User talk:Zenkaino lovelive: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:04, 6 December 2019

Welcome!

Hello, Zenkaino lovelive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! OhKayeSierra (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast times

Would you mind telling me where you got the broadcast times in this edit from? Let's start with Australia's AV15+; I find it a little strange that this rating has a broadcast time when it is deprecated. Sinc eyou have not provide a source either in the article itself or even the edit summary it is difficult to verify its accuracy. Betty Logan (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See AV15+ part in Television content rating system#Australia.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Empty rows

You have added several "empty" rows to the tables at content rating articles, such as at Motion picture content rating system, Television content rating system and Video game content rating system. Would you mind explaining why you are doing this? Adding empty rows are pointless because they don't tell the reader anything, and can even be misleading because it can imply the country does not have any content ratings. Betty Logan (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intended to help that another person fill in empty rows :)Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well you obviously know how to edit the table so why don't you just do it yourself? If another editor wants to add a country I am sure they are perfectly capable of creating the entry themselves. Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not just do that. BTW, you have not changed Television content rating system and Mobile software content rating system articles.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not changed them in what way? There are no empty rows as far as I can see. Betty Logan (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unchanged things are not empty lows. My meaning is, "they are not enhanced".Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Altering the symbols

You have altered the symbols on several ratings articles, such as here. In many of these cases you are removing an integral part of the symbol and I had to spend over an hour restoring them this evening. You have since implemented the same edit at Television content rating system using a misleading edit summary. You did a lot more than fill in blank sections. It is not my job to clean up after you. If you want to remove surplus symbols where they are not part of the actual rating symbol then by all means do so, but do not remove legitimate symbols where they are part of the rating! Betty Logan (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I won't do that but I intended "readability". BTW, I do NOT know if surplus symbols are part of the actual rating symbol in specific systems!!Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are trying to help but the symbols need to match what people will see. Many of the summaries and sources contain images of the ratings e.g. Motion_picture_content_rating_system#Argentina. Betty Logan (talk) 07:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind if you help Television content rating system article? As I told, I do not know if surplus symbols are part of the actual rating symbol in specific systems.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is very late in my country so it will have to wait until tomorrow. Betty Logan (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but where are you from?Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Hello, I'm Betty Logan. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Mobile software content rating system, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Would you care to explain this edit and this one whereby you change the age ranges for the parantel guidance ratings for Australia and New Zealand, labelling your edit as "improving readability". First of all you have mis-labelled your edit which is a breach of policy. Second of all, neither the New Zealand or Australian rating boards issue age guidance for the PG ratings, so will you please tell me where you are getting this information from? Per WP:Verifiability all factual claims must be sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is true but you said once in Talk:Motion picture content rating system#Edit request. See: --Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UK, Malta and Ireland PG recommends parental supervision for children 8 and over.(but under 12)211.203.35.206 (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Ireland recommends parental supervision for under 12's. Malta and the UK use the same system, and they don't have an upper limit, but they have the 12 rating which does not require parental supervision for 12 and over, so this suggests a sensible upper-bound for PG. Betty Logan (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Besides, currently, Australian PG is set yellow in 0-14 in Video game content rating system. It shows that sensible upper-bound is 15 since yellow says 'parental guidance recommended for designed age range'.

You do not seem to understand how the PG highlighting works: the highlighting applies to the range that parental guidance is recommend. It is not the same as restricted rating. The UK and Irish film boards specifically state that PG-rated films are for 8 year olds and over, so the guidance range applies to 8–12. On the other hand the ACB specifically states PG rated material is "is not recommended for viewing or playing by persons under 15 without guidance from parents or guardians". It gives no lower age limit for the ratings, so the range applies to 1–14. New Zealand does not specify an age at all, so it is a reasonable assumption the guidance finishes when the next rating starts. Betty Logan (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, in BBFC official site (bbfc.co.uk), PG rating doesn't state that under 12 recommended parental guidance. BBFC clearly says that PG is "parental guidance for younger audiences" (no upper-bound).Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The BBFC is not advising parents to show unsuitable material to children; it is saying that the content is suitable for children over the age of 8 with parental discretion. It works exactly the same way as Ireland's PG rating. I have lived in both the UK and Ireland so I know how their ratings work! Betty Logan (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"M" rating

New Zealand's "M" rating is avisory and carries a "16" age recommendation as can be seen on the label: https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/assets/Images/general/labels/labels-M-373.gif. The advice for given at https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/blog/m-label/ does not give an age recommendation, except to say that films with the "M" rating tend to be based on subject matter popular with the "10+ age group". That's not the same as saying the films are suitable for anybody over 10. Harry Potter films have carried many different ratings, ranging from PG to 12A and PG13. To say that any film with an "M" rating is suitable for anyone over the age of 10 is misleading when the label itself gives a recommendation of 16. Betty Logan (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But YOU have changed M to 10+ in 2016. See [1], [2]. M rating has been 10+ since your edit, but currently not. Why did you do that, and why have you self-reverted? Besides, currently, NZ table setting is very odd. 13 is prohibitive, but 16 is advisory??Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A film might have a mature theme but not contain prohibitive content meaning it is not suitable for younger audiences but not prohibitive for them to watch either. In that sense it is no different to Australia's M/M15 distinction. As for my alteration I cannot recall the reason, but if I had been aware of an age on the label then obviously I would not have altered it, so we can conclude that i) I did not notice the age on the label or ii) the age has been added to the label since. I think it is pretty interesting the description doesn't give an age and it only appears on the label making it easy to overlook, but either way, the label indisputably says "16" on it now. Betty Logan (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you said is MA15, not M15. However, currently, NZ table setting is still very odd. 13 is less than 16. NZ 13/15 is prohibitive, NZ RP13 is restrictive but M(16+) is advisory?? This seems extremely odd to me. Also, you have once said in Talk:Television content rating system#Portugal 10 12 16. See: --Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that its meaning is "intended for 16 and over", not "prohibited to anyone under 16". Its color should be purple. Am I incorrect?211.203.35.206 (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)If the lower categories require parental consent (in NZ's case: RP13 (for 13+)) for viewers under those ages the adult category (in NZ's case: M (for 16+). M is adult material) is hardly going to be an advisory category that does not require parental consent, is it? It is obvious from the wording of all the categories together that the adult category is a hard category. This is not rocket science! Betty Logan (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

So, your previous setting (M is 10+) is natural for me, and also YOU, even if the label says 16+.[3][4]

Portugal's ratings are not analogous. Portugal only has one tier of ratings; the 10AP and 12AP guidelines mandate parental supervision for children under the stated ages and the next rating up is 16, so it is reasonable to assume it is not less restrictive than the lower ratings. This is not the case for the "M" rating; the New Zealand classification board clearly states the classification is "unrestricted" and it clearly states that "M" rated films are for "mature audiences 16 years and over". Which part of that do you actually disagree with? New Zealand operates a three tier system (unrestricted, restricted and prohibitive) and M is not in the same tier as RP13 and R15, it is in the same tier as G and PG (i.e. unrestricted). R13 is technically more restrictive than RP18 (because a 12 year-old can watch RP18 but not R13); this is not a contradiction because New Zealand operates a three tier system. Betty Logan (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the New Zealand board has made the labels clearer. Here is what it looks like now: https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/find-ratings/new-zealands-classification-labels/ (the label is clear enough to read and you can make out the 16 on it). Here is what it looked like when I made the change: https://web.archive.org/web/20140530004529/http://classificationoffice.govt.nz/search-for-a-classification/new-zealands-classification-labels.html (it is impossible to read the label). Betty Logan (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you have doctored my quote above to make it appear I am discussing New Zealand. Here is my actual comment, which is very different in form and content and I do not discuss New Zealand at all. If you want to quote me then that is fair enough, but quote me verbatim without doctoring my comment plz. Betty Logan (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are rating systems having 2+ tier systems? (games, movie and TV) I don't know since I've got only a little knowlegde for rating.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most 2-tier systems are usually between cinema and video (like Pirtugal), or between advisory and restricted (like Australia). New Zealand probably has the most complicated system it has ten ratings spread across three tiers (advisory, restricted and prohibitive). It probably holds the record for most ratings. Betty Logan (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incident report

There is a report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Off-Wikipedia_attempt_to_subvert_sourcing_and_influence_article_content regarding you, if you would like to participate. Betty Logan (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E/I: Cannot be broadcast between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am

Can you cite any sources for this? Hegsareta (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ask User:J4lambert. This is written by said user, not me.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Zenkaino lovelive. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zenkaino lovelive. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Sorry, I will not use sockpuppet anymore in RfC. Would you please unblock me. Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's not that easy. Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS; faking consensus via sockpuppetry is about the most harmful thing to our community. Whatever were you thinking? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:24, 3 April 2019 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I strongly felt that sockpuppet must not be used wrongfully. I didn't know why sockpuppet in RfC is never permitted, but now, I strongly know. Would you please unblock me? Only once. If anyone do, I will never use it improperly, anymore. I seriously wish anyone would unblock me within 12:35, 5 April 2019 (This is my IP(211.203.35.206)'s expire time.) Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 6:35 am, 3 April 2019, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC−8)

Decline reason:

declined below Beeblebrox (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2019 (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 recommend that you pursue the WP:STANDARDOFFER. This would allow you to return to Wikipedia after 6 months provided you take full responsibility for your actions and have not edited Wikipedia in the interim anonymously. Betty Logan (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but could you please tolerate me once and request unblock for me? Only once. I would like to improve articles right now. In fact, I didn't know if I must not use sockpuppet in RfC. P.S. Could you please close RFC that I made in Talk:Motion picture content rating system and move to an archive?Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I recommend that you pursue the WP:STANDARDOFFER. This would allow you to return to Wikipedia after 6 months provided you take full responsibility for your actions and have not edited Wikipedia in the interim anonymously. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 13:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Six months are too long. I will never abuse sockpuppet. I promise. I seriously wish anyone would unblock me within 12:35, 5 April 2019 (This is my IP(211.203.35.206)'s block expiration time.) Please tolerate me, only once. I would like to edit articles right now. This is my first block, but I'm permanently blocked now.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no need to have some explicit note forbidding users from socking in an RfC. If anyone thinks it's OK to participate in a discussion where votes and opinions are counted under two different accounts, then that's not a person with very high ethical standards. If you want this to be reconsidered in six months you will have to say very different things. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What I participated in this discussion by using two different accounts (with User:ABOChannel) due to stagnated progression is really true. What I intended to trick others is very wrong and careless. I agree to my fault, therefore I won't trick others by using sockpuppet anymore. Also, I don't want to give bad effects like autoblock to innocent IP users and I never used multiple accounts until March 2019. Would you please believe me and unblock me within 24 hours? Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your emailing me was unnecessary, and your demand I unblock within some time frame was unhelpful. I'm glad you won't be using sockpuppets anymore, and you can make that case in six months, via Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System, because I am removing your talk page and email access. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #24617 was submitted on Apr 05, 2019 15:05:35. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #24620 was submitted on Apr 05, 2019 18:12:08. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #24622 was submitted on Apr 05, 2019 22:09:48. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: it is worth recording he tried to make 3rd party as a proposer of a RFC #. — regards, Revi 09:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring TPA

so user may request unblocking per UTRS ticket https://utrs.wmflabs.org/appeal.php?id=27869 Deep fried okra 23:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few things. Have you edited Wikipedia in the last 6 months whether logged in or not?
- No, I haven't edited Eng Wikipedia since April, and my last edit is evading block with IP 175.223.27.43. Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please list all the user ID's you've used on this Wikipedia.
- Zenkaino lovelive (original), ABOChannel (sock). I evaded block by using 2 IPs (198.16.76.28 and 175.223.27.43). See: [5]. Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What have you learned about changing content about ratings and rating systems.
- I've learned that only true information can be approved. Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What have you learned about misleading or inaccurate edit summaries?
- I've learned that misleading or inaccurate edit summaries is very bad. Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you asked any other editor to edit on your behalf?
- I asked RhapsoDJ in April once. Sorry. Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please, in your own words, explain the meaning of the following statement and relate it to how you would proceed going forward.

"All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking."

- Reliable sources are needed for any content and I won't cite unreliable sources. Also, if it seems incorrect, discuss first before putting it. Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell us what constructive edits you would make?-- Deep fried okra 02:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Various. Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I'm Zenkaino lovelive. I'm blocked on enwiki since April and I'd like to take the Standard Offer to request unblocking. This was my first block. I've learned that using two accounts is not acceptable. I'm sorry for making this mistake, and I do not intend to use multiple accounts User:ABOChannel again. See: [6]. 6 months ago I've stopped editing enwiki, and I've made many useful edits in namuwiki with IP "124.63.127.165". See: [7]. If you want to see more contribution, please select 'Next'. I evaded block by using 2 IPs (198.16.76.28 and 175.223.27.43), and I evaded e-mail function at Jun 9. Now I understand, what sockpuppetry and block evasion are, and I'll follow the rules and use only one account in any article, discussion, and votes. I'd like to use the account "Zenkaino lovelive". Could you please unblock me? Thank you for your consideration.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I'm Zenkaino lovelive. I'm blocked on enwiki since April and I'd like to take the Standard Offer to request unblocking. This was my first block. I've learned that using two accounts is not acceptable. I'm sorry for making this mistake, and I do not intend to use multiple accounts [[User:ABOChannel]] again. See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Zenkaino_lovelive]. 6 months ago I've stopped editing enwiki, and I've made many useful edits in namuwiki with IP "124.63.127.165". See: [https://namu.wiki/contribution/ip/124.63.127.165/document]. If you want to see more contribution, please select 'Next'. I evaded block by using 2 IPs (198.16.76.28 and 175.223.27.43), and I evaded e-mail function at Jun 9. Now I understand, what sockpuppetry and block evasion are, and I'll follow the rules and use only one account in any article, discussion, and votes. I'd like to use the account "Zenkaino lovelive". Could you please unblock me? Thank you for your consideration.[[User:Zenkaino lovelive|Zenkaino lovelive]] ([[User talk:Zenkaino lovelive#top|talk]]) 23:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'm Zenkaino lovelive. I'm blocked on enwiki since April and I'd like to take the Standard Offer to request unblocking. This was my first block. I've learned that using two accounts is not acceptable. I'm sorry for making this mistake, and I do not intend to use multiple accounts [[User:ABOChannel]] again. See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Zenkaino_lovelive]. 6 months ago I've stopped editing enwiki, and I've made many useful edits in namuwiki with IP "124.63.127.165". See: [https://namu.wiki/contribution/ip/124.63.127.165/document]. If you want to see more contribution, please select 'Next'. I evaded block by using 2 IPs (198.16.76.28 and 175.223.27.43), and I evaded e-mail function at Jun 9. Now I understand, what sockpuppetry and block evasion are, and I'll follow the rules and use only one account in any article, discussion, and votes. I'd like to use the account "Zenkaino lovelive". Could you please unblock me? Thank you for your consideration.[[User:Zenkaino lovelive|Zenkaino lovelive]] ([[User talk:Zenkaino lovelive#top|talk]]) 23:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'm Zenkaino lovelive. I'm blocked on enwiki since April and I'd like to take the Standard Offer to request unblocking. This was my first block. I've learned that using two accounts is not acceptable. I'm sorry for making this mistake, and I do not intend to use multiple accounts [[User:ABOChannel]] again. See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Zenkaino_lovelive]. 6 months ago I've stopped editing enwiki, and I've made many useful edits in namuwiki with IP "124.63.127.165". See: [https://namu.wiki/contribution/ip/124.63.127.165/document]. If you want to see more contribution, please select 'Next'. I evaded block by using 2 IPs (198.16.76.28 and 175.223.27.43), and I evaded e-mail function at Jun 9. Now I understand, what sockpuppetry and block evasion are, and I'll follow the rules and use only one account in any article, discussion, and votes. I'd like to use the account "Zenkaino lovelive". Could you please unblock me? Thank you for your consideration.[[User:Zenkaino lovelive|Zenkaino lovelive]] ([[User talk:Zenkaino lovelive#top|talk]]) 23:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Unblock discussion

I have posted some items above. Adding AN(I) threads below.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive309#Note_regarding WP:SO
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive991#Off-Wikipedia attempt to subvert sourcing and influence article content.-- Deep fried okra 03:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have answered all questions above. Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this section of policy, #4 first bullet point which states, "With the permission of the affected user". Do I have your permission to discuss your IP editing here?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you have. Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you.
    - You stated above that you had not edited since April but I know that you made this edit to turn on the UTRS bot notification. Why did you make that edit?
    - One of the IP addresses that you have claimed above made this edit in August. Please explain that as well.
      — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 136: / Line 136: @@
 *Please see [[Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser_and_the_privacy_policy|this section of policy]], #4 first bullet point which states, "With the permission of the affected user". Do I have your permission to discuss your IP editing here?<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Berean Hunter|<span style="font-family:High Tower Text;color:#0000ff;font-weight:900;">Berean Hunter</span>]] [[User talk :Berean Hunter|<span style="font-family:High Tower Text;color:#0000ff;font-weight:900;">(talk)</span>]] 15:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 **Yes, you have. [[User:Zenkaino lovelive|Zenkaino lovelive]] ([[User talk:Zenkaino lovelive#top|talk]]) 21:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
+***Thank you.
+****You stated above that you had not edited since April but I know that you made [[Special:Contributions/175.223.3.71|this edit]] to turn on the UTRS bot notification. Why did you make that edit?
+****One of the IP addresses that you have claimed above made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=124.63.127.165&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=300&title=Special%3AContributions this edit] in August. Please explain that as well.<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Berean Hunter|<span style="font-family:High Tower Text;color:#0000ff;font-weight:900;">Berean Hunter</span>]] [[User talk :Berean Hunter|<span style="font-family:High Tower Text;color:#0000ff;font-weight:900;">(talk)</span>]] 23:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)