did not name it.                                            
Also, why is *my* additional bio info considered self-aggrandizement? 
(If it's personal, I understand. I get it alot.) -

Would you stop editing my user page just to make your comments seem better?  

You invite me to discuss the article here, and then delete my responses? Lol. I thrive on such contempt from nobodys like you. Btw, my sister's kid learned about Saber's Beads in school just the other day (3 states away). Thanks for your continued support. -

 Uberfic 

Please pay attention and don't revert good faith edits as vandalism.  I removed that sentence for a good reason, which was explained in my edit summary: its references did not support the claim made, or have anything to do with the subject of the article at all.  ithemis 

Kalanidhi Maran
I added some references to Kalanidhi Maran, which I think demonstrate notability.  

Inappropriate comments
I've removed your comment on Talk:Dicta License with a highly inappropriate edit summary of ""taunt the anon"". WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL apply when you're speaking to any editor, anonymous or otherwise.  

 AfD 

Hi Nardman1, Do you mind to give a second thought to your comments here?  I really don't see any notability in this case.

Regards.  (talk) 

PS: Don't go mad with the userboxes. 
She invented a new tissue type! Anyway someone has to play Devil's Advocate. The article will probably be deleted without y changing my vote.  
Pentecontagon, and so forth
Please read WP:DELETE. A no consensus result at AFD means only that there is no consensus to delete an article and its edit history altogether; anything else, including merging, is a normal editing decision. When, as here, that non-consensus is divided between those who would delete, and those who would merge and redirect, that's consensus that we don't need a separate article.  PMAnderson 
I'll probably submit it to deletion review later.  
Please let me know.  PMAnderson 

I still see an overwhelming majority at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hectagon for delete, merge or redirect, which is consensus that Wikipedia does not need these as separate articles. Pilotguy is right that there is no consensus between these alternatives, but that's chiefly whether it's worth keeping the article histories. 

I do not see any suggestion of Mediation, but I would be willing to accept it; I would expect  the mediator to tell you the same thing.

These articles consisted of a dictionary definition of the alleged term as an n-sided polygon, and a diagram of a regular n-gon.
I have no objection to having the diagram of a 100-gon added to Polygon; I wouldn't do it myself because I don't think it adds anything to the article; it's barely distinguishable from a circle; but I won't contest it. 
I will object, remove, or mark as dubious any use I see of Hectagon. It's a non-word, use rarely and in error; it is used much more often as a misspelling of Hexagon or Heptagon.
One of the articles also had a sentence about Michelob using a 30-sided prism as a beer can. I doubt this will add anything to Polygon either; it belongs it Prism (geometry), but I