User talk:Light2021

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)[reply]

Thanks for informing me Light2021. I really think the article should remain because it refers to a notable software in its field of application and its variants. I re-edit it and took the OmniPlan page (which is a similar product) as reference. I also made sure it is kept neutral, but of course as one needs some references beside the page of the developer, I left the MacWorld review for historical reasons. Would the article be more neutral if the MacWorld or Captera mentions are removed? Shall one insert some critics people have to its function (one could easily find some in the ongoing product review rating). EStam (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Hello Light2021, I had created an article under the name XgenPlus Enterprise Email. As, per my knowledge I have given valid citations in the article.The XgenPlus is working in support of Digital and is empowering people by providing its services in the languages they want. The email service, Xgenplus is the world's first IDN compliant email service provider and the news is there in each and every newspaper. May be by mistake you have deleted the page. Or if I have not followed any wikipedia rule then please guide me so that, i will not repeat the same mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaisskaur (talk • contribs) 14:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

	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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

• Thank you for your kind appreciation. Really Appreciate it. :)

Light2021 (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Light2021 (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Second Edition

Please review: DGG, David Gerard, K.e.coffman, SwisterTwister, Lemongirl942, Jergling

• • Draft:Experion Technologies - many times speedy delete, still trying so hard to build a page
  • Draft:Codemazk highest degree of blatant promotion/ all data are ridiculously fake/ some freelance/ small comapany
  • Aspire Systems for analysis/ only exist for its profile promotion
  • Techwave corporate spam. Awards are paid/ sponsored alone
  • ALTEN Calsoft Labs for analysis/ only exist for its profile promotion
  • Bahwan CyberTek for analysis/ only exist for its profile promotion
  • Aiplex Software for analysis/ only exist for its profile promotion
  • Zycus for analysis/ only exist for its profile promotion
  • Techpedia for analysis/ only exist for its profile promotion
  • Icreon Tech for analysis/ only exist for its profile promotion
  • Draft:ICCG for analysis/ only exist for its profile promotion

Light2021 (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reported you to the COI board. Stop spamming your company — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.15.244.34 (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sorry to say, but I do not think I am spamming my company. though it would have been really great if I owned 2 Multi-Billion$ companies. Thanks. I understand your concern. but here it is not the case. I have no relations to those companies or not ever employed or got hired by any means. :) Light2021 (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @145.15.244.34: Contrary to your claim, there is no evidence at all to suggest that User:Light2021 has a conflict of interest. Baseless accusations of COI are not taken kindly. Don't be surprised if your own edits are more closely scrutinized as a result. --Drm310 (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I write to you about the warnings posed and the subsequent take down of our company page-https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Savaari_(company)&action=edit&redlink=1 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Savaari.com&action=edit&redlink=1

We were provided a warning indicating that the article has sections that are classified as promotional content. Can you please let us know the exact sections and also the next steps to restore the page back?

Appreciate your help.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ananddorairaj (talk • contribs) 05:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ananddorairaj, looking in , the entire article is a pure advertisement. The one reliable source, CNBC , merely mentions the company in a single word in a general article. Some of its competitors are discussed, but not Savarri. The economic times articles similarly just mention the company, not discuss it in a substantial way. Please read WP:COI and wait until someone other than you wants to write an article about your company. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was on vacation and was suprised that the article on Quisk I had written was deleted. Arguments to keep and revised the article are the following:

- Quisk has grown into an international company  - It is important for people to read and understand the importance of the (a) technology (b) details on the corporation - Secondary sources include: - September 04, 2016 - War of the wallets: Quisk and Mozido face off - BY AVIA COLLINDER Business reporter [email protected] - David Koerner, director of marketing at Quisk, said this week that the mobile money solution which allows telephone users to send money to each other — developed for use by the National Commercial Bank — is the best now available on the market. - November 24, 2016 - Quisk heralds e-commerce Micro-Transactions for Jamaican Entrepreneurs - Lindsworth Tech News, Caribbean Tech, Press Release - There is a huge untapped business potential associated with using Mobile Money. So says Douglas Halsall, Chief Executive Officer of AIS (Advanced Integrated Systems), who was presenting at the Jamaica Computer Society IT Knowledge Forum held at the Jamaica Conference Centre on November 17th 2016. He was speaking of the on business opportunities that individuals can embark on with the use of digital cash and mobile payments. He was also encouraged by the significant traction gained in the market by mobile money solution, Quisk as detailed in NCB’s Quisk Mobile Money off to a good start in Jamaica. - December 06, 2016: NATIONAL Commercial Bank (NCB) Jamaica limited, which has been chosen to undertake the pilot project to provide electronic mobile payments of benefits under the Programme of Advancement Through Health and Education (PATH) with the bank’s mobile money platform, NCB Quisk, will roll out its pilot programme next month. -  Aug 24, 2016 - With the launch of an innovative new mobile money platform on August 12th, National Commercial Bank Jamaica Limited (NCB) has rolled out the most advanced mobile payment solution in the Caribbean. The service—formally known as NCB Quisk—is a partnership between NCB and Silicon Valley-based payments company Quisk Inc. and their Jamaican partner, Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS). The launch of NCB Quisk allows Jamaica to extend its strong leadership technology position in the region.  

I would happy to improve the article and provide notability and secondary sources. Please let me know the best way to re-post this article on Quisk?

Thanks, - Greg Henderson (talk) 7:40, 18 Jan 2017 (UTC)

Hi Light2021, I noticed you placed a CSD A7 on the article for Kunal Gir. There's also a deletion discussion ongoing for this article which is coming to a close. The CSD may get rejected as one could say that a "claim of importance" has been made, such that the A7 may not stand, however the AfD argues notability, which is a different threshold. It may make sense to add your views here as well if you think this is appropriate. Regards, _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know you love zapping startups. Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not understand your message ? Zaaping startups? Light2021 (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A startup is building a page at Lightyear, with no refs, or indication it will ever be notable. Figured you might like to zap it (blast it/revert it back to the redirect it once was). Sorry for the confusion. Loopy30 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! right. Thank for sharing :) Light2021 (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You tried to have the article on Aaron Bastani deleted, as a recreation of previously deleted material.

Surely, when an article is restored, following a discussion at WP:DRV, it shouldn't be eligible for speedy deletion?

Were you aware it had been restored following a discussion at DRV? Geo Swan (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now its a Part of AfD, if its been kept there. It would be substantially important made by community. As wikipedia rely on community not on individual preferences. I will surely give my perspective on AfD. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concise comments are very advisable at AfD, but "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CHiPs Improv" does not contribute anything to the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but did not understand your point? I did not make any comment on this one yet. Light2021 (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me WHY this article is being notminated for deletion? Plum3600 (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Corporate Spam. Press coverage. Funding news. No notability for Wikipedia standards. News are typically covered. or such articles are there on wikipedia and mentioned here Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed Light2021 (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Light2021, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Matrix Requirements Medical, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to software; text is not unambiguously promotional. If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. SoWhy 10:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Light2021. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of 10,000ft, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Light2021. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Active Collab, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Light2021. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Agantty, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for informing GorillaWarfare, I will keep in mind. I have taken AfD mode for these articles for more views from contributors. Light2021 (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me Light2021. I really think the article should remain because it refers to a notable software in its field of application and its variants. While completely re-editing the article, I took the OmniPlan page (which is a similar product) as reference. I also made sure it is kept neutral, but of course as one needs some references beside the page(s) of the developer, I left the MacWorld review for historical reasons. Would the article be more neutral if the MacWorld or Captera mentions are removed? Shall one insert some critics people have to its function (one could easily find some in the ongoing product review rating). Thanks EStam (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tone of article is not merely an issue, its about notability from Media and In-depth coverage by notable media, not like some Blog on Internet where people write endlessly everyday for any kind of software or companies these days. Macworld and Captera like sites nowhere close to being notable media. Light2021 (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Hmm, I would disagree about Macworld not being a notable media. Macworld is not just a web site but also a computer magazine for Apple Macintosh products. So if I need information about a mac software, chances are I look into Wikipedia for the software, and/or use a magazine about mac software.

Surely Merlin is listed in the AppStore. Would a link to that be notable and welcomed in its Wikipedia article? Thanks again. EStam (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Light2021. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Light2021, I made revisions and changes to Leonard Abramson which I think merit the removal of the advert tag, which I removed. I would appreciate if you could take a look and let me known your thoughts. Pratat (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are participating in AfD's as you have said you would not. Looking for a reason to not block you indefinitely, which you agreed to in said unblock conditions. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain the apparent canvassing HERE. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Light2021 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Mr. Jamie. Have you ever heard of misuse of power? I am one of the best AFD nominator in Wikipedia. My success ratio is more than 98% (from last 30 days participation, I am not a God to be 100% correct neither you have made your success vote 100% for Keep or Delete articles. and do not tell the song of guess work - i am analysing the articles and news before doing AfD), I am saying with proud and confidence (no ego) that I am best hunter for these non-sense companies who are here to promote themselves, and you are calling me incompetent? just because you do not like me? Completely unreasonable. your reasons are personal dislikes and nothing else. there is seriously no reason of being incompetent here. Wikipedia is not a school where Mr Jamie can just Block me indefinitely because he does not like me personally for whatsoever may the reason. Secondly, Yes, I did not participated in any of AfD from a long time to respect the decisions, but it does not mean I will never going to participate ever in my life. I have learnt my lessons, and Wikipedia is a community for everyone. Please tell me solid reason of blocking me from my last 30 days of AFD or my activities in wikipedia. which article I have nominated was not worthy of community discussion time. Secondly Canvassing means asking someone to participate on Delete or Keep or asking for something.. but in my case I have asked an opinion just by tagging admins. The Cunard as usual misled entire AfD onto the abyss of waste by Ref. Bombing and making it so difficult to analyse the point of discussion. It is not a crime. Please be fair if you are an admin. If you can't do your job properly then remove yourself from the admin, you do not deserve the rights of Biased Admin. I need solid answers for this block. Give me the reason where my discussion or participation caused any harm to any of the members or where I have literary violated any of the policy. I have learnt and did not repeat a single incident where I did harm any of the policy. and if you really care about commitment, Go and Block Cunard where on ANI, it was said that Cunard should not participate in any of my AfD, still he comes and write garbage of references to mislead entire discussion. But I am ok if Cunard does not adhere to the promise.. I am tagging Admins just to make sure this kind of biased should be treated fairly and equally. I want to take fair opinions from as many as I can. But Mr Jamie is just on the lost path of Vendetta. I am requesting the unblock and allow me to contribute at my best. I am competent enough to make wikipedia better and Relevant. - DGG, David Gerard Light2021 (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were unblocked with a promise to refrain from participating in the AfD or CSD process. "I will not participate on AfD or CSD directly/indirectly or will not be nominating any articles by myself." That's what you said. You broke this promise. It doesn't matter if you were one of the best AFD nominators, you promised not to do it any more. Yamla (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Promise - I kept my promise. And I have become beyond my errors in recent 30 days of time. has wikipedia now become a punisher? then Block Cunard also on the same ground, because he broke the "promise". Promise - is it any wiki policy of contributing or when Cunard make a complaint to headmasters, they have Authority beyond logical reasons to block me indefinitely. Give me a break! Give me a solid reason which policy I have violated in the last 30 days? is it crime to fight promotional articles in wikipedia? A Promise? seriously? Do you even see my latest work without having zero objections except Cunard crying to Mr Jamie Talk page about Canvassing, which is merely a advise taking from other admins. Your reasons of decline as lame as the Definite block by Mr Jamie, who thinks he owns the Wikipedia, just because he has become an admin. Where can I escalate this matter. Please suggest, thank you. Light2021 (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how participating in multiple AFDs is compatible with keeping your promise to refrain from participating in AFDs. That, and only that, is what matters here. --Yamla (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

is participating in AfD crime for me? Did i nominate bad articles? Did i offend anyone of the community? am I not civil and thorough in my analysis before nominating or voting for Delete/Keep? I am not doing any vandalism or harming any of the wiki policy. Making wikipedia beautiful is a part we all are here for. I am not biased on my nominations of any kind - be it any nation or anything. I am studying and analysing articles carefully first. I am also participating on other's AfD work to make the process worthwhile. I am contributing my significant time without any personal agenda or any return of money as wiki stands for. What other reasons are needed for someone to be here being a free contributor? If any, please do let me know. I have improved myself over the year of inactive time, I have apologised for my past and moved on with positive mindset to contribute and intend to continue my active participation. We all do what we are best at, and I believe, I am a really good hunters of bad articles. Everyone got some speciality. Light2021 (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Participating in AfD is not permitted for you. You promised not to participate in AfD. That is the end of the story. --Yamla (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You are not allowed to indulge in your "speciality" as it was a specific condition of your unblock that you cease participation in AfD/CfD. That's the only thing that matters at this point as you would not have been unblocked had you not agreed to those terms. If you continue to use this talk page to crow about how awesome you are at editing a topic you are explicitly disallowed to engage in, your ability to edit this talk page will be revoked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please give me a solid policy of Wikipedia where I am not allowed because some Admins do not like me? I am not interested in personal opinion or Mr Jamie opinions on me. Neither he owns Wikipedia that he can just fire me from the Wikipedia for no reasons except that he dislikes me. He is Biased and baseless for my block. he might have done wonderful things for Wikipedia. Good for the Wikipedia. I want to have other opinions on my work of the last 30 days that implies the indefinite block. Let me know the escalation point. Please guide. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have three adminstrators other than Ohnoitsjamie right in this section endorsing the block. The fact that you can't wrap your head around how your edits were improper despite all we have written further supports the need for a block. I've already warned you that you will lose access to this talk page if you continue on in the same manner and I'm reiterating that now. If you continue to use this page to post anything other than a WP:GAB-compliant appeal that demonstrates your understanding of the block, your talk page access will be revoked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to review WP:NOTTHEM. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Let me know the escalation point." Your path forward is to request an unblock. I urge you incredibly strongly to read WP:NOTTHEM and WP:GAB before doing so. You'll likely only get one more unblock request and you'll need to demonstrate that you understand you broke your word, you understand that was inappropriate, and you can show how we can trust you to keep your word going forward. Anything, anything less than this and you are likely done here. Many people have pointed out the problem and you are refusing to listen. WP:IDHT applies. This is the last I'll say about this. Your path forward is to request an unblock. --Yamla (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me read all points and get back. thank you. Light2021 (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]