User talk:TheRealSerenaJoy

Welcome to my talk page. Please feel free to leave me a message if you have questions with any of my contributions. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 02:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProject_Politics_and_government (
  project page, talk page
  )
• WikiProject_United_States_History (project page, talk page)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
4		Brest Challenger (talk)	Add sources
3		Morocco Tennis Tour – Mohammedia (talk)	Add sources
11,619		talk )	Add sources
296		2020 WTA Tour (talk)	Add sources
4		ZS-Sports China International Challenger (talk)	Add sources
4		Pavel Chekhov (tennis) (talk)	Add sources
1,484		Martina Navratilova (talk)	Cleanup
669		WTA Tour records (talk)	Cleanup
7		talk )	Cleanup
3		Batman Cup (talk)	Expand
438		Women's Tennis Association (talk)	Expand
3		Bukhara Challenger (talk)	Expand
3		University of Nebraska Curling Guild (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
2,022		Steffi Graf (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
34		Drop shot (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
2		Raymond Tawiah Abraham (talk)	Merge
53		Star Premium (talk)	Merge
52		Direct DNA damage (talk )	Merge
9		2019 ABN AMRO World Tennis Tournament – Singles (talk)	Wikify
7		talk )	Wikify
20		talk )	Wikify
6		Salah Labaki (talk)	Orphan
3		Ariel Aranda (talk)	Orphan
2		Aleksei Arkhangelsky (talk)	Orphan
47		Alex Molčan (talk)	Stub
4		Monterrey Challenger (talk)	Stub
4		BFD Energy Challenger (talk)	Stub
4		Columbus Challenger (talk)	Stub
3		China International Suzhou (talk)	Stub
8		Dan Added (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andra Ursuța, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its

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!

— The Most Comfortable Chair 16:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, The Most Comfortable Chair. I appreciate your time. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 22:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheRealSerenaJoy, welcome to the Guild of Copy Editors. Just a note about the

Thanks for the suggestion

Baffle_gab - I agree 100% I will move my comment to user's page. Wasn't thinking! The Real Serena Joy^Talk 15:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for that. Another note; please use {{Done}} rather than {{Completed}} at the Requests page, otherwise the archiving bot won't archive your finished requests. You should, however, use 'Completed' to log your work at drive and blitz pages. You can always contact me or one of the other GOCE coordinators and editors at the Guild's main talk pages. I've fixed the templates for you. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you

Baffle_gab I was originally was using done, then somewhere I saw completed so I thought that was the one to use. I'll go fix my entries as I did a bunch of shorter articles yesterday. (But I see someone beat me to it.) Thanks again. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 01:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

No problem; you should also register your May copy-edits at your section on the Drive page before we close it (or at latest 24 hours after closing) so we can calculate your barnstar awards; there are brief instructions here. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,

user:Baffle_gab1978 I did go and update the counts; I was trying to do it after completing each article so I don't forget. :) Thanks again!The Real Serena Joy^Talk 19:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cómplices, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mexican.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheRealSerenaJoy

Thank you for creating Raritan Yacht Club.

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: Thanks, I appreciate you taking a moment to comment!The Real Serena Joy^Talk 18:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I mean this with the utmost respect (I very much appreciate good-faith copyeditors), but many of the changes you've made to the

In addition to the concerns by @Throast above there is also a question by @Popoki35, here, that needs to be addressed. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia and, specifically, your attention to this matter. --ARoseWolf 12:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Throast, I thank you for taking the time to make comments, but I have to disagree with your assessment. I fixed many typos, punctuation errors and tweaked sentence structure improvements to remove things like lacking verb tense agreement, limiting overuse of parenthetical phrases vs. em-dash, semicolons, punctuation outside the quotes, etc. But the grammar and style aside - what I do take a tad bit of a back step on it you saying I've used non-neutral wording. I'll take another look at the article and my changes, but at a high level, from the articles cited which I've read, I'd say this wiki entry is really violating WP:NPOV, WP:BLP minimally. I didn't comb through the entire page history, but now I will check it out, but from what I saw in these articles vs. the wiki - anything even remotely positive is either not mentioned or was at one point and then removed. I take the WP:BLP policy very seriously when I edit for obvious reasons..... as we all do. I'm happy to collaborate with all editors on Wikipedia, which we all know is a consensus.

I'll go take a closer look... The Real Serena Joy^Talk 20:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Petty disputes" (emphasis on "petty") was what I had in mind in regard to non-neutral wording. Such a value judgment diminishes the civil cases brought against Kavanaugh, which would be ok to use were it supported by the article body and by reliable sources, which it isn't. Regarding NPOV and BLP issues, nothing in particular sticks out to me (the article has received quite a bit of outside attention and has been combed over several times), but if there are any, please raise those at Talk:Ryan Kavanaugh to discuss. Popoki35 made what appears to be an honest effort to explain their general structure/punctuation objections in their edit summaries, see the revision history. If you want to raise your objections on the article talk page in regard to those reversions, please feel free to do so. Throast (talk | contribs) 23:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Articles, 4th Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to TheRealSerenaJoy for copyediting 12 articles during the GOCE May 2022 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 02:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Miniapolis! The bling is a nice touch! The Real Serena Joy^Talk 13:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Words, 5th Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to TheRealSerenaJoy for copyediting 25,711 total words during the GOCE May 2022 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 02:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The (old school) League of Copy Editors Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to TheRealSerenaJoy for copy edits totaling over 30,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE May 2022 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 02:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheRealSerenaJoy, finally the trifecta of editors coming to scare you away from editing. No, I think that the environment over there is very toxic, as highly socked/paid areas often become. Everyone has so much fun booting off socks they forget that sometimes new editors are the good faith kind like yourself. No doubt the suspicions leveled at you were a huge over reaction, but I don't think they come from a place of bad faith, just lack of agf. I'd have emailed you but A) I can't, B) In the interest of transparency this works better. Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Yes, I do think the reaction was a bit overzealous. If I have an issue with an edit I think is wrong, I fix it and mark it in the revision note. If the explanation is long enough, I'd leave a comment for that user if it were substantial enough to warrant so. I would never ask "why are you editing this page? Do you have a conflict of interest?" as these two have done. And yes, I see in looking through the page history, what appears to be suspicious activity, and sadly the reactions here and the peeking I've done on the page so far lead me to believe that the two editors in question who have parked themselves like a couple of trolls under the bridge, are being paid. Arguing over whether to call the guy a producer or not when the larger part of the ~87 sources assign him the title of producer (one article does so at least 10 times within) makes me wonder, why the fight on such a stupid matter that is clearly verifiable in print? They're arguing to keep the article wrong? Why? That screams COI to me. I've not had any terrible experiences with Wikipedia for the most part people have been helpful and pleasant. But I am going to do more research on this because (regarding specifically the COI accusation) "whoever smelt it, dealt it" usually is more accurate than not. I also had to defend my honor since I got 4th? or 5th? place for participation in last month's GOCE drive. ;) Thanks again. PS: feel welcome to email, I did not realize I had "allow emails" unchecked in prefs. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 16:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... I don't think so. Most editors don't just decide to start getting paid after a thousand edits and several years. For Popoki35, looks like someone who was intially topics surrounding Kavanaugh, somewhat along the lines of a SPA, but just edit following their interests. I can attest to the fact that the controversy section is the easiest to contribute to for BLP, because it's more interesting. Kavanaugh is not the only one recieving Popoki35's attention. TheranosLive Nation EntertainmentJordan PetersonThierry Meyssan. Pabsoluterince (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you.... it's a rather "obscure" interest to have, but to each his/her/their own I guess. But with so much attention in this area, I'd expect they'd be SMEs... and to get something so basic as the dude's birthday, and whether he's a producer or not, (given tons of solid sources indicating the facts) feels pretty basic. To be that invested in a page, and still get the facts wrong, screams of something other than "I have an organic, deep interest in this page for no particular reason." I edit kinda sporadically but I try to get in as much as I can with free time. But wiht a real-life paying career, my priority is not Wikipedia. I also wonder who the heck has the time to edit THAT much? Editors who seem to make an unpaid career of Wikipedia must be either 16 — or 80 — and living in mom's basement and don't need to earn a living. And at 16, they'd be out smoking week, and at 80, unable to handle the complexity of markup. I trust my gut.... and my gut said I hit a nerve touching that page. But now, like a car accident - I'm both attracted and repelled simultaneously.... I can't help but want to see more of what's going on. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 23:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no positive correlation with number of edits and likelihood of being a paid or COI editor (probably a negative one). I don't think the 'facts' are that clear; DOB was never wrong on the page, the question of whether we should be specify the date was discussed, and Throast and Popoki35 landed on opposite sites of the argument. The question of producing, is also not so clear IMO. There are many different types of editing reasons other than "a deep organic interest for no reason" that are fully policy adherent. Pabsoluterince (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheRealSerenaJoy, how do you expect editors to engage with you in an amicable manner at this point? All I've done is raised a few content concerns and tried to mitigate a behavioral dispute between you and Popoki35. Popoki35 has raised COI concerns and informed you about the troubled history of the article to help you better understand. Both of us have emphasized that we believe you edit in good faith. If I were you and had real concerns about other editors' conduct, as you seem to have with Popoki35 and me, I'd seriously consider reporting them at the appropriate noticeboard, not gossip about them on your talk page and fuel an even more hostile environment. Throast (talk | contribs) 07:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comment above about "The question of producing, is also not so clear IMO." What is clear is that

bold edit to try to change it, but that's been reverted, so you now must work with other editors and may only change the article if a new consensus is reached at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, @C.Fred. I really do appreciate the feedback. But I do still disagree with the principle that misinformation is being published and further *justified* because "4 people say so." The title of Producer and Executive Producer is 100% verifiable in many if not most of the reliable sources listed on the page. Do the personal opinions of editors trump verifiability (wikipedia deals in that which can be verified..... )? Some articles refer to him as solely a film financier, but more refer to him as producer or executive producer. And more current ones to boot. I could see the argument and push back on the title if most of the articles said he was not a real producer, but that is not the case. Thanks for any additional insights as I'd love to put the question to bed. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 16:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I see is a pure content issue, which is best handled at the article's talk page. It has not helped your cause that you haven't provided clear examples of references that call him a producer in short blocks of text; frankly, the wall of text on the talk page makes it hard to follow what's happened with the recent discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @C.Fred for taking time to reply. I did provide 3 solid examples, neatly formatted, with direct quotes from sources in blockquote format. (I could have done more, there are plenty among the 87 sources) but I figured 3 should suffice. They are on the talk page, which I assume you did not see them as they have since become less visually appealing due to the heavy thread it inspired. To prove to you that I did do all that, here is an annotated screenshot from the talk page it's easier than looking at it on the page a it is now due to the heavy thread.... of what I posted regarding the "producer" title discussion: (you should be able to click on it to see it clearly).

I was also very clear on the Kavanaugh Talk Page I started a new topic for my "bold" edit of replacing the word "claimed" with "stated" here. If you think I should be more clear, I'd welcome feedback on that. I take extra time to format my comments as neatly as possible to make it easier to read and follow.

I do feel I did things correctly, made the proper case to justify that tiny change, and met with a battle to the death (almost).The Real Serena Joy^Talk 01:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred I really am hoping for an answer from you to my question here. You stated in your reply to me above that I "did not help (my) case you providing clear examples of references that call him a producer..." when I clearly did. I followed up with a screenshot of it, and a link to the actual posting I did in the discussion. The wall of text was my four co-editor friends chiming in on the discussion, which I cannot control how they choose to format their content. There is so much dispute about this guys stupid title, when I'm following - and quoting - all the proper wikipedia guidelines here. I really want to know what you saw that was wrong with what I posted as the examples stating my suggested edit. Thanks in advance. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 00:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And my point is that the image illustrates the wall of text issue. —C.Fred (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, C.Fred but sadly, I disagree with you as stated, or rather I should say explicitly implied, that I did not make my argument clear, or that it was not neatly formatted and presented. When discussing a problem with an article, am I not to present by case by providing an explanation of the problem area, followed by examples? If a explanation with a heading, explanation, followed by three live examples all formatted with block quotes to call out the actual quotes, and links to the edits and is considered a "wall of text" too tedious to understand, I have to wonder why? I think, on that page, there are bigger issues, as evidenced by the pushback and distortion of facts in replies to me. And several people are trying to now sabotage other pages I've done. It all comes across as pretty unethical and I was hoping that an admin such as yourself would have a more clear explanation on why specifically my examples (or how I presented them) was wrong. I assume it won't really come because there really isn't anything wrong with either the edits I made, or the explanation about them. But thanks anyway for trying. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 15:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheRealSerenaJoy

Thank you for creating Mars House.

Thanks for your work. IMO meets wp:notability requirements for a separate article but IMO it still might be better merged into the NFT article. I marked it as reviewed. Happy editing!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, I agree. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 14:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Blablubbs (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, TheRealSerenaJoy. I'm working on a

draft for HB Antwerp, a diamond company which owns Signum, a brand which develops diamond-inspired NFTs. I noticed that you edit in this sphere and thought you might be willing to take a look. I'd appreciate any feedback or ideas you may have, and if you think it's ready to be included on Wikipedia, please feel free to do so. I have a COI and am therefore not publishing it myself. Thanks for your time, Margxx (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi @Margxx I'd be happy to take a look and give you feedback. I'm having some issues with some editors on another page, whom I'm certain are being paid, and they appear to be working to ban me and have set a bit of a witch hunt, so probably not ideal to have me publish it since I believe these paid editors are being shielded by an admin, but I"m happy to make edits to the page, give you feedback, and you can use the AfC process if you have a COI, which really is probably the best way to handle a page where you have a COI. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 19:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Glorify

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.

A tag has been placed on

Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations

for more information.

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. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Glorify. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the tag said to delete it if you do not think it's promotional, as it is not and it read as though it's an automated tagging as it's a business? Since it was tagged the instant it was published, it seemed to be the case. Unless I misread the tag... my apologies. I did already write the contest speedy deletion. Is there more to the story here you can share? The topic is notable, the sources are all reliable and plenty of them. I'd like more explanation on this please.The Real Serena Joy^Talk 19:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The tag says in big bold letters do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Glorify for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Glorify 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/Glorify 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.

PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Glorify (app) logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Glorify (app) logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July drive bling

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to TheRealSerenaJoy for copy edits totaling over 8,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE July 2022 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 23:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your help! --evrik (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The Real Serena Joy^Talk 00:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up on copy edits

Thank you for editing GOCE requested articles. I noticed at

MOS:JOBTITLES, and others could have been caught by reading the article aloud ("In addition his involvement with SBE

, Mason was a..." and "The that team eventually became...").

Keep up the good work, and thank you! – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think some additional reading aloud is required, I spotted some problems with the other editor's work as well. ===>> By 2008, the program was being heard In 2006, the show also aired on KCBS-FM /JACK-FM. I'll let someone else handle it. Thanks & happy editing. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 00:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Katine67 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Katine67. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was advised via email (by an admin) in April to set up an alternate account. Earlier this year, I sought assistance on my account for an issue I caused early on in Wikipedia editing. His email to me reads: "Since one of the functionary send me private email and hasn't CC'd you, this is just to notify you that logs of those rename will not be deleted as per policy of each project but on English Wikipedia the sandbox link has been deleted. My advice is that you just abandon this account or maybe rename it to random strings (can help you with that) and create a new account so that people can't link you with this username. I hope you understand that everybody is acting per policy." I did not know how to do the "random strings" thing to disassociate the ids, so I just went along my business and set up this account. So what gives GeneralNotability? ThxThe Real Serena Joy^Talk 02:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'd be very interested to know the username of the administrator who sent you that message- but in any event, you do not address the undeclared paid editing discussed in the SPI or the connection you have to the other accounts mentioned there. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 6 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.

Nomination of Mars House for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mars House 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/Mars House 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.

Pabsoluterince (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]