WT:Articles for deletion/Hindi Pa Tapos Ang Labada Darling

:::Notice  The cquote below has been altered without annotations that show where text was inserted.  Annotations were added on this post.  Please see the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Hindi_Pa_Tapos_Ang_Labada_Darling&oldid=623507651 edit history] to see the correct cquote.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

{{cquote| [insert by MelanieN begins here 01:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)]

• Speedy keep   Deletion spree.  Nomination seeks to bind AfD volunteers into working on articles of the nominator's choice.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

[insert by MelanieN ends here 01:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)]

• User:Unscintillating, there is no need to be like that. I've given clear reasons for my nomination. Can you please comment on the article and its notability, not the editor. Boleyn (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

::*Are you accusing me of commenting on other users?  Please clarify.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

::::Unscintillating, of course you are. You offered no reason for a Keep, much less a Speedy Keep, except to question the good faith of the nominator. You made exactly this same comment at ten AfDs in a row, but it is not helpful to the discussion. If you have a valid reason for keeping this article, please give it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)}}

Editors are advised with each edit to an AfD Project page, "...commenting on other users rather than the article is...considered disruptive."  Unscintillating (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Unscintillating, it was downright dishonest of you to quote people's reactions to your comment, without including the comment they were reacting to. I have now added your comment, since the context is essential. Further, for you to say speedy-keep based on accusing the nominator of bad faith, and then get all snippy when people point out that you were commenting on other editors rather than the merits of the nomination, is the height of hypocrisy. Finally, for you to "refactor" people's reactions to your accusation, by deleting them from the discussion and banishing them to this out of the way corner, was a violation of WP:TPO. If you felt our comments were off topic (which is not really for you to say since they were directed at you), you could hat them but you should not delete them. --MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• You can continue your red herring argument that WP:SK#2 is not allowed, but WP:SK#2 is an accepted Wikipedia guideline.  Even if you really believed that an SK#2 was a comment on the editor, you were not at liberty to state this opinion on the Project page without subjecting your comment to being refactored, moved to your talk page, or deleted.  The proof that my WP:SK#2 is not about the editor I gave in my reply to you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instituto Serrano de Conservação da Natureza, but it has been three days and you have yet to reply there or begin working on the WP:BEFORE and AfD nomination analysis.  As I stated there, "Proper preparation of the community for a deletion discussion moots my !vote."  Unscintillating (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
• If you had bothered to read WP:Speedy keep before invoking it, you would have realized that it does not apply here. To quote from SK2: "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and (since bad motivations of the nominator don't have direct bearing on the validity of the nomination) nobody unrelated recommends deleting it." Got that? Bad motivations of the nominator don't have direct bearing on the validity of the nomination? I suspect you must have figured this out by now, since you have now struck out your "speedy keep" comments in at least some places and replaced them with an equally invalid "procedural keep". As for that other AfD, I did not watchlist it and you did not ping me, so I had no way of knowing you had made a comment to me there. Following your example, I will refactor that comment to the appropriate talk page, and reply there. --MelanieN (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

::::Comment and my reply are here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Instituto Serrano de Conservação da Natureza. I actually don't see the "proof that my [i.e., your] WP:SK#2 is not about the editor" in your comment; could you please point it out to me? --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

:::::As I already repeated here, "Proper preparation of the community for a deletion discussion moots my !vote."  The !vote is about the nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

::*{{ec}} The "validity of the nomination" are those things that the community would have known with a proper nomination, such as you have just refused to do at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instituto Serrano de Conservação da Natureza.  It is good that you are coming up to speed on the SK guideline, but your agenda still seems to be find ways to attack my !vote, which is the shoot the messenger fallacy, instead of building consensus about what to do about the deletion spree.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

::::Umm, which of us is "coming up to speed on the SK guideline"? I wasn't the one who incorrectly invoked it; you were. --MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

::::P.S. If you feel that something needs to be done about nominating several articles for deletion (aka "deletion spree"), you are welcome to comment at the talk page of the developing essay Wikipedia talk:Mass nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

:::*{{ec}} Yes, I said "It is good that you are coming up to speed on the SK guideline."  It appears that today is the first time that you have seen it.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

::::*You too, apparently. Also the WP:Procedural close guideline, which you also invoked incorrectly. You might find it pays to read a guideline before you cite it. It can save you from embarrassing errors necessitating strikeouts and backtracks. --MelanieN (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

:::::*Perhaps you missed something and are drawing agenda-based conclusions instead of objective conclusions.  Which leads to the question, what is your agenda here?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)