User talk:Light2021 - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Northamerica1000 (talk | contribs) at 14:33, 31 October 2016 (→Improper use of the hoax template: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:33, 31 October 2016 by Northamerica1000 (talk | contribs) (→Improper use of the hoax template: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, Light2021, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Brianhe (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Where are you finding all these terrible articles

Most of what you've nominated is eminently worthy of deletion ... how are you finding all these bad articles? - David Gerard (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

- Thank you. David Gerard (talk) I am looking for articles related to business or business person who have created these article to promote themselves or their companies with no significant coverage by media but merely a press release excise they do on behalf of company. Studying their media coverage, writing pattern on[REDACTED] or presence on the internet for their credibility or significance. Light21 16:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE at AfD

I believe Ohnoitsjamie had just warned you about not misusing the AFD process. Before nominating you are supposed to do WP:BEFORE - a thorough check to see if the subject satisfies the notability criteria. I just saw Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vistasp Karbhari which you nominated and where it seems you didn't bother to check. This unfortunately overloads AfD and can be seen as disruptive. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I just went through literally all of Light21's many nominations today and am surprised and pleased to say that, IMO, >90% are thoroughly deletable and the others are reasonably debatable. To count as "disruption", there would have to be lots of actually bad noms. (Which is why I was interested in their process for finding these terrible articles.) - David Gerard (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Ah I just reviewed the other nominations. Have to admit I was wrong about it. Most of the nominations seem to be correct. However, I personally feel it would be good if the rate of nominations is slowed down a bit. Otherwise it overloads AfDs. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

A11

Hi. I see you're using the A11 criterion. I'd like to say a few words to explain what it is for. It was brought in to deal with the odd things that weren't blatant hoaxes, and could be real, but were totally not provable - and not covered by A7. These were things like 'Batwink' (which appears to be a cross between cricket and tiddlywinks, stated to be played at St Frothelwode's School, Much Twittering-in-the-bushes), or 'Vodka Pong' (greatly resembling Beer Pong, but sounding lethal), or 'ecktwill' (a new word meaning 'housewarming party', 'an egg over thirty days old', or 'the feeling you get when a skink runs under your shirt'. Actually, that last one looks more like a very blatant hoax, but I hope you get the idea. Someone probably HAS invented them, possibly about half a dozen friends are involved, and certainly nobody else has heard about it or would give a shit if they ever did. Student and schoolkid stuff, or from people doing boring stand-by for hours type jobs. Anything that is about a person or company can't come under A11 because A7 covers most of them anyway, and they are verifiable. A11 ones aren't - the author can't prove they exist, and we can't prove they don't. How we got it through the review procedure I still don't know. But if it's misused, we stand a chance of losing it again. Remember WP:AGF. A11 is assumed to be real, but who cares, and no-one can prove it either way. Hoax G3 is assumed to be bad faith, hence the same number as G3 Vandalism. It's definite misinformation. A11 might be real, but it doesn't belong here. Anything genuinely referenced can't go under A11, as its existence is proved and it has to be A7 if applicable, or prod/AfD if not. If I seem to be going round in circles here, I apologise. Had a hard afternoon involving a reciprocating saw, an angle grinder and a machete. (Don't ask...) Peridon (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

PS It looks like you are typing your signature. I type ~~~~ which puts it on properly, or you can use the wiggly thing with the pencil on the B I line above the edit window. That puts a dash in, though, I think. Like this - no, it looks like two dashes, --Peridon (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the guideline Peridon (talk) Light21 19:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: consider using WP:PROD before resorting to AFD

I'd suggest you look into WP:PROD deletion. It's better to use for many of the "advertising network" types of pages that you've found; i.e., articles that don't demonstrate much evidence of notability, but have slipped through the cracks. It will occasionally be contested, at which point it's easy to send it to AfD assuming that the contesting party doesn't provide good evidence that it is close enough to meeting WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie 19:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. Will keep it for future. OhNoitsJamie Light21 20:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Just saw this discussion and decided to give another suggestion. Sometimes, pages may meet certain criteria that allows it to be deleted without any discussion of any sort. One of those criteria is unambiguous advertising or promotion (see WP:G11), and another, which only applies to userpages, is blatant misuse of Misplaced Pages as a webhost (see WP:U5). You can semi-automatically request speedy deletion by selecting "CSD" in the Twinkle dropdown menu. I didn't see any recent CSDs in your contributions, so I thought I'd let you know. Just make sure that anything you request speedy deletion for falls under at least one of the criteria listed at WP:Criteria for speedy deletion. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

How to withdraw an AfD nomination

Please follow the steps in the Guide to Deletion: Withdrawing a nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Please check if I followed the process & Thanks for the link. I will study and make myself more aware of the process. Light2021 (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Light2021 (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was done correctly -- thank you. As an aside, you might also want to slow down with the nominations. For example, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies now contains 90 entries and it will take a while for editors to work through the backlog. The reason not to overload a particular category is to avoid seeing your nominations close as "no consensus" due to lack of participation.

Meanwhile, you could go back to your nominations and "resign" them in the proper fashion so that ppl know how to contact you if needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

That's why I took the time to go through them - there's a lot, but mostly they're thoroughly deserving of deletion. Have a look through and see what you make of them - David Gerard (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, Thanks everyone. I will keep in mind for the numbers of nominations. As it is required time and energy for discussion articles. I will reduce my numbers for AFD so these articles will be analysed by community. Light2021 (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy tagging and A11

I see Peridon has written about this above, but as I have written out the following, I may as well add it here:

Thanks for patrolling, but you are not tagging accurately. In particular, you are misusing WP:CSD#A11. That is intended for for articles about new words, made-up religions etc: something like "Flooble is a word invented in the 5th form at St Dominics in September 2016 by Billy Johnson and James Tweegle" where the article author is User:JTweegle.

The two essentials are: (a) it must be something made-up (so, not a real company or person) and (b) there must be actual evidence that "plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally". Both those elements are missing from company articles like NPCC Enterprises and Caxy Interactive.

Both those were properly deleted under A7. If you have one valid ground for deletion, it is not necessarily useful to add more, particularly if they are not valid. It is important to get the right tags, so that the (probably newbie) authors understand the problem and maybe learn to do better; but putting A3 no content on Caxy Interactive (which had a full screens-worth of content), as well as A11 and A7, was just wrong, and confusing for the author.

Before tagging any more articles, please read the definitions at WP:CSD carefully; and if you are in any doubt about what is appropriate in a particular case, read the definitions again.

There is good advice for speedy taggers at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise and links for study JohnCD (talk) . I will certainly do the needful. Will be more rigorous in the process in future. Light2021 (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Disruption of AFD

Light2021: I'm going to have to disagree with some of the folks above, and say your actions at WP:AFD in past few days were indeed disruptive, and cause for great concern after your previously uncivil use of AFD that lead to your blocks. I strongly urge you to SLOW DOWN and take a more neutral attitude. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) 1Wiki8..........................., can you be a little more precise? What actions of theirs have caused the disruption? Could you provide an example or two so they can see what they did wrong so they can correct it for next time? -- Gestrid (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

After going through Light2021's contributions, I think I see what you mean. Something like this, perhaps? -- Gestrid (talk) 06:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I mean specifically the users massive flood of AFD nominations without properly doing WP:BEFORE and lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages:Notability#Article content does not determine notability. This user has disrupted AFD before to such an extent that administrator action was needed. I think it is wise and prudent that this users actions at AFD be scrutinized and proper warnings given. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I completely disagree - David Gerard (talk) 07:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Which is why I prefaced my statement above with my disagreement of your agreement. But no worry, we can agree to disagree on this one. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I initially though it was disruption as well, but apart from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vistasp Karbhari, I think the rest of the nominations are valid. I guess the sudden nomination of a bunch of articles is a bit of an issue, but it seems the editor now understands the issue. Personally, I don't see it as a problem any more. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I've done a spot check of this user's AfDs and there is no problem with the quality of the nominations. I'd say the big concern is not the large volume of AfDs they're starting, but the large volume of spam on Misplaced Pages. Reyk _YO! 12:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

- I am very much thankful to the wiki community. I am here to make the Misplaced Pages most credible source of knowledge and to be it forever. Few articles (companies or people) are using it for their promotions, commercial gain or internet popularity or just some blog - "spot" on internet. How these things will separate Misplaced Pages from Commercial media that covers news for people or companies by merely knowing them personally or for commercial gains? I might make few mistakes in the learning. But I will do every step to learn faster and improve my editing capabilities. I will take all the feedback essential for my learning as well as for better contribution. I will do everything necessary suggested or recommended by the wiki community. thanks all. Light2021 (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Light, I welcome your contributions and think you're definitely adding value by identifying some very problematic articles that deserve to be deleted. My advice would be to carefully study WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. Specifically, "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." Before you nominate articles for deletion, please be sure that you've checked (other places than the article) for the existence of WP:RS. Articles can be very poorly written and poorly sourced but still meet our WP:GNG. Sometimes they just need some research and a thorough rewrite. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Definitely that is going to help me making better contribution to wikipedia. Thanks Safehaven86 (talk) Light2021 (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

advice

I've been working on deleting spam for years, and am glad that we other people ==like you-- are becoming interested also. But I have found it advisable over my 8 years here never to nominate a large number of articles at the same time, unless there is an obvious relationship between them.It always gives the impression that it is done without sufficient thought, and whether or not that is actually the case. I usually do not send more than 2 articles to afd in the same editing session here, and usually not more than 4 or 5 a day. (The same goes for prod, and even for speedy) The point of deletions, as 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR said above, is thatt hey be quality nominations, done in only appropriate cases, with a reasonable check at WP:BEFORe and with sound arguments. He and I take a considerably different approach to some things, such as the relative importance of removing promotionalism, but we agree that it has to be done carefully and correctly|

As another point, please be careful at CSD to use the correct reasons. You really do need to re-read WP:CSD, and realize that the restrictions there are meant literally. There's a reason for each of the details, to be found in the archives t of WT:CSD. G6 does not at all apply to Draft:CourseHorse--G6 as you specified it applies to disambiguation pages --and I do not think there is a speedy reason that does apply; it won't make it as an article in its current form and if it had been an article I would have used Speedy A7, , but there's no good reason to remove it from draft space, where it might get improved. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment -- I concur with DGG; for example, the Companies AfD category (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies) currently has 120 entries. This is not sustainable. Instead, if you could take some time to participate in deletion discussions started by others (reviewing / looking for sources, commenting, etc), that would be very helpful. AfDs generally suffer from low participation, so nominating article is not the whole thing. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Definitely, I will keep everything in mind as advised and suggested by DGG ( talk ) & K.e.coffman (talk) . I will try giving more time to discussion as well. and more on responding to AfD. Will keep 4 at max per day from now. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Participation in AFDs would be great :-) Simply doing the WP:BEFORE with one's personal Google filter bubble can be enormously helpful, and even saves some things that one might think were obvious deletion targets ... - David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Surely, I am doing it prior to nominations. Some of them are missed or I will be more careful and will do more research. Will be participating more :) Light2021 (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd recommend taking it down a notch. You'll do best to focus on specific sources and why you think they are not reliable in light of our WP:RS policy, rather than maligning the intentions or motivations of other editors. WP:AGF and WP:FOC are helpful in this regard. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

citing policies to me again and again and again? How it is helpful? Merely your analysis on Keeping those articles are simply denied because all those articles not even close to the idea of Misplaced Pages as it intend to, not my imaginations or interpretations, but that is what it really stands for. Misplaced Pages is not a Diary, Journal, Records of operational or press activities covered by popular media or notable media. How these articles are covered are more important than this. Misplaced Pages is not a platform for people who want to write here and earn money, some of them are doing it very well. They are also careful doing that, as their intentions can be caught so they might be blocked. Such articles are the creation of such publicity and paid for work. "There is nothing wrong earning by writing, journalist do that, so does Misplaced Pages editors". But within the scope of Misplaced Pages and its guidelines would be much better building this platform. Merely citing and misusing these policies for arguments does not make any sense or even going after and editors who does not match your arguments. What you are doing here on discussion seems like Every articles that has been covered by media of any-kind should follow all the rules and policies that you never get tired mentioning again and again. I am trying to contribute my part, other can agree or disagree. I am accepting both the judgement all the time. But the way you or That "admin" come to my articles are highly questionable. Have you grown up with reading encyclopedia reading news paper or daily junks of popular people or things? This is what it is all about. Do not make this platform useless as the other media has become or becoming. Writing blogs online is easy, establishing credibility and making impact is tough. Have you ever notice me nominating any most notable company or startups without analyzing all these policies your mention again and again? I am human, I might make mistakes, That is why I am not going on deleting articles, I am inviting it for discussion, that is not following guidelines mentioned in Misplaced Pages. Merely misusing popular media for such companies for their notability, will destroy everything Misplaced Pages stands for. Or I am the not understanding Misplaced Pages for its purpose to be here. It is not Blog, PR channel, News Paper, Collections of news bundled together into one, Journal or anything that is nothing significant. Go through all those articles and their coverage on media. Are they really significant? or I must leave Misplaced Pages for my highly strict stand on making this Encyclopedia with my contributions. I am not here to debate to admin or other users who are not happy with me. They must see the beauty of Misplaced Pages it presents. There will be no purpose here spending so much time debating myself, intentions of others or mine. Thanks for the Recommendations anyway! Light2021 (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Or you could ignore all of the advice given to you here by well-meaning editors and crash out in a spectacular ball of fire. Your choice. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems that anyone who tries to tackle the vast spam problem on Misplaced Pages gets hassled and kicked in the teeth for it. Reyk _YO! 18:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I have found your judgement less than sufficiently robust to be issuing dire warnings to other editors - David Gerard (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Light2021 (and others) all of the requirements in WP:NOT requirements are matters of degree, that take intelligent human judgment. And some of your conditions do not even apply directly --there is no policy that 'Misplaced Pages is not a Diary, Journal, Records of operational or press activities covered by popular media or notable media. " Most of these things are in fact covered by some of the provisions of NOT, but we DO include activities covered by popular media--in fact, including them is what we do best. We're a modern encyclopedia , and includes everything that would have been in a traditional encyclopedia ,plus a great deal more, including a great deal of popular culture--for which, by the by, we are in fact probably the best available single source. As for me, I grew up reading everything I could find--certainly traditional encyclopedias, but also newspapers and political tracts and catalogues, dictionaries, & telephone directories. Some of this fits into an encyclopedia like WP, some not. Some which we do not include I might even argue to include, except that the web and google etc do it better than we could hope to--such as a shopping directory, or television schedules.

Whether we include paid editing is another matter. I would not include paid editing even on tradition encyclopedic subjects, let alone directory subjects. The primary reasons for it is that it inherently tends to compromise a NPOV, and even more important, that it discourages the volunteers.Being an encyclopedia is not in fact the primary role of WP,and certainly not its innovative aspect. It's been done before, and can be done without us. The true purpose of this project, is to show how very large scale high quality socially productive intellectual work can be done by cooperative amateurs working without formal organization or hierarchal control, making their own rules as they go along, and disregarding outside prejudice or prior theory. THIS is what we are accomplishing. We have made not just an encyclopedia , but a model, a model which has been used for other things, and which will be used for many more other things, and represents a significant contribution to individual human creative freedom. It is for this reason that we want to keep the profession writers out, and why we want to limit the professional input into our structure and programming to the minimum, only for those things that amateurs cannot be expected to do.

Light, as applied to you, one of the key requirements for cooperative activity is mutual tolerance. We work here as individuals,and one of the thing we must do in order to be productive is to put up with each others' idiosyncrcies and disagreements, and focus on the purpose. People who try to impose their own individual vision on the project are inherently disruptive--no matter how good their vision is, because the life of the project consists of the merging of our different visions. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

DGG's advice is worth heeding. At AFD, you ultimately have to convince people who don't already agree with you - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's another often neglected category: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television, with much promo content and / or fancruft. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with DGG and I have no problem understanding the Misplaced Pages and taking others in confidence in the matter where we are having discussion. disruption of any kind is not worthy where we are working together on making something better than things that already exist. My concern was not to satisfied with the people who disagree with me, I love to learn more by discussions. But I have analysed few editors and their perspective on this subject. There is certain requirement to be present on Misplaced Pages as being neutral . but mentioning news or policies all the time because something is covered by popular media, and the content that they have written is poorly analysed, this leads to misuse of the citations, as notable media never meant to be misused. By doing internet research, Google search , Rss, and news coverage is most important factors to analyse the notability of subject. I check the content and how the news is covered, not "who" covered it. Here if you go by the Safehaven86. As you can see and check, everything that is just linked to popular source, automatically becomes "Misplaced Pages Notable", without even being notable. In-fact other editors have mentioned several time, that source need to be analyzed based on coverage not just who covered it. This is the disagreement about and probably the "warning or threat" given to me. If I am becoming disruptive to the community, I should not waste people time by debating each other instead of improving Misplaced Pages. Probably As per my understanding Misplaced Pages is world's most notable, reliable source of my knowledge, I grew up with this encyclopedia. If it would become another news platform where nothing to say but bundling of few news citations makes an article, whole purpose is ended. Anyone can write about anything just citing once in a lifetime coverage on media or bundling of news together misusing the concept of "Depth of coverage".

My apologies to the whole community if I misunderstood this platform. I will certainly do not want to take contributors time discussing my agenda or intentions or interpretations of Misplaced Pages. They are better using their precious time contributing to Misplaced Pages or doing important things. Thanks every one. I will refrain myself now. thanks for the advises and concerns. I totally appreciate with my heart and as much as this Encyclopedia close to me I grew up with. Light2021 (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think DGG's advice is quite good. At AfDs you need to persuade editors and your arguments need to be based on policies and guidelines. Stuff like this for example are not really helpful. The important thing to remember is to refute the argument itself and not comment on the contributor. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Lemongirl942 I will definitely be more appropriate with persuasion with right approach. I never want to get personal with argument to anyone. sincere Apologies to all. Light2021 (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This and this wasn't appropriate either btw. Generally, refrain from editing someone else's userspace pages. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not do any editing apart I removed my Barn-star given to someone. apart from that I have done not even a comma editing. Is it wrong? Please advise or how can i remove barn-star given by me? Lemongirl942 Completely undeserving atleast from my ends. Not questioning anyone else. Light2021 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

October, 2016 - disruptive AfDs

Please immediately stop nominating startup company articles for deletion. Your idiosyncratic interpretation of the encyclopedia's notability standards is not shared by many editors, something you are apparently aware of at this point. This is disruptive to the encyclopedia, and wasting a disproportionate amount of time of editors. You have made a slew of ill-advised nominations of obviously notable companies. I will be snow closing some or most of these. If you persist I will seek adminsitrative intervention. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The time I got involved in Misplaced Pages AfD, lots of people started having problems. Some gave me Warning, Threat, Personal Attack or used Misplaced Pages guidelines as if I am unaware of them. Just warning me for Stop nominating, can you cite your few of Disruptive thing I have done.[REDACTED] is over flooded with Spam articles these days. I definitely seek Administrative interventions. Thanks. and for recent nominations let's give sometime to contribute from other people also. As this moment people who go on Keeping every articles that does not even notable but these people do not even care to read the News Articles. Merely looking at website does not help understand the Depth of coverage as the Notability of Misplaced Pages requires. These people only use GNC and it passes or it is there without even going through any of these articles. If we go by this logic Misplaced Pages will become either Newspaper, Gossipedia, Press Host or something like a Directory! And this is not per my Interpretations or imaginations or ideas of my own wikipedia. Light2021 (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Light2021 (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Help request Light2021 (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidemon this is entirely inappropriate. The nominations appear to me (as someone who examines them and goes through the sources and checks for available sources and so on) >90% deletable. You are issuing threats against another editor with absolutely no policy basis for doing so. In addition, you are threatening disruption yourself. Please desist - David Gerard (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@David Gerard:, which nominations do you think are legitimate? The ones I spot checked from the past few days are not close cases at all. The two I have SNOW closed so far, Yo (app) and Delivery Hero are spectacularly misguided nominations, and the user seems strident and unrepentant about this, continuing after my warning. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wikidemon: David Gerard is correct. This is entirely inappropriate. The editor has an 84.4% positive nomination to outcome ratio which is quite high. Additionally, While Yo (app) was not particularly a good nomination, they have also nominated articles that were speedily deleted. If you disagree with their nomination rationale then expressing your policy-based reasons on why the article should be kept or deleted should be left in the AFD discussions. You should not be threatening to unilaterally close their AFD nominations, especially outside of WP:NAC. I see no reason why they should be repentant to you, Wikidemon, and I find your conduct below our threshold for WP:CIVIL. Consider this a second opinion from a sysop. Mkdw 16:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I am grateful that you have taken this matter into considerations and putting your valuable time. Thank you David Gerard & Mkdw . Light2021 (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Light2021 (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

If Yo and Delivery Hero were anomalies, then I stand corrected. Sorry that I overreacted and did not take the time to look at your history in context. Please do try to be more careful, then, to understand the policy behind notability as it applies to startup companies. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That's very big of you Wikidemon. I do want to say to Light2021 that while looking at your record, I suspect that your 'positive nomination to outcome ratio 'is likely going to be lowered by a noticeable margin when your next batch of current nominations are closed. I think there is validity in the recommendation to due your due diligence conducting WP:BEFORE. Mkdw 18:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I will surely take appropriate steps. Just want to say people are afraid of Nominating those spam, because either they are dragged into the warning and threats. it definitely demoralize them to effectively work here. Only importance given to people who go on citing policies and ignoring other parameters Misplaced Pages has set. The sources and "Depth of coverage" is more important than Once in a lifetime coverage in media. By this, where we are going with this? are we making this platform to technology company alone, who knows how to misuse it. they cite online versions, where independent coverage is itself questionable. We will end up keeping all those article who got covered only once, and there will be argument always. as mere purpose to mislead other is to not reading articles but citing that " Big media" covered them. I have noted and mentioned incident where people do not even read those article, and what actually been covered. Just the website: Like if its BBC website, its notable. does not even matter to them to put efforts and read them atleast. that is how all these Spam are being protected and argument is done. If that is what we want. then I can not contribute them, where shallow discussion saves articles. or Vote counts. as happened in recent cases. and then I have to file another nominations as my time and other contributors are wasting their time, where such people are citing policies and saving these article. Believe me or not! these are the writer who work for such company and looks for building a case study, otherwise you would track them and block them. They are well studied professionals who are responsbile for largest degree of junk here. Pardon me, if my language are not sound. Just expressing what is happening here. If I become the "Keep" person, i surely can become more friendly, and will be getting Wikilove instead Threats, Policy citing as I am being totally ignorant, or warning. I am not here to become all that.[REDACTED] credibility is in question and someone has to make an impact to make it right or let the[REDACTED] doomed with such articles. even after discussing and wasting lots of time, when the thin Vote gets saved the article, I need to put that on "Deletion review" and get discussions there again. So much efforts to save all those spam. Definitely not the purpose of Misplaced Pages. These people mis-use citing policies selectively only. Definitely not my imaginary idea of Misplaced Pages that some people also claimed here. That is just Misplaced Pages! Light2021 (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

MBJ London

You nominated MBJ London for deletion. I reviewed the guidelines and I thought it was an appropriate add. Relevant w/in the tech world. I understand there is a dispute over including startups but I wasn't sure exactly what protocol was concerning adding prominent + well established startups who have passed their nascent phase. Thanks, -- if possible, I would like information about how to proceed. (talk) 10:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines are WP:GNG (is the subject of the article just plain famous?) WP:CORP (notability for corporations) and WP:CORPDEPTH (do we have actual depth of coverage sufficient to write up this corporation?). These are guidelines hence somewhat squishy and subject to debate, but generally a lot of PR coverage or PR-initiated coverage, or nothing but funding rounds, doesn't swing it for many people - David Gerard (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion on the article VersaPay but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Note that if you are editing as an unregistered user, you cannot create a discussion page. Please consider registering an account or asking another user to help you complete the process at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion. Thank you. ansh 666 17:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I see that you're using Twinkle - try going a bit slower and making sure that the nomination is completed before starting the next one. Sometimes, if you start the next one or close the current window too fast, the process won't be completed. Cheers, ansh 666 17:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You are right. There were some issue from my ends I guess. I will keep in mind. Thanks. :) Light2021 (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I see there is another person commenting on this simplivity page that is up for deletion - that I am only trying to update for a girl I know. I don't know who this other person is commenting but you have my permission to delete his comment. After all of the research I've done since last week I'm with you on any PR place not putting pages up for IPO or SAEO or whatever - this is supposed to be a clean encyclopedia type source of knowledge.Wmshultz (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. –Davey2010 21:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Renominating the article again 3 days after the last AFD closed is extremely disruptive and can get you blocked, If you disagree with a closure then you either ask that person to reopen it or failing that you go to WP:DRV, You don't renominate and renominate until it gets deleted - It oesn't work like tat and as I said it'll only lead to you being blocked, Thank you
- First thing First I have nominated that once not as I am being accused of. And given a warning for being blocked by Davey on my talk page. that being right after I question the methodology used for "closing an AfD" by Davey. Are you angry ? If I am doing Disruptive Editing or something I need to know. I am Happy to know. Warning by others made to me since I am into AfD. Not very surprising. user seems to be senior editors and know very much about Misplaced Pages guidelines. I am seeking Admins opinion on that. Thanks

{{admin help}} Light2021 (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

As I've just this moment said on my tp that I wasn't aware you wasn't the 2nd nom however as I've said you shouldn't renominated 3 days after the AFD's been closed, You posted something on my page earlier in the day which made no sense but yet I had replied anyway ....., Last but not least you're not going to be blocked - The warning is intended to make you take a step back and read the various policies, Ofcourse if you renominate again you could be blocked, Thank,. –Davey2010 21:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Davey2010 cannot block you, he would have to ask an admin (probably at WP:AIV) to do so. We would expect that "The user must have been given enough warnings to stop their disruptive behaviour" before any blocking occurs. He posted one warning, I do not see an issue with that - if fact at the 3rd AfD, plenty of other editors, including some admins were not happy to see the nomination so soon after the 2nd one. Editors are expected to know enough of the policies, especially if they are nominating for deletion - since a deletion reason should be based on current policies. Results of failed AfD are usually placed in the talk page banners, so it's not difficult to see if the page has been nominated before - also the addition of "(3rd nomination)" to the AfD page should have caused some checking at creation. Ronhjones 23:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

thanks for coming here. I did not know that information is presented in Talk page or history of prior AfD. Otherwise I would have been careful on AfD. Will keep in mind for future. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 08:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Slow down

Your deletion recommendations are being very WP:DE. I left a detailed comment on SimpliVity along with my keep vote as the creator of the article. If you are unhappy with Misplaced Pages guidelines on notability, please discuss at the appropriate forum. Using AfD as a way to prove your point you don't want company articles in Misplaced Pages is very disruptive. Also, you need to slow down. While some of your AfD nominations are good - I will be voting on many of them shortly - you need to use WP:BEFORE as some of these meet WP:GNG. Finally, do not remove an AfD notice on an article and replace it with a speedy deletion request. The discussion was started by you 7 days ago and is currently under discussion. If you felt it was so promotional, please use the speedy recommendation from the start. The revert of the article I did put it back to where it was in 2014 before people started adding promotional tone. While I think your edits are done in good faith, I would ask that you address your recommendation with Misplaced Pages guidelines, not your personal views on what should and should not be allowed in Misplaced Pages. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

On a side note, I see that one of the other two editors are on the talk page of the article now. If you are unfamiliar with WP:SPI, I would suggest you make a report there if you feel they are one and the same person. I would say the likely are based on WP:DUCK, but taking it to WP:SPI is up to you. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure, thank you for being here and for suggestions. I will keep your suggestions in mind for Speedy and AfD time. I have also tag the Talk page seeking Admin Opinion and action on that matter. As I am not an Admin level expert and what actions to take. Light2021 (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the dialogue. Typically, and there are others more experienced who can opine, when two new accounts jump in and immediately start a discussion to keep an article, the liklihood of them being related are pretty high. I think I see that with another AfD you did where three came on and recommended "keep" back to back to back. I think I am going to recommend a WP:SPI on that one as it is more blatant than the one with SimpliVity. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I have few links to share from Misplaced Pages not my opinion or my ways as being labeled by many when I started AfD:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Notability_means_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Bombardment https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Every_snowflake_is_unique https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_one_really_cares These are some knowledge and my assessment based on. And many others as mentioned in Misplaced Pages. I hope that answers your curiosity :) Thanks Light2021 (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Appreciating to your contribution on Wiki.

Thanks for being such helpful and great contributor.

There is one question. You have flagged "Moglix" as deletion. May I know what is the wrong there or type of information to be placed. So that can save some pages to be deleted like "Moglix"

Hoping to get the reply.

Thanks Anilkumatpatel (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind appreciation.

Problem with such startup or companies is not just the Reliable sources but how they are being covered by media. Most of the time they get coverage on popular media because of funding from known investors or their operations details or future plans. such news are covered daily by daily news papers. It is not notable for being Encyclopedia standards. Continuous and sustainable coverage is required for being notable. But with such cases there are only Once in a Lifetime coverage that any funded startup can get. They are better suitable as news, not as Wikiepdia article. For being in[REDACTED] they need to do more than that. Else Misplaced Pages either becomes Directory or Press Distribution channel. Misplaced Pages is neither of them. There are notable startups as well, they deserve the place as well. Moglix is new and not shown any substantial disruption or notable impact in our world yet. Misplaced Pages has no time limit. Such startups makes[REDACTED] page just for building online reputation or bragging about[REDACTED] page. That is clearly not the purpose of Misplaced Pages. It is most transparent, genuine encyclopedia world has ever known. Where daily news has become paid media mostly as being commercial in nature, and anyone being influential or funded can easily get covered by them. On the other hand there are tons of Online media, Where everything is covered even you have just launched or are from some institute or have some random ideas. As Online media needs lots of articles and they are coming from lots of contributors who are not even credible journalist or media people. Either they are PR agents of in small startups Founders are themselves. For such cases YourStory, The Next Web, Make use of or Techcrucnh are one of those online media. some of them being blocked for being non-notable as well or even got deleted recently. There are other startups like Delhivery or few more who are not notable yet and got deleted as well. Moglix is definitely not yet notable for being Encyclopedia notable. yopu can read my page as well, where I have mentioned few links as well. Thanks. and hope I have given your response. Light2021 (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

If that satisfies my assessment, few articles to read: Anilkumatpatel

Light2021 (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Dinclix GroundWorks

The article Dinclix GroundWorks was nominated for deletion by you, the article was written in a neutral tone and does not contains any promotional or advertising material, it seems like you never read the article before nominating for speedy deletion, I want you to restore it and discuss the issues you have with it.

Regards. --TheodoreIndiana (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2016 (IST)

Tone of article has nothing to do with Encyclopedia Notability. This is not a platform for creating profile and for promotions. Not newspaper or PR host either. and I do read articles. Article restoration has nowhere an option for this one! Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@TheodoreIndiana:. Actually, that's not true. The correct advice is to use WP:DRV to appeal disputed speedy deletions. HOWEVER - You need to discuss the issue with the closing administrator first. In this case that would be @DMacks:. It is unlikely to be restored if it does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOV. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I responded on my talkpage, standing by my action. DMacks (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

thanks DMacks Light2021 (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Improper use of the hoax template

I have removed the {{hoax}} template from several articles you have incorrectly added it to (, , ). Simple Google searches qualified the existence of said entities as non-hoaxes. Please do not incorrectly tag articles as hoaxes when they are not, because it is disruptive to the encyclopedia, and creates more work for other users to correct your errors. Thanks for your consideration. North America 14:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)