User talk:Zenkai251

Goodbye everyone :(  Zenkai    talk  20:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Zenkai251 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. SudoGhost 16:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sockpuppetry, for which you have previously been blocked. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 17:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no evidence? You do realize that there are a class of users who can check technical data right? N o f o rmation Talk  20:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, can you show me the "evidence"? All that I have seen is completely circumstantial.  Zenkai    talk  20:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What "technical evidence"? I have not seen it. Zenkai   talk  20:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ...and you won't. It is satisfactory that the right ones have seen it. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  20:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is none.....that's why I haven't seen it.  Zenkai    talk  20:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This blocked user ( [ block log] | [ active blocks] | autoblocks | [ unblock] | contribs | deleted contribs | [ abuse log] ) has had their talkpage access revoked because an administrator has identified this users talkpage edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. If you would like to make further requests, you may contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that there could be appeals to unblock-en-l that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. --Chris (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to put it out there that Zenkai is a perfect of example of why the community needs to be more heavy handed with disruptive editors. Had Zenkai been topic banned at the first, second or third AN/I reports he would have been a fine contributor at music related articles while not disrupting Christianity related articles and would likely not be indef'd. Instead our unwillingness to topic ban him lead to him indulging in his emotions and going overboard. The lack of sanctions also serves to embolden editor's bad behavior as people truly can get away with a lot of crap here so long as they game the system correctly.

This isn't directed towards anyone in specific, just something to think about next time at AN/I. N o f o rmation Talk  21:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I knew this was gonna happen when I started the first ANI-thread. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC) I know that he is indeffed but would a formal ban discussion be worth having just to put a stamp on it?--Adam in MO Talk 06:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @Adamfinmo, no. Not unless he continues socking after the block. Right now he's not causing any disruption, so there's no problem a ban would solve.
 * @Noformation, agree, though I'm not sure it would have turned out differently. He wasn't editing music articles back then, and I fear he may have started just in order to lend legitimacy to his religious edits. Still, I regret opposing the topic ban round 1, and it was certainly unfortunate one wasn't implemented round 2 and 3. Especially during those last two reports, a TB may have helped. Oh well.
 * @Zenkai, if you're reading this, give it some time (six months to a year) and, if you're interested in editing music articles then, try appealing your block to arbcom. The kind of disruption we saw recently was unacceptable, but your music edits were good, and I regret we lost them in the fray. Good luck in the real world.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 07:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello User:Zenkai251! I would encourage you to appeal your block. It seems that you were unaware of the sockpuppetry policy on Wikipedia and made an honest error. I would promise that you will not engage in this type of behaviour again and I am sure that you will be back to editing again soon. I hope this helps! With regards, AnupamTalk 00:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, he was blocked for socking in the past and was well informed of the policy. He appealed his block by denying that he was connected to the other account.  N o f o rmation  Talk  00:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm sure that if he made a sincere apology, the Wikipedia community would forgive him and let him resume editing here. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. He's been a problematic user almost from the beginning and was taken to AN/I at least three times.  He would push the limits just enough to avoid a block, disappear for a few weeks and then repeat the same behavior.  It might not have been intentional gaming but he was disruptive just the same.  Then he got caught socking a second time in order to vote twice in an RM and denied that he even did it.  Reading his comments it appears that he didn't realize what a check user could do and thought the only evidence was circumstantial and that he could talk his way out of it. Anyway, talkpage access is blocked and I don't see arbcom over turning this.
 * I could see the possibility of the WP:STANDARDOFFER but it would probably have to include a topic ban from Christianity related articles, he's just too involved to edit competently in that topic area. N o f o rmation  Talk  00:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I understand. Well, he could try to appeal and see where that gets him. I just noticed that User:Zenkai251's talk page access has been revoked. I would encourage him to enable his email in his "preferences" feature so he can at least communicate with his mentor for help in this process. I would like to help more but am just too busy in real life. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Appealing his block now won't do him any good. In fact, it may close doors for him later if he spams the same unblock request too infrequently (as has already happened here). He needs to wait and come back with a clear head and considered understanding of his problematic behavior. And yes, a topic ban will probably be necessary. (He was operating under a self-imposed topic ban this whole time, so clearly that won't work again).  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

In the Meantime
One wiki that you can practice editing better of for now is A Storehouse of Knowledge. I cannot imagine you even getting blocked there. Hope we can keep in touch!  Wekn  <i style="text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"> reven </i> 15:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Conservapedia is a much larger Wiki (probably the second largest after Wikipedia) and has a similar format to Wikipedia. As such, many articles from Conservapedia also rank high in search engines. User:Zenkai251 could edit there if he registers. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, either will probably work. <i style="text-shadow:lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"> Wekn  </i><i style="text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"> reven </i>

Ichthus: January 2012
<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> In this issue...

- Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia &bull; It is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions contact the Newsroom &bull; To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
 * From the Editor
 * What are You doing For Lent?
 * Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
 * Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

Christianity newsletter: New format, new focus
Hello, I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. Witha new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name tothis list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 21:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Sigurd Rascher.jpg
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia: You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
 * File:Sigurd Rascher.jpg

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Sigurd Rascher.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Sigurd Rascher.jpg

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)