The request for speedy deletion for Anttix is declined, as you are an anonymous editor of no track record whatsoever. We should avoid allowing such drastic edits by anonymous editors first day of editing in Wikipedia. Speedy deletion should be used carefully and in this specific case is highly unwarranted, as article is adequately referenced. Your move of such nature understandably renders your account a one-purpose account. Also note that editor Malik Shabazz also declined your speedy deletion by this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anttix&diff=590365714&oldid=590365656 I am seconding his move declining a speedy deletion. werldwayd (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- For a third time you are reversing decisions by well established editors on the same issue. This time your speedy deletion has been declined and reverted yet again by yet another editor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz by this note: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anttix&curid=38743323&diff=590430705&oldid=590426356 So you have now three adverse decisions to your fixation in seeing this referenced article get deleted for some ulterior motive. Are we in for a fourth attempt of reversing and putting yet a fourth speedy deletion? Now it is more or less established that these two accounts 126.96.36.199 and 188.8.131.52 and 184.108.40.206 are being used as a "one purpose account" and you are in most probability an "interested party" and have serious COI (conflict of interest) issues about this individual you want deleted. Your edit record is very indicative of this. I can find no other plausible explanation of reverting three different established editors on the same issue in a span of 24-48 hours and all hiding behind an anonymous account. Stop your disruptive editing and try contributing positively and in various positive contexts and on a number of articles. From now on, I will see to it that any more requests of this sort by you on Anttix are reversed by me immediately. I will not explain at length from now on. Now I conclude it is counter-productive to explain at length why the criterion for speedy deletion do not apply in this case. All you will get from now on is a one line courtesy note about our reversal. Eventually, and upon further attempt(s) by you, I will be seriously considering recommending your account(s) are suspended as involving almost uniquely disruptive editing. werldwayd (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.