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 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 nardman 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 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 sided prism as a beer can i doubt this will add anything to polygon either it belongs it prism geometry but i