| Revision as of 16:30, 27 March 2014 editAnachronist (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, IP block exemptions, Administrators67,335 edits →Miss Queen of India: keep it up← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:32, 27 March 2014 edit undoUnbroken Chain (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,193 edits reNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| I know you aren't a sock, I appreciate the fact of what you are doing even if I disagree with the outcome. What I do not appreciate is administrative laziness or inability to understand policies clearly. I've tried assuming good faith and I came up with three possibilities none of them good. 1. They didn't even look 2. They are unfamiliar with CSD policy or 3 they don't care. I do not appreciate being accused of not doing due diligence on an article, or that I have broken a rule that apparently ] has made up out of thin air. I've asked for justification on his supposed warning to me on his page. I plan on taking it to ANI if I don't get a response shortly. The fact that you are asking for an AFD means we will have one and I will format the deletion rationale in a few minutes when I calm down a little. ] (]) 16:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC) | I know you aren't a sock, I appreciate the fact of what you are doing even if I disagree with the outcome. What I do not appreciate is administrative laziness or inability to understand policies clearly. I've tried assuming good faith and I came up with three possibilities none of them good. 1. They didn't even look 2. They are unfamiliar with CSD policy or 3 they don't care. I do not appreciate being accused of not doing due diligence on an article, or that I have broken a rule that apparently ] has made up out of thin air. I've asked for justification on his supposed warning to me on his page. I plan on taking it to ANI if I don't get a response shortly. The fact that you are asking for an AFD means we will have one and I will format the deletion rationale in a few minutes when I calm down a little. ] (]) 16:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :I'm an admin as well and I don't see anything what ] did wrong. Read carefully ]. It says specifically that G5 should not be applied to pages which have substantial edits by others. --] (] / ]) 16:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC) | :I'm an admin as well and I don't see anything what ] did wrong. Read carefully ]. It says specifically that G5 should not be applied to pages which have substantial edits by others. --] (] / ]) 16:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::Incompetence or laziness to start. Those are literally the only things this can be, let me explain why, (on the surface you are correct in your assessment) however compare ] that's the original vs the current. The only difference is you added a couple sources. I understand that is also an important part of notability but those are your only contributions which therefore, at least in my opinion, the core of the content is still sock created. Now jump in ], where in his role as administrator he should review the csd. What is the process for contesting deletion? It is to check the rationale on the talkpage of the article which the now confirmed sock had a rationale right below that I also posted the SPI link for the reviewing admin (i assumed good faith they would actually do what they should) he not only ignores the other criteria but he accuses me of not providing any evidence...For fucks sake if he looked at the name on SPI Shiyasnazar and the sock Shiyasnazarptpm, it's not rocket science to say "wow this is the same user". Instead he wants to cover his incompetence by warning me for disruptive editing when a simple, "hey you know what I missed that, my bad. let's wait until the spi is complete and then we can." Instead this fucking guy wants to warn me for disruption. I don't think so! Even in disagreement with you, I stated why I thought you were wrong and we had a productive discourse, instead this dude wants to stay on the wrong side of ] at least what it appears like. That's what I am taking to ANI if he doesn't reply. ] (]) 16:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 16:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)</small> | :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 16:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)</small> | ||
| :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 16:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)</small> | :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 16:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)</small> | ||
Revision as of 16:32, 27 March 2014
Miss Queen of India
- Miss Queen of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Shiyasnazar, please send complaints to User: Amatulic for the need to open an afd for an obvious g5 csd Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- By all means, please do. Sockpuppet investigation has not yet been completed, so this is premature. Will delete in accordance with WP:CSD#G5 depending on the ouctome. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- IF you are so blind or unwilling to see the SPI you can't see the duck test then you shouldn't have the mop. What you are doing now is trying to hide the fact that you didn't do even the slightest due diligence from the tag which you could have easily done. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- And now we have a WP:CIVIL violation. Keep it up. Are you trying to get yourself blocked? My due diligence consisted of noting that no evidence was presented in the G5 tag or the edit summary, and an allegation was made in SPI with no outcome. The duck test was not clear to me either. You multi-tagged the article with A7, G5, and G11, all of which are clearly inappropriate, if you read the criteria for each. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hell, I have done a lot of work on it and I'm nobody's sock. Please, let the AfD go its own way, it is the most sensible and transparent starting point at the moment. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- IF you are so blind or unwilling to see the SPI you can't see the duck test then you shouldn't have the mop. What you are doing now is trying to hide the fact that you didn't do even the slightest due diligence from the tag which you could have easily done. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I know you aren't a sock, I appreciate the fact of what you are doing even if I disagree with the outcome. What I do not appreciate is administrative laziness or inability to understand policies clearly. I've tried assuming good faith and I came up with three possibilities none of them good. 1. They didn't even look 2. They are unfamiliar with CSD policy or 3 they don't care. I do not appreciate being accused of not doing due diligence on an article, or that I have broken a rule that apparently User:Amatulic has made up out of thin air. I've asked for justification on his supposed warning to me on his page. I plan on taking it to ANI if I don't get a response shortly. The fact that you are asking for an AFD means we will have one and I will format the deletion rationale in a few minutes when I calm down a little. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm an admin as well and I don't see anything what User:Amatulic did wrong. Read carefully WP:G5. It says specifically that G5 should not be applied to pages which have substantial edits by others. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Incompetence or laziness to start. Those are literally the only things this can be, let me explain why, (on the surface you are correct in your assessment) however compare ] that's the original vs the current. The only difference is you added a couple sources. I understand that is also an important part of notability but those are your only contributions which therefore, at least in my opinion, the core of the content is still sock created. Now jump in User:Amatulic, where in his role as administrator he should review the csd. What is the process for contesting deletion? It is to check the rationale on the talkpage of the article which the now confirmed sock had a rationale right below that I also posted the SPI link for the reviewing admin (i assumed good faith they would actually do what they should) he not only ignores the other criteria but he accuses me of not providing any evidence...For fucks sake if he looked at the name on SPI Shiyasnazar and the sock Shiyasnazarptpm, it's not rocket science to say "wow this is the same user". Instead he wants to cover his incompetence by warning me for disruptive editing when a simple, "hey you know what I missed that, my bad. let's wait until the spi is complete and then we can." Instead this fucking guy wants to warn me for disruption. I don't think so! Even in disagreement with you, I stated why I thought you were wrong and we had a productive discourse, instead this dude wants to stay on the wrong side of WP:CIR at least what it appears like. That's what I am taking to ANI if he doesn't reply. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)