I found this post on my talk page:

I think it was a mistake to move the article Holly Neher to draft at this time. The second AFD discussion is in full swing and the move now appears disruptive. Also, I don't understand why you want to wait until November. I'd like to see you move the article back at least for now. If you have a reason for the move, please let me know as I've been wrong before..--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I haven't had time yet to do anything but the skimming of the AfD I did when I posted my comment there, and I had an errand to complete when I saw your post.  If this is going to go back to mainspace, then we need a discussion about racing out of DRV to nominate articles for deletion so as to prevent them from being improved before any potential AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure your intentions were of good faith. However, I think it's doing more harm than good at this time. I'd like others to weigh in too.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, as per your request, I'll move it back.  As for November, that is what I suggested at the DRV, as that would do several things, including separating any new AfD from the previous one, which reduces the disruption of quickly repeated AfDs.  I think the notability of the topic would be better at that point, too.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the ((admin help)) template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I don't have the permissions necessary to return the Draft:Holly Neher to mainspace.  Please help.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As to why I sent this to AfD from DRV: that was suggested in the close of the DRV if people did not believe the restored article met the inclusion guidelines, and it was mentioned in the deletion review discussion that relist vs. overturn was a valid discussion, but that a procedural nomination should be avoided. I nominated this in good faith given what I saw as something mentioned explicitly in the close. Ordinarily I would not have done so immediately after a deletion review. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Boing! said Zebedee: Thanks for restoring the cats.  I was also unable to return Draft talk:Holly Neher, if I can seek your help again.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiOriginal-9 has made a request regarding Draft talk:Holly Neher at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Help.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[insert from main page begins here]

*Note  In this diff material from Holly Neher was copied to another article, see WP:Merge and delete.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

[insert ends here] Text moved by Unscintillating (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, trying to avoid making the AfD any more unreadable. If this does end up as delete, this should solve the CC-BY-SA 3.0 issue because the prose that was copied was entirely the composition of one editor here. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The diff you've found of source material for attribution is only 8 lines in the diff.  The source-move diff is 24 lines.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I missed the second sentence of prose in the referencing. From what I can tell, all added by Paulmcdonald as well. The additional edits to that section were also by Paulmcdonald: [1] [2]. I only got 20 lines when I counted the copy, and I got 19 in those diffs. The discrepancy appearing to be a formatting issue rather than creative content. On the other side none of the content additions after Paulmcdonald added those two sentences touched that sectoin, and the prose and references are identical to the last version he edited with no interruptions since the prose was initially inserted [3]. There being no other authors of that prose, CC-BY-SA 3.0 should be satisfied. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following off topic distraction has been moved from the main page:

• Comment Can we please ensure that the comments do not breach WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. All policies are subject to interpretation, the purpose of of AfD discussions are to say "I think it does meet this" or "I feel it does not". There's a lot of "OMG have you not even read such-and-such?" It's just plain rude. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Given some arguments, including yours, have drifted so far away from the policies and guidelines to ask if someone has actually read it isn't uncivil, it's a serious question. Too many people throw around the alphabetti-spaghetti without having read the pages properly; it is is in no way uncivil to ask if you actually have read something you are trying to rely on. Your lack of grasp of 109PAPERS, for example, is a case in point. - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree with Vintage on many levels: much of the comments here (some of them mine but not all) have strayed from the question, which is: "Is the article notable?" Some say yes, some say no. Cursing and personal attacks do not add any strength to any argument and are dilatory.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And you are, not for the first time, pushing the discussion away from the core points of discussion. Please don't. - SchroCat (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Off topic, yes--but with good reason. Civility promotes thorough conversation and discussion. Keeping Wikipedia Civil is always a purposeful topic. Bullying, threats, and an overall uncivil environment make it difficult for everyone. I have asked you to read several parts of policy and your response was one of anger toward me. Now you are saying it is okay for you to do the same thing to someone else. That's not fair or reasonable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to bring up bullying and threats with the Unscintillating one: so far he is the only person who has bullied and threatened. Carry on - I won't bother with this talk page again, so you can say what you wish. - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, User:The Vintage Feminist, there you have it. Compare and contrast: Questioning whether someone has read a document (in the context of a situation where reading the document is both mandatory and esential) to throwing around veiled (yet completely unsubstantiated) threats about taking editors to ArbCom, etc. I suggest that if Editor:JohnDoe thinks the former is more opprobrious, disruptive, or downright ruder than the latter, then Editor:JohnDoe needs to carefully re-examine their priorities. — fortunavelut luna 17:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Vintage Feminist, of whom do you refer? Cassianto^Talk 16:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Sigh *... several comments actually, all of the "if you don't agree with me then you can't have read the policy properly" variety. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Sigh *...Not uncivil. Factual based opining, it seems. Cassianto^Talk 21:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]