Welcome!
Hello, Light2021, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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)
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 Talk 19:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestions. Will keep it for future. OhNoitsJamie Talk 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia: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)
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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)
- 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 completely disagree - David Gerard (talk) 07:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I mean specifically the users massive flood of AFD nominations without properly doing WP:BEFORE and lack of understanding of Wikipedia: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'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 Wikipedia. Reyk YO! 12:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am very much thankful to the wiki community. I am here to make the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
- 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)
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 (Wikipedia: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)
- 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)
- 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 Wikipedia as it intend to, not my imaginations or interpretations, but that is what it really stands for. Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia editors". But within the scope of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Merely misusing popular media for such companies for their notability, will destroy everything Wikipedia stands for. Or I am the not understanding Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
- 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 'Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Probably As per my understanding Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. They are better using their precious time contributing to Wikipedia 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)
- I just want to give you a small advice regarding this. If you nominated something very recently and it was closed as no-consensus, try waiting for a while (6 months) before nominating. In the meantime, you can search for other non-notable companies and nominate them for deletion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:30, 1 November 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 Wikipedia AfD, lots of people started having problems. Some gave me Warning, Threat, Personal Attack or used Wikipedia 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. wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
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. Mkdwtalk 16:16, 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)
- 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. Mkdwtalk 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 Wikipedia 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. wikipedia credibility is in question and someone has to make an impact to make it right or let the wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. These people mis-use citing policies selectively only. Definitely not my imaginary idea of Wikipedia that some people also claimed here. That is just Wikipedia! Light2021 (talk) 05:14, 18 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. Mkdwtalk 18:45, 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)
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 Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Thank you. ansh666 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, ansh666 17:25, 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. –Davey2010Talk 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 Wikipedia 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,. –Davey2010Talk 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 (Talk) 23:58, 26 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia guidelines, not your personal views on what should and should not be allowed in Wikipedia. --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 Wikipedia not my opinion or my ways as being labeled by many when I started AfD:
- 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)
- 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)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_means_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bombardment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Every_snowflake_is_unique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_one_really_cares These are some knowledge and my assessment based on. And many others as mentioned in Wikipedia. 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 wikipedia they need to do more than that. Else Wikipedia either becomes Directory or Press Distribution channel. Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia has no time limit. Such startups makes wikipedia page just for building online reputation or bragging about wikipedia page. That is clearly not the purpose of Wikipedia. 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
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_means_impact
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bombardment
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Every_snowflake_is_unique
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_one_really_cares
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)
- 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)
Improper use of the hoax template
I have removed the {{hoax}} template from several articles you have incorrectly added it to ([1], [2], [3]). 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 America1000 14:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- : As an admin I guess, You are not here to give suggestions, your only interest to find something about my AfD or Tagging, you are not helping, and you are counter attack me on every AfD, making not discussions but tagging random things in AfD. or citing mere policies or references. The true value of encyclopedia is ending here. Where only paid or influenced coverage can get you Encyclopedia notability. Think and ask yourself, such companies does they even make encyclopedia material. Your actions are not because there are some mis-doing, it is on me and only on my actions. Because of such things people with citing GNC or Media references of any kind, made a Wikipedia place of thousands of PR directed and blatant promotions. The whole value is getting lost. I have myself tagged Speedy deletions tags with and got more than 100s of articles. You are merely citing policies or things or even deleting whole tags which I am making. What are we making here really? Even a common-sense can tell you how pathetic and miserable are such articles for being an Encyclopedia material. No personal attack. But Yes My time and other contributors time are very important, where hours are being put, and here I am getting a lecture on Time and disruptions. As if you are only contributing , and we have all the waste time on this world. So yes it matters to me a lot. Your contributions are mere removing my tag without giving any substantial insight does not help. I am sorry I am in compete disagreement with you with such intensity. As I am here putting lots and lots of efforts which is being ignored by you giving me Disruptive warning on my page. North America1000 this is not helping. Thank you for your suggestions. Light2021 (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- now here again we have to make AfD and waste more of contributors time on discusssions,and people will come there citing GNC and only thing they have to Keep vote. In the end discussions will be extended and Vote count will win this game. As this has become a known game to many. Where companies are wining vote game even if they are being on AfD several times. Same thing and same vote games are put Wikipedia into a danger on being made as Promotional material for those who can mis-use GNC, or mere 2-3 press or media coverage make anything a value of Encyclopedia material. Light2021 (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- My comment in this thread is only about you incorrectly adding the {{hoax}} template to articles. Please don't do this, particularly when the hoax claim is countered on the first page of Google searches. It is disruptive, because this introduces factual errors into Wikipedia articles, right at the top of them. North America1000 17:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walkover Technologies
Hi,
I'm Pallavi and would like your guidance. You have nominated Walkover Technologies for deletion and I'd really like your help to keep it. Can you please guide me in the right direction.
Thanks in advance!
Pallavi JaisinghaniSonali7169 (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
This is non-notable company. and not even an encyclopedia material from any point of consideration. No one really knows about this one and no one really care to know. Except their target customers for building SEO or online reputation or their employee. Complete piece of highest degree of promotions. This is not why this platform even exist in a first place. for future you can go through the grave danger and concern to Wikipedia these days from articles.
- Wikipedia:Notability means impact
- Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia
- Wikipedia:No one really cares
- User:Jimbo Wales/Paid Advocacy FAQ
- User:Brianhe/What's wrong with undisclosed paid editing
- Wikipedia:There is no deadline
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper
I hope it helps. Light2021 (talk) 11:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick and explanatory response!
You are right that it is a non-notable company and not many people would be interested in knowing it and it is because Walkover is the parent company under which various products are developed. It is not through Walkover but through the products that our audience knows us. It is not promotional at all, if it would have been we would have added MSG91 our flagship product in the list but we haven't.
I'd again request you to reconsider, please.Sonali7169 (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- This is a clear case of violating COI, and requesting your company for Wikipedia article. "flagship" Products and such promotional are not encyclopedia material. Wikipedia is not a corporate Directory nor it is made to to company PR or SEO or building Online Reputation. This is listed in Red Herring, which is Scam listed and blocked by Wikipedia. Not to consider for their notability. I am sorry this case is not acceptable, on the other note you yourself are claiming being a part of this company " This is non-notable" company. thanks.Light2021 (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:deleted article retrieval Draft:Italo Brutalo
Hi Light2021. Thank you for taking your time reviewing what I have written Draft:Italo Brutalo. I would like to contest the nomination but there is nothing left of the material that I have written on Draft:Italo Brutalo and therefor no button labeled "Contest this speedy deletion". I would like to explain why I believe the page should not be deleted and make improvement changes in line with wikipedia guidelines. I would therefor like to retrieve the deleted page and I would like to get some tips on why specifically it was declined. Thank you for your time. Dean Wolfster (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- It does not provide Encyclopedia Value by any means. No Media, no notability or any significant impact is found. such articles are considered for Speedy Deletions. thanks.Light2021 (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Dean Wolfster:
You can request a WP:REFUND if you want to improve the article.The article is ineligible for a refund, because it was deleted as overtly promotional. Another editor left instructions for you on your talkpage. - Brianhe (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Dean Wolfster:
User:Light2021 redux
I've tried giving this user plenty of time and latitude to learn how our deletion policies and process works, but I don't see much improvement since the discussion on their talk page. One one hand, Light2021 has appropriately identified a few articles about companies that were deleted with a solid consensus. One the other hand:
- many, perhaps half, of the nominations clearly lack WP:BEFORE
- sending an article back to Afd less than a month after it had survived AfD with a "no consensus" !vote
- attempting to speedy an article that had survived one of his AfD nominations
- blatant misuse of the WP:HOAX template ([4], [5], [6]), and
- the user's limited command of English leads to word-salad nominations that appear to be copy-paste fragments of miscellaneous deletion policies, with very little variation between the nomination content.
Several other users (User:Davey2010, User:Ronhjones, User:Northamerica1000), have recently expressed similar concerns. I think this user should be given a deletion-related topic ban, but before I take it to ANI I'd like to run it by a few others. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- As this warning is coming from Admin. need admin help. Either this admin has clear bias or have clear Regret that once he unblocked me. His actions are clearly not in interest of Neutral. Making. As far as the AfD are concerned. I have few things to share AfD% . I am not denying My AfD sometime be questioned as it is obvious process. as others are not keen on making this Wikipedia Great. But another website to promote themselves. I do read articles, as being accused by this admin or mentioned admin or being accused of . Speedy Deletion or AfD people are not very likable though. Wikipedia:Why I Hate Speedy Deleters As it is clearly written on Wikipedia itself. So I have no hard feeling that few people feel such a way. I am here to make this platform what it truly is and grave danger has been presented by so many Spam and garbage written on Wikipedia.
Better to decide by Admins. As Warning is not new. Complete Misuse and Blatant degree of promotional article are filling Wikipedia with garbage. Immediate attention are required. Where we are forgetting why such platform even exist in a first place. ONE PARAGRAPH about company profile does not make it Encyclopedia material, even using few media sources to cite. Highest degree of PR placed to build SEO and Online reputations. I am merely taking few Strict measure. I am not in denial mode that such warning will not be given to me.
My suggestions to go to UrbanClap page and every page that I have given warning to using wrong AfD. You will find seriously nothing like an Encyclopedia material, but blatant degree of promotions for company or people. and nothing else. One paragraph or few lines to write about their own saga using media references.
- As written that My English is poor, I am using same writing. Such blatant promotions does not even deserve anyone time. Only copy-paste job is done well. Why to waste writing with different words, where the concerns are same. Is it wrong being smart there or wasting not my time on writing different comment. Where it is required I am doing everything I can.
- @Ohnoitsjamie: Came for the admin help request, stayed for the word salad. He's "here to make this platform what it truly is"? That says it all with blue cheese dressing and croutons. I'd support the topic ban and I think you should go to ANI with it. Katietalk 15:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I am Looking for more than 2 Opinion on that. As I am really doubtful. Thanks. Do not Ban my AfD. You must ban me. As I am doing my work, and putting lots of time. Where My AfD deletions are ignored like I am no one here to contribute and knows nothing about Wikipedia.
Light2021 (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ohnoitsjamie - This should be taken to ANI and I would happily go with a topic ban here, Technically I don't have issues with AFDS being renominated if they were closed as NC however sources on the 3rd AFD were presented and then bar one it all was keeps thereafter so ideally this shouldn't of been renominated especially so early, Anyway I would support a topic ban here as the user just isn't getting it and they're now becoming a hinderance to the AFD process (and their rationales here and on AFDs make no sense either!). –Davey2010Talk 16:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Need Help from other admin than Jamie tagged to or written on one's Talk page. As all efforts of doing AdD, Deletions of over 80% spams, and many on Speedy deletions are ignored, because few admins do not agree to my methods or unhappy with my language. But they are fine with such 1000- of garbage written on Wikipedia. Need mature, neutral perspective, where . Wikidemon is going on deleting my AfD without even going through Afd. Is there a procedure to Cross-check Admin issues or raise an dispute for Admin actions? Light2021 (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- With the greatest of respect .... Admins aren't the issue here .... You're the issue ... So blaming everyone else for your mistakes really does you no favours, No one is fine with spam on here however we have policies that have to be followed and yet you're repeatedly ignoring those policiies, We're all forgiving on here and we were all newbies once however you're making no effort to rectify the issues, If you cannot understand what people are saying because of the English issues then needless to say you shouldn't be editing here. –Davey2010Talk 16:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Need Help from other admin than Jamie tagged to or written on one's Talk page. As all efforts of doing AdD, Deletions of over 80% spams, and many on Speedy deletions are ignored, because few admins do not agree to my methods or unhappy with my language. But they are fine with such 1000- of garbage written on Wikipedia. Need mature, neutral perspective, where . Wikidemon is going on deleting my AfD without even going through Afd. Is there a procedure to Cross-check Admin issues or raise an dispute for Admin actions? Light2021 (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Over the past two months I have been responsible for contributing deleting over 200 spams from Wikipedia by Afd or Speedy deletion. I have done few questionable things as other admins are saying. They have tagged me being Incompetent and being a disruptor here. Deal curry is closed as Speedy Keep with non-admin close. Without doing discussions. Sorry to bother but you are more senior and neutral admins. I need your help and opinion. thanks. DMacks , Brianhe , Peridon, DGG, David Gerard, SwisterTwister Light2021 (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash as Speedy Keep, Being promotional isn't a valid reason for deletion and as you've been here for 3/4 years you should already now this, please stop nominating articles until you have a better understanding of the AFD process, –Davey2010Talk 16:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- This article has Clear COI and you are saying it is not promotional. it is blatant promotions where you have interrupted the AfD process as Non-Admin Close. Light2021 (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've reverted. Do not try to edit war this one. Your nominations are clearly misguided, and you need to take a pause on this, now. There will probably be a WP:AN/I discussion on this soon enough to get this sorted out, and you will likely be cautioned to stop, or banned from further nominations. In the meanwhile, please don't making things even more of a mess. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Definitely you wanted this so badly as per your Talk page. You will be blaming me and ignored COI and Non-Admin close made by Davey and even the promotional material is being protected in such a manner where AfD is closed without even discussions. I will wait for Admins opinions. Will not edit a single comma now. Thanks.Light2021 (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've reverted. Do not try to edit war this one. Your nominations are clearly misguided, and you need to take a pause on this, now. There will probably be a WP:AN/I discussion on this soon enough to get this sorted out, and you will likely be cautioned to stop, or banned from further nominations. In the meanwhile, please don't making things even more of a mess. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Over the past two months I have been responsible for contributing deleting over 200 spams from Wikipedia by Afd or Speedy deletion. I have done few questionable things as other admins are saying. They have tagged me being Incompetent and being a disruptor here. Deal curry is closed as Speedy Keep with non-admin close. Without doing discussions. Sorry to bother but you are more senior and neutral admins. I need your help and opinion. thanks. DMacks , Brianhe , Peridon, DGG, David Gerard, SwisterTwister Light2021 (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- [admin here too] There appears, per earlier notes on this page, clear targeting of this user - including by blatantly promotional editors. I think this is unwarranted - David Gerard (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'll be brief. I'd like to see a way for contributors new to the ropes like Light2021 to make their opinions known. We have to maintain a balance between potential disruption and good faith actions towards better content. No discussion would certainly mean no disruption, but that's hardly the Wikipedia way. A topic ban seems overly drastic. Could we look for alternatives like steering Light2021 to an appropriate noticeboard for second opinions?
- Continuing with a few thoughts... does this editor write the same way that I would? No, but labeling him as incoherent is false and, frankly, exclusionist to the very people who we are trying to broaden this project to. I for one fully understand what he's doing when he nominates blatantly promotional articles for deletion, and why. This is not word salad; it is a coherent expression of a valid interpretation of facts and polices, with a compelling call to action sent out to us. We should be welcoming and encouraging his expression of his earnestly held viewpoint, and considering how many other people also would like to contribute if they didn't see this kind of attempted shutdown. - Brianhe (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. [7] OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Forever (website)
If you still feel Forever (website) should be deleted, the correct process is to renominate it via AfD. In general, articles that have survived an AfD (as this one did in September) are ineligible for either PROD or A7 speedy deletion. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
XgenPlus Enterprise Email
Hello sir, I have got a notification as Nomination of XgenPlus Enterprise Email for deletion[edit source]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article XgenPlus Enterprise Email is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XgenPlus Enterprise Email until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
I have noticed that you are also involved in the nomination. What exactly this issue is about and how can I resolve it. Jaisskaur (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for reaching me here. I am the one who nominated it for Deletions. As per Notability standards maintained by Wikipedia. You can present your perspective on discussions if you like. As I can check in your Talk Page, You have been notified about Conflict of interest (COI). As you are associated with the company. and Wikipedia maintain strict policy, article must not be written with clear conflict. As in your case is very prominent.
If that satisfies my assessment, few articles to read for more knowledge about Wikipedia Article criteria:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_means_impact
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bombardment
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Every_snowflake_is_unique
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_one_really_cares
I hope I helped in your question. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Guidance Barnstar | |
Thank you for making Wikipedia what it is meant to be. And also for guiding fellow users like me, very much glad to have people like you in the community.TheodoreIndiana (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC) |
- Thank you for your kind appreciation. Really Appreciate it. :)
Light2021 (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
November 2016
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/30px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on DealDash. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. –Davey2010Talk 21:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- You are miserable pathetic. This notice suits better for you. I seek admin help to block this person. As he is harassing me from few days continuously and making me use such language. This is shameless attitude made by such users. I am sorry to use such language here. These people have crossed their threshold harassing me.Light2021 (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have removed the {{admin help}} as inapplicable here. You cannot use a request on your talk page to seek the blocking of another user. Nthep (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- You are miserable pathetic. This notice suits better for you. I seek admin help to block this person. As he is harassing me from few days continuously and making me use such language. This is shameless attitude made by such users. I am sorry to use such language here. These people have crossed their threshold harassing me.Light2021 (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- You've just made this post and you reckon I need blocking ? ....., I've not been harassing you, You've added a template and myself and other editors disagreed with you adding... so you edit warred to have it back, Also you should stop abusing the "admin help" function - It's for admin assistance, –Davey2010Talk 21:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- You are a high degree of manipulators. I ask because I want help rather getting harassed by you on everything I do here. You have misused this platform for your own sake. And i want the strict actions against you. I do not know the process. So I am asking. People like you have shaken the very foundations of this platform by manipulations or keeping all kind of filthy Scams or Spams. Do not come here and write on my Talk Page ever. Get out of my Talk page!Wikipedia:The Last Word Light2021 (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- You're not being harassed, I've never harassed anyone in my life and don't plan on starting now!, If the article is notable it deserves keeping and that's my motto with every article here, Okay if you wanna be childish over it then I'll respect your wishes but just note I'm required by policy to leave warnings or notifications (ANI, AN3 etc), –Davey2010Talk 22:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- You are a high degree of manipulators. I ask because I want help rather getting harassed by you on everything I do here. You have misused this platform for your own sake. And i want the strict actions against you. I do not know the process. So I am asking. People like you have shaken the very foundations of this platform by manipulations or keeping all kind of filthy Scams or Spams. Do not come here and write on my Talk Page ever. Get out of my Talk page!Wikipedia:The Last Word Light2021 (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- You've just made this post and you reckon I need blocking ? ....., I've not been harassing you, You've added a template and myself and other editors disagreed with you adding... so you edit warred to have it back, Also you should stop abusing the "admin help" function - It's for admin assistance, –Davey2010Talk 21:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:The Last Word Light2021 (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Please HELP from Wikidemon, CNMall41, OhNoitsJamie Davey2010
- These People are going on harassing or reverting my edits whatever I am doing.
- Protecting A7 Material. and just trying to Win an argument with their lame and shamless beahvior.
- OhNoitsJamie is an admin and misuing all his rights. I want to know how to raise complaint against him. As he is the one who started this, and being highly biased disrupting and humiliating all my efforts.
- With such malicious intend, I have left with such language. My time is getting waste by such editors. Who are here to harass other people.
- These people find my AfD, and go there With Keep vote with writing all kind of nonsense. If you check the issue. over 90% time such article got deleted. Still these editors are just coming to every AfD and making useless points. Just because I have done AfD.
- These people are misuing wikipedia guidelines and their rights to humiliate other. Such malicious intend are harmful as I am nothing to do here. These people keep coming on my talk page. Making warning of any-kind.
- You cannot tell me to stay off your talkpage and then ping me 8/9 hours later .... So stop fucking pinging me for fucksake, If you ave an issue with me then drag me to ANI otherwise sod off and leave me be. –Davey2010Talk 05:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Mind your Language when writing to me. Light2021 (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- This person has crossed all the limit and Abusing me with shame and pathetic behaviors. Reverted all my cautions on his talk page. Requesting immediate Block for this user. including him others have crossed the decency of Wikipedia by every means possible. Light2021 (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Light2101: For the record, it was me that reverted you, as an uninvolved editor. Please take a step back and a deep breath before re-approaching keyboard. Muffled Pocketed 05:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:Davey2010, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You are yourself guilty of all the things you templated the other editor for, and have been reverted. You may wish to reconsider your position here if you in insist in continuing such behaviour- particularly whilst an ANI thread is currently open on you. Be mindful, please. Muffled Pocketed 05:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note this is Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi . with some history. Light2021 (talk) 06:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note WP:ASPERSIONS. Muffled Pocketed 06:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Leave that to admin to decide Who is Right or what is right. I am fed up with Warning, Accusations, Abuse, Harassment, Bad Faith, and Malicious intend of such people. All my contributions are waste by such people. These people have Corrupted this platform. Only reason this has become a Spam filled with 10000 of articles. Such people are here to misuse. and even ready to harass to the core with their behavior. Even not left me with their 1000% biased ANI. What I am left here to do? I am reading their abuse and misuse of everything Wikipedia has built over the years. This thing will degrade the Wikipedia. And such platform will transform into another PR host or Blog. Light2021 (talk) 06:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Please help me assist this issue. I have no idea how to defend myself or raise a considerable issue. These people have crossed all area of decency. Now even not bother to abuse me. or please tell me. I do not want waste my or other time fighting on this issue any more. I will leave happily. DMacks , Brianhe , Peridon, DGG, David Gerard Light2021 (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- The best way to defend yourself is to not make accusations about the behavior of other people. The safe rule is to not mention any other editor's names at all, ever. Once an argument gets personal, whoever sounds the most unreasonable or angry will generally lose the argument, regardless of the underlying merits. .
- Most of the criticisms of your deletion nominations are in fact correct, but the percentage that are not is much higher than it ought to be. There is no point nominating articles for deletion that you can doubt the community will delete, however strongly you think they should be delete. In particular, the general view is that promotional articles that can be reasonably fixed should not be deleted for that reason alone, unless they are truly outrageous or the subjects are not n significant. At least 1/4 of what is submitted to WP each day ought to be radically improved or deleted, and we do deleted most of them. But not all. The most effective way to work is to concentrate on the worst.
- Try to avoid long explanations. Even those who can read them perfectly well, usually prefer to avoid anything that cannot be read and dealt with quickly. Effective writing, especially online, is as concise as possible. Say what needs to be said, say it once, and do not repeat the wording of policy. People at deletion discussions usually already know policy. Focus on the article itself, not any other considerations. Never make an argument that does not clearly show you have not read the article. There's no need to tell admins what they ought to do; we admins decide what we to do after reading the article and the relevant arguments. We know which arguments to avoid. We know not to count votes.
- Don't comment repeatedly at the same discussion. My practice is to limit myself to twice--if I haven't made myself clear by then, saying it yet another time is not likely to help.
- You wanted help; this advice is the best help I can give you. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- DGG is right, my additions would be these: there's no "winning" here, your best chance to influence people to your point of view on things like promotional articles is to engage peacefully with people you're at odds with, take your time building alliances and making your thoughts known, and try to keep your tone honestly heartfelt but not strident. Here are some essays that I try to keep in mind when I find myself getting flustered:
- These last two are particularly important: your arguments for/against change are best directed to the reasonable people onboard; you should focus on shaping opinion and (again) not winning every argument or beating down every opposing voice. Hope this helps -- Brianhe (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Please help me assist this issue. I have no idea how to defend myself or raise a considerable issue. These people have crossed all area of decency. Now even not bother to abuse me. or please tell me. I do not want waste my or other time fighting on this issue any more. I will leave happily. DMacks , Brianhe , Peridon, DGG, David Gerard Light2021 (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you DGG & Brianhe for your sound advise to me. As always humble and being a guide on wikipedia, always ready to learn from you. I will definitely improve myself with pure heart, and clearly understand What you meant by How to put my points in regards to Norms set by wikipedia. I will go by the same. It was really good to know putting my points forward and not debating with anyone but just do my work. Thank you once again and giving me your time. I have also presented my Final words on ANI. it will be purely community decisions. I will accept with taking all responsibilities. Light2021 (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- I was gone for a few days but I just happened to look and found this. I suggest you follow DGG's advice. When an AFD discussion has recently closed, do not renominate it for 6 months. For articles that have existed for a long time, do not use speedy deletion. And counter arguments only by facts - not long paragraphs saying that the editor is wrong. And yes, do due diligence before nominating an article. Also, try to WP:AGF a bit more. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you DGG & Brianhe for your sound advise to me. As always humble and being a guide on wikipedia, always ready to learn from you. I will definitely improve myself with pure heart, and clearly understand What you meant by How to put my points in regards to Norms set by wikipedia. I will go by the same. It was really good to know putting my points forward and not debating with anyone but just do my work. Thank you once again and giving me your time. I have also presented my Final words on ANI. it will be purely community decisions. I will accept with taking all responsibilities. Light2021 (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Working in a community
Hi Light2021. I hope you take a minute and consider what I am about to tell you. I am following up on my comment to you at ANI here. Wikipedia is created and maintained by a community of users, and as I noted in that comment, the key issue with your behavior has been your failure to understand that. Based on that misunderstanding, you have been trying to force your way, and you have attacked people who disagree with you.
In the discussion at ANI, there is now a pretty overwhelming consensus to indefinitely block you or topic ban you from deletion discussions. That is a very serious thing. If you do not make a very sharp change, you will very likely be sanctioned.
In your last comment there (dif) you did not identify the problem. And as others have noted at ANI, even after you posted that, you have continued to attack other people, and you have continued to try to force your way.
If you want to remain here, I suggest you do following:
- understand that Wikipedia is created and maintained by a community of volunteers, working together. You must assume good faith about everybody.
- You should completely avoid directly discussing other contributors, and discuss only content. (if you find yourself writing "you" or naming another editor, just delete what you are writing!)
- You should stop WP:BLUDGEONing deletion discussions. Make your arguments one time, and then let it go.
- If a deletion discussion does not go the way you want it to, you must accept that decision. You can try to improve articles that are kept, but you cannot keep trying to delete them. You must accept consensus decisions.
- Finally, you should post at ANI and write: 1) that you understand that the problem is that you have not respected the community and other members of the community; 2) you will stop discussing other contributors; 3) you will stop bludgeoning deletion discussions; 4) you will respect consensus decisions. In that post, do not' continue to talk about your goals and do not defend yourself. You have no defense, as your behavior has been terrible.
Nobody is arguing about your goals. Everybody is concerned about your behavior and the only way you will not be blocked or TBANed, is if you acknowledge the behavior - clearly - and say you will change. Again, do not try to defend your behavior.
What the community needs to hear at ANI- and hear clearly - is that you actually understand that your behavior has been bad, and that you understand why it is bad, and that you will not do the bad behavior any more. That is what the community needs to hear at ANI. Again, you really need to understand that the community matters - especially in taking action against people, as it happening to you, now.
If you don't understand something about this, please ask me. I appreciate what you are trying to do but the way you are doing it is bad - bad for you, bad for the community, and actually bad for the effort to deal with promotional editing in general. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Appreciate you writing to me about your concern and about me. I have presented my version and I think community has understood my point of view as well. As suggested and advised by Admins and you, I certainly want to do my best I can. On that note as stated above "Thank you DGG & Brianhe for your sound advise to me. As always humble and being a guide on wikipedia, always ready to learn from you. I will definitely improve myself with pure heart, and clearly understand What you meant by How to put my points in regards to Norms set by wikipedia. I will go by the same. It was really good to know putting my points forward and not debating with anyone but just do my work. Thank you once again and giving me your time. I have also presented my Final words on ANI. it will be purely community decisions. I will accept with taking all responsibilities. Light2021 (talk) 1:07 am, 8 November 2016, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC+5.5)" I have made my understanding and took advise as well. I will do what you need at ANI without further adding my Point of view. Thank you. Jytdog Light2021 (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
November 2016
![Stop icon with clock](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg.png)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)- Need your Help & suggestions : DGG, Brianhe, David Gerard
As accepted on ANI as well. I understand I must not name any individual with their names or their bias or their purpose to destroy the integrity of Wikipedia as it stands for. I have gone through articles and other links suggested by you as a guide to me. I understand we all are fighting or contributing our best to sustain this Wikipedia for most authentic source of knowledge and we all want Spam and Promotional free wikipedia. As you all are aware, even few articles are written about such people, who somehow even got place in Admin. But as Wikipedia works on consensus and we must be taking all point of view without doing personal attack. I have missed that part and got into the flow and got personal. But we all know the difference among those. Else such articles would not even exist in a first place. I want to contribute all my efforts by knowing the right way. in doing so I am looking forward to.
The recent block has been done. I do not want to request for unblock without your suggestions. If you say I should not. i will not. I respect your suggestions and advises always. Even when you say I am doing something wrong. I learn from them. I understand the difference among the others. sorry to bother you again. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- ...As you all are aware, even few articles are written about such people, who somehow even got place in Admin. You've been warned about casting aspersions numerous times; continuing to do so during a month block is not the wisest course of action. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Light2021, you should know by now that a lot of people are looking at your contributions very carefully at the moment. Please stop and think about everything you post. Lots of people online are "less than perfect" -- to avoid a harsher term -- but you will have to either ignore them or find some way to live with them. My advice, cool off for at least a few days, take notes on problems you want to address if you like, but don't lay it all out at once. Work on finding a way to let other people see your efforts to improve Wikipedia in a positive light when you return. Brianhe (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right, I think my point of view can be misunderstood as well. In the above sentence I was trying to say something else. But people can interpret differently sometime. I was merely stating my point of view in "General" but not for any individual to be specific. if someone took it personal I am really sorry for that and my sincere apologies. I should state myself better with excerpt written here (for clarification purpose) - ... "WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point". I will be learning more in that time to be precise stating everything with Wikipedia Guideline when I write something, so It will not be misinterpreted. and definitely not to state anything personal. As I have said what I have to say and also being understood. Thanks Brianhe . Light2021 (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Articles to watch
I will not be able to contribute myself. I will be posting few article links for analysis for AfD/ Speedy or deletion review. I hope I will help this way better. Thank you DGG, David Gerard, Herostratus, K.e.coffman, SwisterTwister, Lemongirl942, Grayfell
- MyBusTickets
- Cardback for review/analysis
- Bro4u
- Abhibus.com need review for quality
- User:Startupindia/AWK Solutions
- Sri Krishna Sweets for review/analysis
- PropTiger.com for review/analysis
- Saholic for review/analysis
- Blogmint
- To The New
- SurfStitch.com Review/analysis