en User talk:Lina211

Welcome!

Hello, Lina211, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Wow (onomatopoeia), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Wow (onomatopoeia)

The article Wow (onomatopoeia) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTDICT.

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. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Plural forms

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Plural forms. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Plural. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Plural. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hi. I'm sorry if all these automated messages that popped up were confusing, especially since the article is no longer being considered for deletion. That was my bad and I should've been more careful. I wanted to apologize for that. Right now, the article you started is a redirect to Plural because plural forms of words are covered there. But what you typed in is a valid search term and I wanted to thank you for noticing that. It makes it easier for people who are browsing Wikipedia. :) If you ever have any questions, the Teahouse is a great place to ask. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Evolutionary daed-ent

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Evolutionary daed-ent requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. Izzy Moony_{Hi new friend!} 02:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Animation meme

The article Animation meme has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I am unable to find any sources for this article, and it's very short. See, for example: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=animation+meme

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. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Making pages

I'd like to thank you for your contributions. Though many of them are unsourced and might need to be changed, you are still contributing a solid amount of salvageable material. However, I would like to request that you read what has been linked to you in the templated messages above, and make sure to check that the article you are about to create doesn't already exist under another title (if it does exist under another title, then redirect it). Please note that Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources, instead of conducting our own research or publishing our own opinions, so some things that you know about still might not be worth including onto Wikipedia. Thanks. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Moxy- 01:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Jew (word). Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 02:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was not vandalism. It was a good-faith, slightly and unintentionally disruptive edit. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Weirdcore (December 10)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by JalenFolf was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Rejected per WP:DICDEF; Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

Jalen Folf (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lina211! 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! Jalen Folf (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Lina211 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Lina211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

Not provided

Blocking administrator: not provided.

Decline reason: You have to follow the instructions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you're on the same IP address as GenZenny (talk · contribs) and several other users? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who's GenZenny? Lina211_{Follow your dreams} 07:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong answer. You can explain in an unblock request if you want to edit. It's obvious from Hamster and Talk:South Korean cuisine that you know these other users. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I'm quite disappointed. You seemed like you could be a productive contributor - to find out that you've engaged in sockpuppetry is very disheartening. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not sockpuppetry. I just use this account for editing on my computer. Lina211_{Follow your dreams} 22:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note this user admitted to being in control of both accounts, despite attempts to mislead above, over at User talk:GenZenny. They also attempted to mislead by falsely altering my signed comments. --Yamla (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sockpuppetry. 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. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.

Speedy deletion nomination of Animation meme

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Animation meme requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. Heather Leviara (aka Green 34) 13:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wow (onomatopoeia) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wow (onomatopoeia) 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/Wow (onomatopoeia) 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) 22:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Lina211 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is not a sockpuppet account (what I was blocked for), this is a seperate account I use on my computer. I made this account BEFORE GenZenny was blocked. Me and GenZenny are indeed the same person, I will abandon the GenZenny account and continue making edits on this account.

Decline reason:

What about your other accounts? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:31, 14 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.

Lina211_{Follow your dreams} 22:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made the other accounts simply because, I didn't really have a reason for making those.

You cannot make more accounts without a reason. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 04:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Lina211 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason for my block is because I used multiple accounts. I did not know that using multiple account without a good reason was disallowed. I will abandon all my other accounts and continue to edit on this account once I am unblocked. I will not make any new accounts after I am unblocked. Lina211_{Follow your dreams} 23:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One sock can be a mere misunderstanding. Almost 20 socks, including ones created after you've already gotten blocked, probably aren't. You are also now considered banned per WP:3X; as such, your best bet will be no edits with any account for at least six months, and then appealing to the community with a more credible explanation. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2023 (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.

Lina211_{Follow your dreams} 23:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disclose all the accounts you created and state which one will be the only one you use from now on (presumably this one, because it's where you've been requesting unblock. This will not guarantee that you get unblocked, but if you don't do it you can guarantee that you won't. Daniel Case (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The accounts are AdorableWaffles22, Amogus girl, Don't be sad be happy, Everyone is dumb, GenZenny, IHateYouAndEverybodyElse, Lyricca, Rest in peace Technoblade you were a legend, Wikiproject wikiproject, (arabic letters), (hindi letters), (korean letters), (hiragana characters), and (chinese characters). 3 other accounts in the category of my other accounts were not made by me and I have never heard of, so those should be unblocked (the accounts in that category that are not mine are Logan0906, X-egs-zs8-1, and Randyjames08). I will now only edit under this account. Lina211_{Follow your dreams} 00:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have so many accounts? — Jumbo T (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed two of your accounts while I was watching the interesting debate unfolding in the Grey article. You've said you didn't know using multiple accounts was disallowed, but you indeed used your sockpuppet account in Talk:Grey to cast an extra vote/consensus for your support, didn't you? From your recent edit history, it seems you also used multiple of your accounts to evade the block and re-direct Owo_(emoticon) to the article you created. You also seem to have a few inactive sockpuppet accounts that you prepared. I want to assume good faith, but I feel that you already knew about the advantages you could exploit by utilizing multiple sockpuppet accounts even including sock farming to certain extent. And having already created these many sock accounts even after getting blocked, at least for me, it's hard to trust that you won't do it again. EverlastingSunset111 (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this person has abusively used multiple accounts to feign consensus in discussions, I suggest that the only way this user should be unblocked is via the standard offer. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]