"user and talk pages, and their subpages, and other non-article pages that *no others have substantively contributed to* and whose existence does *not impact the project*, *may* be courtesy blanked or deleted.""'' But, with users who have been substantial contributors that doesn't seem to apply as 1) others HAVE substantially contributed to the pages 2) it may well have impact on the project. The only justification for this deletion would be IAR in exceptional circumstances of real-life privacy violation or harassment. If it isn't that, then there is utterly no basis in policy or consensus. The discussion on AN, which I link above, bears that out. Courtesy blanking is better in such cases. g 

It's only four talk pages. There's absolutely no need for crazy statements like ""Your deletion is improper"". We can get to the bottom of why the Mercury left and why he requested deletion, and deal with undeletion and courtesy blanking as soon as we know the full reasons behind the request.   

I've tried to contact Mercury, but for the moment, I've undeleted the pages, courtesy blanked them and protected them from further edits. I can't see anything which would cause any problems for Mercury, but if he does request their full deletion again and cites privacy concerns, I'll look favorably on such a request.   

(ec)Sorry, I probably over reacted. I'm fighting a larger war on routine deletions of talk pages and archives - and a general misunderstanding of the rtv, and what it allows. I believe that the deletion of usertalk pages of established users is only justified in exceptional circumstances of causing off-wiki difficulties (and, in such cases, IAR can be validly invoked.) If you are satisfied that, in this case, there are such circumstances, then I won't question your judgement or ask for details. However, you might perhaps consider whether selective deletion/oversight of offending posts, or courtesy deletion might be better. Having said that, I leave it with you - I'll say no more and I'll not contest whatever you finally decide. I'm going to take up the wider issue as a policy discussion (without naming you or this particular case). I've posted, in generalities, to the mailing list. Again sorry for my tone.g 

 Sonja McCaskie 

Hi, I noticed that you semi-protected Sonja McCaskie several months ago due to vandalism and BLP concerns. Since things have likely calmed down since July, would you mind if I unprotected the page? Cheers,  
 Yeah, feel free. There's some deleted edits to the article which should be fairly self explanatory regarding the need to delete the article and create a new article, but it looks like the editor responsible has simply given up.   
 Thanks, done. I'll keep a watch and make sure that no one has been lying in wait, which would be a bit strange, since they could have created an account that could have edited the page by now. Cheers,  

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. ) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, onka 

 Merry Christmas 

 ]]

 WikBack account created 

Someone, perhaps you, recently created an account at the WikBack.  If the account was created by an imposter, please let me know as soon as possible so that it can be disabled.  Otherwise, welcome!   Co., Inc. 21:01, 28 Decembe