Misplaced Pages

talk:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam/Archive: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion | Rajkumar Kanagasingam Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:09, 4 January 2007 editJoshuacUK (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,361 edits →Massive voting campaign carried out by []← Previous edit Revision as of 19:29, 4 January 2007 edit undoTarinth (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,013 edits →Massive voting campaign carried out by []Next edit →
Line 69: Line 69:


::::::: Ehh... "the user campaigned to get keep votes" - No. He simply informed several Wikipedians of his AFD. — ] 19:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC) ::::::: Ehh... "the user campaigned to get keep votes" - No. He simply informed several Wikipedians of his AFD. — ] 19:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


::::::: It doesn't really matter. AfD isn't a vote anyway, so additional voting will only be considered by the closing admin on the basis of what new facts or observations are brought to light. Frankly (and I don't know anything about you, so please don't take it personally) I find the flailing-of-arms and the "crying foul" attitude to suggest that you have something deeply at stake regarding the removal of this individual from Misplaced Pages. Even if that isn't the case, that's the appearance that you put forth. Surely there are a lot less-borderline cases on WP worthy of your attention? ] 19:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:29, 4 January 2007

References (off-line media archives)

English media archives

  • Sinhala media archives
  • Tamil media archives

Rajsingam 14:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.dailynews.lk/2002/03/08/featureslead.html

http://www.dailynews.lk/2002/05/16/fea01.html

http://www.dailynews.lk/2005/01/19/fea03.html

http://www.dailynews.lk/2005/12/06/fea02.htm

Are featured works by kanagasingam.Bakaman 17:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Massive voting campaign carried out by User:Rajsingam

Rajsingam (talk · contribs) has takan a massive voting campaign indirectly on this AFD. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. What a load of bullshit. 5 people = massive? I think you need to take a break and stop attacking User:Rajsingam. — Wackymacs 17:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


This itself reveals their sinister AFD scam and now they are shouting when they fail. Why some one else put the AFD tag, another one is alarming about the voting campaign. I disclosed openly on the deletion discussion page and informed the known editors the sinister AFD tag on my article, but I never requested to vote for me. I kindly request the Administration to check the history of the recent Talk:Anton Balasingham which victimised me. Rajsingam 17:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I don't want to attack on him because he is not notable to me, and mind you that 5 votes are very considerable size in AFDs. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 17:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
As he said, he wasn't asking for a 'Keep' vote at all - I could have voted for a Delete for all he knew. There is nothing wrong about notifying other Wikipedians about an AFD. I really don't see what your point in this "Massive voting campaign" claim is. You obviously can't accept that, at the moment, there are more 'Keep' votes than 'Delete' ones. — Wackymacs 17:57, 4 January 2007

(UTC)

Requesting that other Wikipedians take a look at an article the may have an opinion about, without attempting to influence the particular vote ("Come to the AfD and vote Keep please") is not inappropriate. In fact it is helpful in insuring that the AfD debate has adequate discussion. And if calling "5" massive isn't hyperbole, I don't know what is. Tarinth 18:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Tarinth! - at least someone has some sense and sanity here. :-) — Wackymacs 18:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The numbers isn't the issue here..What ever the "excuses" you may come with doesn't change the fact that "the user campaigned to get keep votes".None of the invitees has voted to delete the article!And I have the feeling that more vote stacking is going on here to keep the article..And if you count the number of keeps, well 5 is indeed "massive".--Iwazaki 18:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Ehh... "the user campaigned to get keep votes" - No. He simply informed several Wikipedians of his AFD. — Wackymacs 19:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


It doesn't really matter. AfD isn't a vote anyway, so additional voting will only be considered by the closing admin on the basis of what new facts or observations are brought to light. Frankly (and I don't know anything about you, so please don't take it personally) I find the flailing-of-arms and the "crying foul" attitude to suggest that you have something deeply at stake regarding the removal of this individual from Misplaced Pages. Even if that isn't the case, that's the appearance that you put forth. Surely there are a lot less-borderline cases on WP worthy of your attention? Tarinth 19:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)