User talk:Zack Martin 2000

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Zack Martin 2000, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Snehapriya Roy, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Snehapriya Roy[edit]

The article Snehapriya Roy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence that any of these sources convey notability. I have no doubt that this young woman was awarded the title but as for notability , I see none.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indian Princess, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Badra. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Asha Bhat[edit]

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 Asha Bhat, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! My mistake. The previous deletion discussion was apparently about another person with this name. I've removed the deletion tag. Apologies for the misunderstanding. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Asha Bhat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Model. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Asha Bhat[edit]

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 Asha Bhat requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Bharathiya (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Snehapriya Roy for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Snehapriya Roy 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/Snehapriya Roy 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. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rammya Singh[edit]

The article Rammya Singh has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability. Searches turned up an FB hit. That's it. Not a single other reference.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rammya Singh for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rammya Singh 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/Rammya Singh 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help me[edit]

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).

Zack Martin 2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It is my humble request to the admin please unblock me. I might have committed some mistake but it was something I did unknowingly. Sock puppetry was the reason of my block. I was not aware of the fact that if it is not allowed to have multiple accounts or it is allowed. I did not use any abusive patten or edited any wiki article in abusive manner being a naive and less active user I m still learning the norms of wiki. As you can see most of my wiki creations were accepted. I am not much active on wikipedia I just do it as a leisure activity so never took it seriously in past. But my passion for pageantry and modelling got me here. I promise I wont repeat the mistake again. I enjoy it here and want to make better contributions. I have not provided any false information or created any false article I just create articles on the subjects related to pageantry and modelling. So please give me one chance to prove myself. I want to be here on wikipedia and make great contributions.

Decline reason:

Please log into your Sky Groove account and request an unblock request there. PhilKnight (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2016 (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.

Zack Martin 2000 (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tanisha Demour[edit]

The article Tanisha Demour has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No significant coverage to support the article and therefore not notable. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent third party sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Richie Campbell (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Chandni Sharma for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chandni Sharma 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/Chandni Sharma 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. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

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

Zack Martin 2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17742 was submitted on Mar 12, 2017 09:41:22. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2017 (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).

Zack Martin 2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been told to file the unblock request here by admin BU Rob13 who reviewed my UTRS ticket. I have completed 6 month unblock policy and really want to come back. I was blocked because of sockpuppetry that I did unknowingly. I apologize for that and want to return back. I am filiing it here as I have forgotten the password of my earlier account and promise that I won't indulge in sockpuppetry again

Decline reason:

It is simply not possible that you engaged in sockpuppetry unknowingly. Indeed, you've previously acknowledged that you did indeed know about sockpuppetry; "I knew about the sock puppetry thing a bit but Did not know that there was a way to get unblocked". So, indeed, what you've said here is a lie. You were deliberately engaging in sockpuppetry because you were blocked. Nor have you addressed your conflict of interest; see WP:COI and WP:PROMO and WP:PAID. I'm disappointed, and am declining this unblock request. Yamla (talk) 13:07, 19 March 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.

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).

Zack Martin 2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Reason for block: Sockpuppetry Appeal: As suggested by one of the admins I waited for 6 months to get unblocked. My block was because of sockpuppetry. I admit my fault and promise I would not cause any vandlism to any article. Areas of contribution: articles related to modelling and pageantry. I am an avid pageant follower and make sure that what ever I write is 100% true and supported by reliable references. Please give me one chance to get back. I admit that I have indulged in sockpuppetry and vandilsm but I tried to add some more info to that article. Pageantry is my passion that's why I try to make sure every article related to it has proper info supported by reliable refernces. My frequent edits caused vandlism I really apologize about that, I really want to get back and contribute. I assure you that I would not cause any further disruptions. All the articles that I would create will be tagged with relaible and genuine references.

Decline reason:

Firstly, given the behavioural evidence, I don't think you're telling the whole truth regarding your past sockpuppetry. Secondly, I don't think you quite understand what sources are considered reliable. Thirdly, given the past problems with your contributions related to modelling and pageantry, returning to that topic area is not a good idea. Huon (talk) 00:12, 29 April 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.

This still doesn't address your violations of WP:COI and WP:PROMO and WP:PAID. --Yamla (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]