| Revision as of 16:16, 27 March 2014 editVejvančický (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users35,303 edits fix indent← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:30, 27 March 2014 edit undoAnachronist (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, IP block exemptions, Administrators67,337 edits →Miss Queen of India: keep it upNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| :By all means, please do. Sockpuppet investigation has not yet been completed, so this is premature. Will delete in accordance with ] depending on the ouctome. ~] <small>(])</small> 15:39, 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 ] depending on the ouctome. ~] <small>(])</small> 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. ] (]) 15:41, 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. ] (]) 15:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::And now we have a ] 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. ~] <small>(])</small> 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. --] (] / ]) 15:57, 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. --] (] / ]) 15:57, 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 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) | ||
Revision as of 16:30, 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)
- 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)