To Cool Hand Luke I ask for your help as an administrator with this problem From the Wikipedia deletion guidelines Deletion process Main article Wikipedia Deletion policy Deletion of articles from Wikipedia occurs through one of three processes 2 Another quick method is the use of proposed deletion simply add to the top of the article This is meant for articles where the deletion is believed to be uncontroversial yet does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion A proposed deletion can be contested by any user by removing the tag within five days and if anyone still wants the article deleted the full AFD process is required I thought I complied with this policy it seems to say that any user can contest the proposal by removing the tag It seems obvious that this article easily meets the criteria for notabilitythe stated reason for deletion Beyond meeting the criteria s specifics the criteria also has a catchall inclusion rule that the mere fact that an article does not meet specific criteria is not a sufficient reason to delete it I believe that the proposal to delete this article was made in retaliation against me personally and was not made in good faith to further the goals of Wikipedia and that the proposal to delete along with the reasons given which I believe are not in good faith therefore violates various Wikipedia policies The evidence for this belief includes 1 the proximity in time to an unrelated disagreement with the user proposing deletion 2 the user s prior lack of interest or contribution or current knowledge of as demonstrated by his reasons or comments to the subject of the article proposed for deletion 3 the fact that I have worked on this article in the past 4 the fact that this user on or about the same day and time in close proximity to the unrelated dispute with me proposed two other articles that I have worked on that the user also has not previously or currently demonstrated any knowledge of or interest in 5 proposed such articles for speedy deletion and then before I or anyone else had a chance to object Wikipedia is not a full time job for most users who only visit the site from time to time and note also the stated policy that there are no emergencies on Wikipedia the user decided not to wait for any objections or to follow the policy of allowing the stated time period to pass redirected the article to another article effectively deleting the original article In fact the redirect was effect as I was typing out an objection to the deletion with a reasoned explanation on why it should stay and when I hit save the article was gone and my objection and response are now lost 6 he gave me three rapid succession warnings in bad faith for what I believe were good faith acts on my part and had me blocked before I could make a response to his warnings it appears that he has dome similar things in the past to other users It seems quite clear in light of the above and further facts that can be marshalled in support that this user s intent is 1 not supported by facts or policies 2 not in good faith 3 in retaliation and therefore 5 in violation of Wikipedia policy Recognizing this I communicated to this user that I would refrain from any activity that was the subject of the origial unrelated disagreement by not making any further comment on the talk page of Tort Reform I had hoped that this would resolve that dispute but it has not as the user had made the dispute personal As for my being blocked by you as per the 3 revert rule I must point out that I do not believe the rule applies to what I did because I was 1 making a good faith effort to resolve the dispute by asking the user to stop his vandalism and disruption 2 the posts involved were all on his talk pagethe most appropriate place to discuss a user s his apparent violations 3 rather than reply he deleted the warnings and requests to stop 4 did so more than three times in violation of the rule 5 in bad faith turned the rule on meI did not delete anything and technically I did not revert anything either I think but was adding to previous posts and merely included the previously deleted material as support for a NEW post Other indications of bad faith The user asserts that I committed vandalism to the entry on Sonic s Rendezvous Band by removing the delete tags My reply is 1 I did so in accordance with policy 2 it is not vandalism to remove