User talk:GenZenny

Welcome!

Hi GenZenny! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Shih Tzu, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. VickKiang (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Betta Care (August 20)

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

Please see WP:NOTHOWTO. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, however useful your information may be

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Betta. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

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:Betta Care 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.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GenZenny! 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! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheltenham

Hi GenZenny, rather than delete a section which needs updating, it's better to actually update it, which I've now done. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Hello, I'm Waxworker. I noticed that you recently removed content from ICarly 2: iJoin the Click! without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Waxworker (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. VickKiang (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:GenZenny

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:GenZenny requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refspam

Hello, I'm Bahudhara. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to New Zealand cuisine have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Bahudhara (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Betta Care

The article Betta Care has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. This article also has no properly formatted references. This page is not written as an encyclopedic article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Parrot Tulip has been accepted

Parrot Tulip, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey I just reviewed your article Parrot Tulip and it was really good! I had no idea there was so much information about tulips. Keep up the great writing and I hope to see more of your articles here in the future. If you ever need a hand or anything feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging

Thanks for your efforts, but please have a look at Template:Unreferenced. It states You should only add this template to articles that contain no citations or references of any kind. However, Strafgesetzbuch has six citations, making Template:More citations needed probably more suitable. I'm also confused why you removed an official link here, see Wikipedia:External links, do point me out if I'm missing something. Also check out Wikipedia:Teahouse, Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure is also a good place to start. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Hi GenZenny! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Chinese culture that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. VickKiang (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Shipping container architecture, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please stop removing maintenance templates simply because they are old. If the problem is still present the template should remain. You have done this on multiple articles. Meters (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop using talk pages to say how much you dislike articles. Read WP:NOTAFORUM. If you think there are valid reasons for an article to be deleted then take the article to WP:AFD and make your case. I would strongly advise you not to do so with valid articles such as Wikipedia. If there are issues with an article then they should be fixed, but not by deleting the article. Meters (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. You deleted sourced content from DoSomething ‎ while claiming that it weas unsourced, you tag bombed Shipping container architecture after I restored maintenance tags that you had removed simply because they were old. You actually duplicated the tags that I had already restored, so which is it, the tags are old and no longer applicable, or you think they need to be in the article? If you think they need to be in the article then you should not have removed them in the first place, but even so there is no need to add a second copy of them. Meters (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and a more citations needed tag should not be removed simply because an "Article has a lot of citations" as you did on Chinese culture. It's not a question of how many citations there are. Meters (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GenZenny, you lack sufficient experience in tagging and determining WP:NPOV, so please stop your disruption and vague talk page complaints. VickKiang (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of All Your Perfects

The article All Your Perfects has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NBOOK, blog sites such as WordPress are not acceptable or reliable secondary sources. GoodReads is not an acceptable source either.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dan arndt (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in lead

Please do not ask for citations for non controversial material in article leads when the information is cited in the body of the article. The lead is a summary of what is in the article body, and normally does not require sourcing. You did this for World Holocaust Forum. Meters (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Hello, I'm LilianaUwU. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Soviet Union—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 04:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GenZenny! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Colleen Hoover that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. And please don't name non-notable children. Meters (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at My Name Is Brain Brian. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please stop adding unreferenced tags to articles that do contain some references. You were already warned about this. Meters (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Soviet Union, you may be blocked from editing. You were previously warned a level 1 warning for this, but I'm going to post this level 3 one as blanking an entire page is blatantly disruptive, and inappropriate given numerous previous warnings already. VickKiang (talk) 05:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Golden hamster. It's not up to you to unilaterally declare that Syrian hamster care is not a valid article and to delete its link. It currently exists and is a valid target for the "main article" link the pet section. It might make sense to have the care section in this article, and there is a merge proposal, but it has not gained any traction, but that is not the same as being an invalid article. Meters (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with user:VickKiang's comment from last month. You should probably stop making these sorts of edits. Most of them seem to be good faith edits, but they are still disruptive. If you can't reliably tell when tags or links should be added or removed you should not be touching them. You have had enough warnings about these inappropriate changes. And they are certainly not minor edits. Meters (talk) 06:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And here's another example [1]. How can you possibly attempt to justify removing a "Human centric" tag with the the summary "Wikipedia articles are made by humans. They are edited and built upon by humans. They are fact-checked by humans" ? That is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether the article sufficiently discusses non-human aspects of food. This is starting to look like WP:CIR. Meters (talk) 06:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just popping in to agree with these comments. I think that this account, while well-meaning, is not sufficiently prepared to edit Wikipedia. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Rule of thumb. Enough. Stop adding inappropriate tags. This article is well sourced. If there is a particular claim that you think needs sourcing then tag that claim. Do not tag the entire article. You have been warned about inappropriate tagging before. Meters (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wildlife of North America for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wildlife of North America 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/Wildlife of North America until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Film plot

Please note the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines. Once a film has been released the film itself can be used as the source of the plot. For films that have not yet been released the plot or premise section may need sources to verify it.

The plot section does not normally need references (although in rare exceptions they might be included to better verify things that might seem weird, or even to reference a longer more detailed summary).

There is no need to add the {{Unreferenced section}} banner to Plot sections.[2] (If there is a particular point in the plot section that you believe is inaccurate or needs to be rigorously verified WP:V then in rare case it might be necessary or appropriate to add a {{Citation needed}} tag.)

Thanks for editing. -- 109.76.131.219 (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits, yet again

How many times do we have to ask you to read and follow WP:MINOR. Your edits are not minor? Don't tag them as minor edits. Meters (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And Hamster show is well sourced. It does need additional sources, but whet exactly are you claiming is not sourced? Meters (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Canterbury Tail talk 12:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Please don't make changes if the cited sources do not back up your edit. (I am referring to the edit you made in Among Us where you changed the date from 2018 to 2020. THe source says its 2018.) Roostery123 (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

I reverted your edit to Cats. Per MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE: If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included (and is encouraged) in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. I don't see why cats are especially associated with Japan specifically. While your edit is good-faith it does not improve the article. Additionally, at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic, I'd like to remind you that subjects related to Covid-19 should preferably have WP:MEDRS standard sources. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 20:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing someone's country of birth to Australia while providing zero sources for this change and also complaining about things being unsourced, is a special kind of disruption. Also claiming things are unsourced when they're clearly sourced just slight after.

All in all, reading your talk page here and looking into your edits, it's quite clear you have a huge history of disruptive editing if not even outright vandalism. I'm trying really hard to assume good faith with your account, but for many edits it just seems like the edits are trolling. If they're not then it could be a case of lack of competence. If you wish to continue editing in a constructive manner you should stop with these blatant disruptive edits (altering years video games were released, randomly inserting Japanese translations, saying Japan is NOT an island country, the list goes on) or you will be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 20:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this [3] on Surrealism is an unsourced claim, in the lead no less, that surrealism is "often associated with weirdcore". Weirdcore has no article, and is not mentioned anywhere in the article. And you call that a minor edit? Meters (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mayflower

Hi GenZenny! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Mayflower several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Mayflower, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. St Anselm (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

The next time you alter something based on your own personal opinion against the sources (such as you did on Uwu), or make any other disruptive edit, you will be blocked from editing. Canterbury Tail talk 22:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maneki-neko

Heya, noticed you got reverted over at Maneki-neko. Thought a breakdown might be useful, to explain why your addition was considered off-base: have a look at wikt:招き猫.

HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year for persistent disruptive editing in best faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia, with almost each attempt binding an unproportional amount of community time. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GenZenny, I can't prevent you from filing an unblock request, but there's almost nothing you could write in it to change my mind about the following statement: The best idea, from my point of view, is to wait until the year expires. You'll be welcomed back afterwards, and I'll personally write a welcome message if you notify me when the year ends. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Fauna of southeast asia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fauna of southeast asia 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/Fauna of southeast asia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

— Jumbo T (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock me

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).

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

Request reason:

Decline reason:

Blank unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:18, 8 December 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.

GenZenny💖 (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unban

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been criticized for unconstructive modifying of articles unintentionally in attempt to enhance and upgrade the encyclopedia. I have been criticized also for utilizing two accounts, Lina211 and this account, GenZenny for circumventing the ban. I established the Lina211 account previously of me getting banned so I could revise the encyclopedia on my school laptop. I after a period of time initiated utilizing the account on my own laptop. If you examined the time the Lina211 account was forged previously of the ban. From the time on revising Wikipedia utilizing the Lina211 account, I have then since cultivated the knowledge of what a competent and worthy revision is. I thus now request for me to be unbanned, as I now shall make quality revisions that enhance the encyclopedia rather than sabotage it.

Decline reason:

Wait until the year expires. You can also consider the standard offer. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:24, 11 December 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.

Unban

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).

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

Request reason:

Since you did not read the reason for requesting my unban, I thus now request that I be unbanned again. I have been criticized for unconstructive modifying of articles unintentionally in attempt to enhance and upgrade the encyclopedia. I have been criticized also for utilizing two accounts, Lina211 and this account, GenZenny for circumventing the ban. I established the Lina211 account previously of me getting banned so I could revise the encyclopedia on my school laptop. I after a period of time initiated utilizing the account on my own laptop. If you examined the time the Lina211 account was forged previously of the ban. From the time on revising Wikipedia utilizing the Lina211 account, I have then since cultivated the knowledge of what a competent and worthy revision is. I thus now request for me to be unbanned, as I now shall make quality revisions that enhance the encyclopedia rather than sabotage it.

Decline reason:

Nothing here is relevant. Blocks apply to the person, not just the account. Furthermore, you appear to be blocked, not banned. Yamla (talk) 20:50, 11 December 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.

Unban

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).

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

Request reason:

Since you did not read the reason for requesting my unban, I thus now request that I be unbanned again. I have been criticized for unconstructive modifying of articles unintentionally in attempt to enhance and upgrade the encyclopedia. I have been criticized also for utilizing two accounts, Lina211 and this account, GenZenny for circumventing the ban. I established the Lina211 account previously of me getting banned so I could revise the encyclopedia on my school laptop. I after a period of time initiated utilizing the account on my own laptop. If you examined the time the Lina211 account was forged previously of the ban. From the time on revising Wikipedia utilizing the Lina211 account, I have then since cultivated the knowledge of what a competent and worthy revision is. I thus now request for me to be unbanned, as I now shall make quality revisions that enhance the encyclopedia rather than sabotage it.

Decline reason:

User has lost talk page access, so no point in keeping this open. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:27, 12 December 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.

I will make good edits from now on

To the next reviewing admin, it's clearly time to revoke talk page access from this user. --Yamla (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this. TPA revoked. --Yamla (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

UTRS appeal #66585

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Betta Care

Hello, GenZenny. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Betta Care, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]