To Cool Hand Luke I ask for your help as an administrator with this problem   From the Wikipedia deletion guidelines  Deletion process      Main article WikipediaDeletion policy  Deletion of articles from Wikipedia occurs through one of three processes        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 criterias 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  the proximity in time to an unrelated disagreement with the user proposing deletion  the users 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  the fact that I have worked on this article in the past  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  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  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 users intent is  not supported by facts or policies  not in good faith  in retaliation and therefore  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 revert rule I must point out that I do not believe the rule applies to what I did because I was  making a good faith effort to resolve the dispute by asking the user to stop his vandalism and disruption  the posts involved were all on his talk pagethe most appropriate place to discuss a users his apparent violations  rather than reply he deleted the warnings and requests to stop  did so more than three times in violation of the rule  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 Sonics Rendezvous Band by removing the delete tags My reply is  I did so in accordance with policy  it is not vandalism to remove delete tags to attempt to save an article especially one that has legitimate support see discussion on deletion of that article the only person in favor of delete is the user in questionit would be incoherent to call saving an article vandalismdeleting it is vandalism and illegitimately marking an article for deletion in violation of the rule that says this can only be done wherr the user believes there is no controversy is vandalism and disruption   There are other indications but this is enough for now  I therefor ask you as an administrator to help resolve this issue I know another administrator that I will also ask for help on this issue