User talk:ZestyLemonz

This user has been banned indefinitely from editing the English Wikipedia by the community. Administrators, please review the banning policy before unblocking.
(block log · contributions · AN discussion)

July 2016

Hello, I'm Fitindia. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Love Island (2005 TV series)— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the 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. FITINDIA (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Millie B

The article Millie B has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. John from Idegon (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Millie B for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Millie B 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/Millie B until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. John from Idegon (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:MillieB2016.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:MillieB2016.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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 removed 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. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Jennifer Gibney.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Jennifer Gibney.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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 removed 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. –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Jennifer Gibney.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jennifer Gibney.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) 17:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:ZestyLemonz/sandbox

User:ZestyLemonz/sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ZestyLemonz/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:ZestyLemonz/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MFD tag removal

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Miscellany for deletion notices. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Miscellany for deletion notices. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. -- Whpq (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Miscellany for deletion notices, you may be blocked from editing. - Whpq (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, ZestyLemonz. You have new messages at Whpq's talk page.
Message added 17:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Whpq (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZestyLemonz. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZestyLemonz. 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) 23:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block

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).

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

Request reason:

I've been told by User:Yamla Until I get this account unblocked, there isn't a chance of me editing, yes I've been involved in edit wars but I've never continuously vandalised maliciously. I'm a good wikipedian, hence why I've made so many other accounts, but I'll admit I did get set in my ways and I did get in edit wars when pages were changed. However I'm willing to follow the rules, and if all my other accounts need to be deleted, I'd be willing to just use this one.

Decline reason:

The issue is when you are blocked, you are not allowed to make ANY edits, even if they are constructive. Blocked means just that, you're blocked from editing. If you're intent on being a contributor to Wikipedia, consider the standard offer, where you walk away from editing Wikipedia for 6 months period. No IP edits, no block evasion, no "constructive edits". Do that, come back six months from now and request an unblock. That will go a long way to show you're serious about working constructively on Wikipedia RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2017 (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.

To the reviewing admin, note this user engaged in extensive block evasion as late as yesterday. I've indicated WP:SO may be considered, but that obviously requires zero edits for at least six months (along with certainty they won't continue with their previous bad behaviour). --Yamla (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I do apologise, however I was making constructive edits on a page that needed editing. But like you said until this account and my IP address (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:8AA4:5600:0:0:0:0/64) is unblocked.

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).

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

Request reason:

I need to edit Coach Trip as it never gets done and User:Yamla keeps reverting my constructive edits. Leaving Coach Trip (series 16) a mess. I am a constructive editor and I NEED to be unblocked. How I can do this ASAP so I can get back to editing Coach Trip.

Decline reason:

You, the person behind this account, and all the other accounts and IP addresses you've used, are not allowed to edit. The best you can hope for is to successfully apply for the standard offer after six months of no socking or block evasion. —DoRD (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2017 (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.

Note that this user has engaged in block evasion within the past 24 hours. They've previously been pointed at WP:SO and have so far chosen to ignore that, willfully violating WP:BLOCK and WP:SOCK. --Yamla (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I need to edit Coach Trip as it never gets done and User:Yamla keeps reverting my constructive edits. Leaving Coach Trip (series 16) a mess. I am a constructive editor and I NEED to be unblocked. How I can do this ASAP so I can get back to editing Coach Trip.

Decline reason:

You, the person behind this account, and all the other accounts...oh, forget it. I'll assume you know how to read. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:56, 25 July 2017 (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.

For continued abuse, Bbb23 has revoked this user's talk page access. If the currently open unblock request is declined, that leaves WP:UTRS as the only open avenue for unblock. Given the chronic block evasion, there's no realistic hope for an unblock except as per WP:SO, requiring at least six months of zero edits. --Yamla (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User has engaged in block evasion as of August 2017. --Yamla (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

UTRS appeal #19097 was submitted on Aug 28, 2017 12:00:00. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User has engaged in block evasion as of late September, 2017. --Yamla (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User has engaged in block evasion as of October, 2017. User regularly lies about block evasion. --Yamla (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User has engaged in block evasion as of November, 2017. --Yamla (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

UTRS appeal #19852 was submitted on Nov 25, 2017 00:36:38. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

UTRS appeal #20317 was submitted on Jan 13, 2018 18:25:15. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User is permitted to request an unblock no sooner than 11 July, 2018. If this user requests an unblock sooner than that, they may be banned from WP:UTRS. The unblock counter for WP:SO resets with every subsequent block evasion. --Yamla (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock - Standard Offer

Copied from User talk:2A02:C7D:8AA4:5600:DB6:C5BA:4D3F:9EC9: Right so, if my CONSTRUCTIVE contributions are going to be reverted (I thought you could edit via IP address if you don’t have an account), then I’m applying for the standard offer. So I’ll be back in July. @Yamla: could you actually explain the standard offer and what I have to do SPECIFICALLY and not leave a saracastic comment. Thanks.

And if I am inactive until July is the Standard Offer GUARANTEED.

2A02:C7D:8AA4:5600:DB6:C5BA:4D3F:9EC9 (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC) User:ZestyLemonz[reply]

I will copy this response over to User talk:ZestyLemonz. All the details of the standard offer are given at WP:SO. You have to make zero edits over a period of at least six months. You have to clearly show you understand why your current behaviour was bad and convince us you'll never again repeat that behaviour. That includes both your block evasion and your inappropriate edits. There are no guarantees here. Your behaviour has been so, so bad that you'll have a high bar to clear, but it's the only way forward. Given your history of abuse, no admin will consider unblocking you except via WP:SO. Even then, there's a good chance you may be required to go through {{2nd chance}} and may be subject to a topic ban. But again, I want to be clear, this is your only way forward. Reminder: your edit here has reset the six month timer. You are now not eligible to apply before 2018-07-17. --Yamla (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that you do have an account. You know perfectly well, because you've been told many, many times, that you aren't permitted to edit while that account is blocked. WP:BLOCK is very clear on this. You can't claim you thought you could edit via an IP address if you didn't have an account, because you have an account. --Yamla (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User has engaged in block evasion as of 2018-01-28. See 90.204.47.61 (talk · contribs). --Yamla (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User has engaged in block evasion as of February, 2018. --Yamla (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering moving for your formal ban from Wikipedia, as you clearly have no intention of ever following our rules. If you have anything to say, any reason to believe you'll permanently stop creating accounts or editing from IP addresses in deliberate violation of WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK, I'm listening. I plan to move for a formal ban in about 24 hours. --Yamla (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link is WP:CBAN for ZestyLemonz. --Yamla (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are banned under WP:CBAN. That policy page explains everything you need to know. I will not engage in any further communication with you until such a time as the community ban is lifted, if that ever happens. --Yamla (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ban evasion

User has engaged in ban evasion on 2018-02-19, as Tiffany New York Pollard (talk · contribs). --Yamla (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User has engaged in ban evasion as of 2018-04. --Yamla (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User has engaged in ban evasion as of 2018-06. --Yamla (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User has engaged in ban evasion as of 2018-10. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And in March, 2019. --Yamla (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And July, 2019. --Yamla (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, there's no month when this banned user doesn't evade their block. But for the record, they evaded their ban in August, 2019. --Yamla (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And April, 2020. --Yamla (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 46761

UTRS appeal #46761 is closed. User UTRS banned till February 13, 2022. Noting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZestyLemonz/Archive#08 August 2021 Noting global lock. Noting user's poor attitude. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZestyLemonz. 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 ~~~~}}. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 20:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]