User:My_Lord is placing deletion templates on articles that don't suit the Indian nationalist opinion for the disputed Kashmir region. Using his expertise he got deleted pages like 2006 Doodhipora killing, Bomai incident, Ramban firing incident etc. Here is an archived external link to a full article the user and its proxies got deleted so that you can know their intentions. (He also redirected Ghazwatul Hind to a general page to suit his taste.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.192.193.250 ( talk • contribs)

Draft:Report on a Plan for the Further Support of Public Credit ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Copyright Violation is the given reason for deletion. However the source, whose usage was cited as in violation, is clearly public domain. At the bottom of the page where the source is published ( https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-18-02-0052-0002) is the notice: "The National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) is part of the National Archives. Through its grants program, the NHPRC supports a wide range of activities to preserve, publish, and encourage the use of documentary sources, relating to the history of the United States, and research and development projects to bring historical records to the public." The administrator who deleted the page got confused by the difference between the annotations on the primary source document (which were not used, nor cited) and the primary source document itself. Elkamine ( talk) 06:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. The document is from 1795. If copyright was even a thing then, it has long expired. And a trout for the deleting admin's responding to a reasonable query with "why are you talking to me?". Stifle ( talk) 09:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Wow, this was a really bad WP:G12. Even ignoring the fact that the document is from 1795, the number and length of direct quotes would probably meet fair use. And yeah, there's some trout-worthy WP:BITEing going on. I can see being short with somebody over some obvious spam, but this was a well-written article about an important historical topic. The original reviewer deserves a piece of that trout as well; don't just run Earwig and blindly accept the result. Take a little time to understand what it means. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per above. And I'll also note that I could tell what admin this was by just reading Stifle's comments. Hobit ( talk) 13:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and WP:TROUT the admin and the tagger. The source is clearly in the public domain - anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the US, and this was published in 1795. I can only assume the admin hit the button without doing any checking beyond possibly clicking on the automated copyvio detector, as did the tagger. The response to the creator is also not appropriate behaviour for an administrator. Hut 8.5 17:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn mistaken G12. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as per above – no copyvio.-- Newbiepedian ( talk · C · X! · L) 03:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply