User talk:BettyCrocker321

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Republic of Nolastan (September 12)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Storchy were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Republic of Nolastan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Storchy (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BettyCrocker321! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Storchy (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits, again[edit]

Following on from the advice you were left previously, I've noticed you've made edits like these to the lead sections of articles in direct contravention of the advice Graham87 gave you.

On top of that, your edit to Christopher Columbus in Special:Diff/1108511655 is concerning, and your edit to Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom) in Special:Diff/1109779913 is pure vandalism.

Let me be clear, if you carry on with edits like the above, you will be unceremoniously blocked from editing. Do not expect any further warnings. stwalkerster (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Abraham Lincoln is my name.

And with my pen, I write the same.

I write in both hast and speed,

and left it here for fools to read."

- Abraham Lincoln BettyCrocker321 (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will also reply,

I've been to Hillrose, the information is true. BettyCrocker321 (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for pure trolling sockpuppetry.

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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed to User talk:Nolan MacLellan.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request[edit]

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).

BettyCrocker321 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Greetings to Everyone! In order to remove my Wikipedia ban, which has been in effect for about a month or so due to the involvement of two user accounts, I'm here right now. Despite the fact that I apologized the first time and unfortunately received no answer, seeing the same responses simply made me angrier. The main reason I persisted in doing it is because of that. I promise that going forward with this account, I won't ever do it again. I thought it would be good to start on a new account, in hopes of a new future do to my aspiring dream of becoming a Wikipedia Administrator, but I do submit to you deep sorrow in my acts, and I purely did it out of the bored mind of mine, and the constant same answers I was getting. Scrolling on Wikipedia with nothing to do but vandalize. Appealing this ban will not only make me more aspiring to edit more often in the form of a contribution, but continue the hopes of one day becoming a Wikipedia Administrator. I truly think I've matured enough to earn this. But only time and wikipedia will tell. Thank you Wikipedian(s). This will be the only unblock attempt I will be making, if declined, I will stop editing Wikipedia, so don't expect me to answer any questions you have further if it is declined. (Please note that I posted this on the User talk page of EsperantoUser321, but was told to put it on the original, but turned out I was blocked from editing my talk page aswell so if that admin is still around you can comment on this one instead.) BettyCrocker321 (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined and talk page access revoked to match sock master. Yamla (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2022 (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.