ToddSurfs

Re:Twinless twin

You would be best off talking with Tone; I personally had nothing to do with the article- just routine deletions of the time.   JJ (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Tone's been contacted, and the article is now onboard for review, and possible restoration. Tone is remaining neutral on the matter, although one of the few votes "in favor of keeping it deleted" cites the article Tone put forth for deletion actually HAVING been deleted as the reason for keeping it deleted. (a genetic logical fallacy: a bit of a spin on "argumentum ad antiquitatem" favoring keeping the status quocommon logical fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. Currently, the discussion seems to indicate that most are in favor of restoring the entry. ToddSurfs 19:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)