The important thing would be restoring the articles. As far as I can see, that isn't happening (yet).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_(programming_language) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemerle

I might just be seeing a cached version, though.

edit: grr, I cannot reply to you, but yes, that was my point exactly: he could request a deletion review.

Chris is just another Wikipedian though. He has the same ability to undo the changes as you do.

He's not "just another Wikipedian", he's the particular Wikipedian that made this mess. So he has a particular responsibility to clean it up.

Ahem... Let me rephrase my above comment. Anything Chris can do, you can do. Perhaps rather than complaining about who "should" clean it up, you can actually do it yourself?

I repeat myself, but: "The damage is already done."

You're not interested in an apology... You don't care that he stopped.

What exactly do you want from him then?

I am interested in an apology. He has not given one, despite this so called "reversal".

A sincere apology would involve 1) apologizing/admitting wrong-doing and 2) undoing the damage. I could certainly settle for only the second.

Re your 2: it's not really up to Monsanto to restore the deleted articles. It's not his call, and if it went through Afd once, to recreate the articles would be to see them get redeleted.

But why would he apologize? He sees himself as following the letter of the law, and points out that if this is an issue, change the law.

Honestly this sounds like 2 things - A cry of help from Wikipedia stating they need concerted outside help/force to fix something they can see is broken/can be improved

A lawyer saying that its not his fault the rules are what they are.