User talk:LexyNight

Hello, I'm Cooldudeseven7. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Chandan Kumar Choudhary, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) 18:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi LexyNight. Thank you for your work on Orient Bell Limited. Another editor, Bakhtar40, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

As a part of page curation, I reviewed the article you created Orient Bell Limited. I took out the advertising from the article.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bakhtar40}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bakhtar40 (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sockpuppetry and UPE. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Apologies as I've used the wrong template - the link is here. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, LexyNight,

You didn't format this AFD discussion correctly, didn't even include your own signature as the nominator didn't include a descriptive edit summary and I'm guessing you didn't notify the article creator either. If you every decide to nominate another article for an AFD discussion, please review the instructions at WP:AFD carefully and follow them exactly or the discussion might be procedurally closed. It's good not to "wing it" with something as important as deletion discussions. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For an unblock to be considered, you must:

• Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
• State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
• Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

331dot (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

---

Administrators: if this block includes a Volunteer Response Team ticket number, this block was placed as part of the conflict of interest VRT queue and the user must not be unblocked without the express consent of a user with access to the queue. ticket:2025111510039453

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I want to say honestly I have read the Terms of Use and also the paid editing rules. I understand what is written there. But I am little confused because I never did any edit for money or for any client. Nobody give me any payment for any edit I did on Wikipedia. I also have no company or person who telling me to edit for them. So there is no COI from my side. I don’t know why my edits look “promotional”. Maybe sometimes my writing become too positive or not proper neutral tone, but it was not for any paid reason. It was my mistake of wording maybe, but not paid thing. I was just trying to improve pages and sometimes maybe I did it wrong way. In future I will edit more carefully. I will stay away from topics where it look like conflict or any promotion. I will only do edits where I have no connection and I will keep tone neutral. And if ever something looks doubtful or someone tell me, I will stop that time. I just want to edit simple things and learn more properly. I request to please check again which edit you think is paid so I can understand and correct myself. I really want to follow all rules but I need to know what exactly I did wrong. Thank you for your time. LexyNight (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:03, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

Hi Lexy, I see you've been participating at AfD, but other than that, the only thing you've really done is add categories to articles. What got you into AfD? -- asilvering (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually I joined AfD because I was trying to learn how articles are judged for notability i was reading many discussions and i thought joining AfD will help me understand what is kept and what is deleted i was not doing anything special just trying to learn the process Maybe sometimes my wording was not perfect but I was only learning not pushing anything also about categories honestly that was the only thing i felt safe doing because it’s small edit and less risky and i saw the list of uncategorised articles there so that's why i went there to atleast make one list categorised properly also i wanted to understand rules better before doing big edits also i want to ask you sincerely did you see any biased comment from me in any AfD? Because i never tried to support any side for personal reason i was just commenting what i understood from guidelines if anything looked biased it was not intentional at all i really didn’t have any paid reason or conflict i joined AfD only to learn proper editing style. --LexyNight (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason nearly all the AfDs you participated in were about companies? Toadspike [Talk] 14:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

There is no special reason that many of the AfDs i participated in were about companies when i started trying to learn AfD i simply went through the newest discussions and random AfDs listed on the page it just happened that most of the ones i came across were company related so i commented on those while trying to understand notability guidelines like WP:ORG and WP:GNG i didn’t choose company AfDs for any personal reason i was only practicing how to read sources and understand why some articles meet notability and others do not in fact i avoided making big changes to articles because i was still learning so AfD felt like a safe place to observe and understand community reasoning and honestly i learn there reading other's experience editor comments.. If this pattern looked unusual i apologize it was not intentional. LexyNight (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

• Upon additional consideration, I am clearing the COIVRT aspect of this block- any admin may review this and handle it as they see fit. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for consideration @331dot LexyNight (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for reviewing my request and for clearing the COI paid editing concern i appreciate that decision i now request reconsideration of the remaining block by any available administrator i understand that some of my edits may have appeared non-neutral or inexperienced but i had no intention to cause disruption i am still learning Wikipedia policies especially notability and neutral point of view i am willing to strictly avoid all topics that could appear controversial or sensitive i will ask for guidance at the teahouse or noticeboards whenever i am unsure i respectfully request one chance to edit under supervision so I can learn properly and contribute in a positive way. LexyNight (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)}}

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I confirm that i have read and understood the wikimedia foundation terms of use, the paid editing disclosure requirements and the conflict of interest guidelines. I now understand that some of my earlier edits and participation patterns especially my involvement in company related discussions and afds could reasonably have appeared promotional or non-neutral even though that was not my intention and i was not compensated or affiliated with any of the subjects. i understand that on wikipedia how edits appear to others matters as much as intent, and my judgment as a newer editor was not good. my participation at afd was mainly for learning purposes, but i recognize that my focus and the types of discussions i joined were not appropriate for someone still learning the project, and that this contributed to concerns about my editing. for clarity, i would like to note that administrator @331dot later stated “upon additional consideration i am clearing the coivrt aspect of this block — any admin may review this and handle it as they see fit.” i appreciate that clarification and understand that other concerns about my editing behavior and judgment still remain for review. if unblocked, i intend to edit very cautiously. i will stay away from afd and similar deletion discussions for a substantial time. i will limit myself to low-risk maintenance edits such as copyediting, grammar corrections, and simple cleanup on topics where i have no connection, and i will seek guidance at the teahouse whenever i am unsure. if any edit is questioned, i will stop immediately and ask for advice rather than continue. i now understand why this block was placed and why my earlier unblock requests were not sufficient. i respectfully submit that the block is no longer necessary to prevent disruption, as i have reflected on the issues, adjusted my approach, and am prepared to contribute carefully and constructively within clear limits. thank you for your time and consideration. LexyNight (talk) 9:01 am, 31 December 2025, Wednesday (16 days ago) (UTC−5)

Accept reason:

I'm inclined to accept this appeal on good faith. Please be advised that it will be much harder to appeal a future block, and that discretion is advised in relation to topics like BLPs and companies that carry a high potential for UPE. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

thank you for your time and consideration. LexyNight (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)}} LexyNight (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that while 331dot has waived WP:COIVRT as part of this block's process, that's not the same as clearing you of having engaged in COI/UPE. The change is that whereas previously this block was in part justified by confidential evidence that many admins do not have access to (which restricts who is allowed to consider lifting the block), this evidence is now considered no longer necessary for review. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

That is correct. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, LexyNight do you have any further comments in light of this clarification? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:30, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

thank you for the clarification i understand now that WP:COIVRT part being cleared does not mean the whole coi concern is gone i accept that my editing pattern created doubt even if my intention was not wrong i understand why admins were concerned and why the block was placed i am not denying that my judgment as a new editor was poor and my focus was not appropriate i was not paid and had no affiliation but i now understand that appearance and pattern matter more than intent if given chance i will strictly avoid company topics afd and any area that can raise concern i will only do very basic cleanup edits and will ask for help before doing anything else i will stop immediately if told so i am willing to rebuild trust slowly and follow all rules carefully thank you for giving me chance to explain.LexyNight (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

331dot, do you have any further comments yourself? I find the appeal to be a bit on the vague side, but in the absence of serious red flags I'm inclined to give a second chance. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:41, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, but I think how you want to handle this is fine. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @LexiNight,Thank you for taking the time to review the article and for your detailed observations. We genuinely respect the effort senior editors put into maintaining Wikipedia’s standards, and we appreciate the feedback shared during the AfD process.We would like to humbly clarify a few points, not to challenge the policy framework, but to explain the intent and context behind this article.

First, the article may not be perfectly structured or sourced at this stage because it was created by students of Jagan Institute of Management Studies itself, who contributed in good faith with the intention of documenting their institution—not as a promotional exercise, but as a learning and volunteer-driven contribution to Wikipedia. As newcomers, we acknowledge gaps in policy interpretation and sourcing depth, and we are open to correction and improvement.

Second, with respect to promotional tone: almost every educational institution engages in marketing and outreach activities. The mere presence of promotional material or institutional self-published sources should not, by itself, negate the credibility or existence of an institution—especially one that has been operational for decades and is widely recognized in academic and professional circles. We understand that Wikipedia requires independent secondary sources, and we are willing to work toward identifying and incorporating them appropriately.

Third, at a broader level, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that aims to document existing knowledge and entities that have social, educational, or cultural relevance. Its strength lies not only in covering globally famous institutions but also in systematically recording lesser-documented yet impactful organizations. Educational institutes like JIMS Rohini contribute to society through education, employability, and academic development, even if their coverage in national or international media is currently limited.With this in mind, we respectfully request that instead of outright deletion, guidance be provided on how the article can be improved—whether through restructuring, tone correction, better sourcing, or even temporary movement to Draft space.

As volunteers and learners, we are here to understand Wikipedia’s standards better and contribute responsibly, not to advertise or misuse the platform.We sincerely hope for mentorship and constructive direction from experienced editors like yourself, which would help us grow as contributors and improve the quality of Wikipedia overall.Thank you for your time and consideration. ~2026-58802-5 (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Lexi,

I’d like to respectfully raise a request for recreation or undo deletion (if that's possible sir).The article was intentionally created as a very small stub (8–9 lines), in line with Wikipedia’s allowance for starter articles. It contained only basic, non-promotional information and was meant to be expanded gradually.

As good-faith new contributors (students of the institute), we were not aware that an AfD had been initiated, nor were we given an opportunity to respond, improve sourcing, or move the page to Draft before deletion.We fully understand Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing requirements and are willing to work within them.

Our concern is not with the standards themselves, but with the lack of an improvement window for a stub-level article created in good faith.

We therefore humbly request consideration for restoring the page to Draft space, or guidance on how we may properly recreate it in Draft so that it can be improved under community standards rather than being permanently removed at this stage.We are here to learn and contribute responsibly—not to promote—and would sincerely appreciate your guidance as an experienced editor.Thank you for your time. ~2026-58802-5 (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Extortion accusation. Largoplazo (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this @Largoplazo LexyNight (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Sir a request for reconsidering the article is listed as extortion?? We really wanted to present our institution on Wikipedia as it's important for people to have an idea about our Institute. ~2026-58802-5 (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)