User talk:Light2021: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:13, 17 April 2016

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:

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!

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

Deletion discussion about Exioms

Hello, Exioms2050,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Exioms should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exioms .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, JamesG5 (talk) 07:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning

Please note that edits like this one can be construed as an attempt to deceive. Continue on this road and you'll find yourself blocked from editing. --Randykitty (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Randykitty (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2016 (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:

There are only 2 active users for editing and reviewing process. They are misusing wikipedia norms and regulations to influence the process. They have blocked the account with peronal attack and vendetta to prove nothing significant but a grudge against an editir. There are no significant entries from user Randykitty Xxanthippe or reasons are presented. They are only writing alpgainst the norms of Wikipedia. and disruptive the process by making false accusations or blocking the editors. These two editors are making personal attacks and nothing significant. The fact and review process has been done for the article written, and even verified by credidibility of sources. The users Randykitty Xxanthippe are failed to provide any proof or information against their comments except building a false guidelines and set of standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exioms2050 (talk • contribs)

Decline reason:

You're lucky the block is only for 31 hours. I'd have been tempted to block you for the duration of the deletion discussion myself - and that is what I will do if your disruption of it continues after this short unblock expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2016 (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.

Note to reviewing admin: please see the history of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exioms. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewing admin: This account was an attempt at a clean start by User:Boing! said Zebedee, having previously done some editing from an IP of the same number. But Arbcom elections compel me to return using my old account, and so I now abandon this one (and will ask for it to be blocked). 823510731 (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Light21 09:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Boing! said Zebedee (talk) for the guildelines presented to me, probably I was not aware of the process. but I would like to add few points if you are not related or connected with 2 editors. The review process need to be verified and presented as a proof for any deletion or keeping the articles. The sources are verified as the matter is concerned apart from the personal revenge that has been done from those 2 editors Randykitty Xxanthippe . It proves nothing significant to the articles written in wikipedia but editors knowledge of misleading others by using tools or code provided by wikipedia. I would request you to keep that in mind when reviewing the process. You may delete my account if it is applicable by the wikipedia norms. Thank you for the information and review. Light21 09:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the deletion discussion is the way such things are decided, and it will be done via a consensus of the users who take part - the closing admin is allowed only to act in accordance with the consensus. Secondly, continuing to attack other editors is an abuse of this talk page, so please stop or you will lose the privilege of editing the page. Finally, accounts are not deleted, but given your suggestion to delete it coupled with the fact that it is actually a forbidden username (see WP:CORPNAME), I am going to block this account indefinitely - I'll leave you a message below to explain what you should do if you want it unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z17

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:

Review is required from other wiki communities as the unethical practices are happening with personal attacks and blocking of the page. thanks. Request for independent review of blocking. Please review all the comments and the way it has been mishandled or from the respective accounts its been done. I have requested the new user name for any disputes regarding names and been accepted. I respect the polices of Wikipedia for (see WP:CORPNAME). And for whatsoever reason to imply any relations with brand or company should not be considered. I will keep away from editing the respective page in future or in general keep in mind all the considerations. thank you.

Decline reason:

Technical decline only - superseded by events below, including a new unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2016 (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.

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Requested username:

light2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I have been active participation in wiki community from last few years. I have been updating articles related to business and other categories. And request you to keep me edit and add my knowledge to it. Apart from that if is is necessary I should not edit particular business. I will be happy to serve Wikipedia community with my knowledge without interfering any of the process to the respective business organization

Accept reason:

I have renamed your account as requested, and I have reset the block to the original length (approximately). I'll leave your other unblock request, above, for someone else to review. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exioms, there appears to already exist an account with the name you requested. Please choose another name. - Brianhe (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Brianhe Renamed it. (talk) Light21 10:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I notice you didn't mention the disruption of the deletion discussion in your unblock request. The reviewing administrator probably won't approve the unblock until and unless you acknowledge that and say you're ready to move on. - Brianhe (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*I will update the requested information. Thanks, Brianhe Light21 11:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Randykitty (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2016 (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:

User Randykitty for some reason or understanding blocking me for indefinite time, 38 hours, now 2 days or probably he might delete me with his/her wild accusations, attempt to humiliate and harass me. This user must not be in Wikipedia by abusing and controlling users accounts. Please check the way this user is just block other users. He is annoying and creating disruption and destroying integrity of editors. Somehow he is applying Wikipedia rules by studying them and misleading the users with his arrogance to know everything about Wikipedia. This is complete humiliation and violation of any Wikipedia right. User is merely a disrupting agent in Wikipedia without any relevance to know any topics. Please check his wiki page and kind of edits are done from him/her. Please note that user Randykitty & Cahk works in group and are related. It is a complete discrimination against Indian Topics related to business. There are examples in Wikipedia which favors articles from particular geography. Users like that not only humiliate others but questions the credibility of Wikipedia. It is very unfortunate that users with Blog with their own creation and reference to some local media has a presence and have no obligations to be there. But when its from Indian Community, these people come with their arrogance and block the account. You must check your UK and USA business. Who has done no significance work, running with home based business and writing blogs and just following Wikipedia articles and nothing to do in their lives. Attacking someone personally satisfied you. It would be fine thing for me. Its better to be removed than humiliated by users like you. Check the other geography business and their references before questioning the Indian based business without having no knowledge of the matter. This is matter of Supreme urgency and Wikipedia need to have a strict regulations for such behavior of discrimination. Thank you. Light21 09:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address your own conduct at all. See WP:NOTTHEM. WP:MEAT may also be relevant. Please note that these blocks are very leniently short, given your conduct. Should this behaviour continue, the next one will be much longer. Huon (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2016 (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.

Because you are using this page to continue to make personal attacks on other Wikipedia users, I have revoked your ability to edit here for the duration of your block - and I must caution you that further attacks in the future are likely to get you longer blocks. The reviewing admin can reinstate your ability to edit here if they decide your unblock request has merit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a recent change patroller, I will tag and report ANY advertisement/inappropriate use of Wikipedia. Where the business is located is of no concern to me. The poor admins at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism knows that too well about me. I caution you against making unsubstantiated allegations against long standing members of the Wikipedia community. --Cahk (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruption and abuse of multiple accounts. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Continuous harassment, blocking, humiliation, vandalism is done by this Boing! said Zebedee . someone watch that user. Wikipedia is not his/her property. He is simply misusing it, blocking people without e an SPI any significant. user is playing with the wikipedia rules. complete violation of wikipedia rules. must be banned not blocked from the wikipedia. These users are selectively controlling Wikipedia. Light21 00:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Continuous harassment, blocking, humiliation, vandalism is done by this [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] . someone watch that user. Wikipedia is not his/her property. He is simply misusing it, blocking people without e an SPI any significant. user is playing with the wikipedia rules. complete violation of wikipedia rules. must be banned not blocked from the wikipedia. These users are selectively controlling Wikipedia. Light21 00:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Continuous harassment, blocking, humiliation, vandalism is done by this [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] . someone watch that user. Wikipedia is not his/her property. He is simply misusing it, blocking people without e an SPI any significant. user is playing with the wikipedia rules. complete violation of wikipedia rules. must be banned not blocked from the wikipedia. These users are selectively controlling Wikipedia. Light21 00:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Continuous harassment, blocking, humiliation, vandalism is done by this [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] . someone watch that user. Wikipedia is not his/her property. He is simply misusing it, blocking people without e an SPI any significant. user is playing with the wikipedia rules. complete violation of wikipedia rules. must be banned not blocked from the wikipedia. These users are selectively controlling Wikipedia. Light21 00:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I intend to file an SPI report tomorrow, but right now I need some sleep - until then, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exioms. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User has paid and hired some goons Boing! said Zebedee to prove his point and authority in wikipedia. This is utmost ignorance of the part. Because of him and his goons on wikipedia, he is able to delete all the indian articles. Not even looking American or European articles with the same perspective. All the discussion has been made, bus instead user ignored it, and went to sleep by deleting the article so there will be no scope for further consensus. Light21 07:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not meant for USA and European articles Only. complete misuse of power, and used your friends and puppet to delete the articles. I should file a legal against you for harassment and continuously and deliberate attempt to harm other over internet. You have deleted the article, even influenced the argument by deleting the comments. This is utter non-sense, and nothing but shoes your extreme hatred and arrigance being an administrator. Please check this profile. He is spreading nuisance over wilipedia. This is mockery of the whole system. Light21 07:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 {{unblock|reason= Continuous harassment, blocking, humiliation, vandalism is done by this [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] . someone watch that user. Wikipedia is not his/her property. He is simply misusing it, blocking people without e an SPI any significant. user is playing with the wikipedia rules. complete violation of wikipedia rules. must be banned not blocked from the wikipedia. These users are selectively controlling Wikipedia. Light21 00:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)}}
 I intend to file an SPI report tomorrow, but right now I need some sleep - until then, please see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exioms]]. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 00:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
+User has paid and hired some goons [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] to prove his point and authority in wikipedia. This is utmost ignorance of the part. Because of him and his goons on wikipedia, he is able to delete all the indian articles. Not even looking American or European articles with the same perspective. All the discussion has been made, bus instead user ignored it, and went to sleep by deleting the article so there will be no scope for further consensus. Light21 07:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)