User talk:2009Dbiggs

This is 2009Dbiggs's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (December 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:2009Dbiggs/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 2009Dbiggs! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok I'm sorry 2009Dbiggs (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rabbi Bill Clinton (December 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rabbi Bill Clinton and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i apologize and i feel like more people should work on the article 2009Dbiggs (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:2009Dbiggs

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as User:2009Dbiggs, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

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. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (this is meant as a joke and should not be taken seriously) --2009Dbiggs (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:15, 19 December 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).

2009Dbiggs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apolgise for the creation of this hoax and this will not happen again. It was an incredibly incompentent joke made by me. I would like to be unblocked 2009Dbiggs (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're probably User:Trainrobber66. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:01, 20 December 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.

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).

2009Dbiggs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I haven't heard of that user 2009Dbiggs (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If that worked as a reason, no one would be blocked for sock puppetry, since every sock denies being one. You also do not address the broader WP:NOTHERE aspect of your block. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 20 December 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.

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).

2009Dbiggs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Final Appeal, I am not a sockpuppet account. This is my school wikipedia account and I had made an incompetent and dark humor joke.2009Dbiggs (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:31, 20 December 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.

Schools do not own Wikipedia accounts, do you mean it is an account you use at school? Do you have an account that you use in places other than at school? 331dot (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, Just this one account i use at school. I signed up to Wikipedia at school. 2009Dbiggs

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).

2009Dbiggs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason this block is not necessary is because I was making a dark humour user page. I had also not made a hoax as I would have to make a Wikipedia article on this hoax rather than on my own user page This block is no longer necessary because 1. I have been blocked for a hoax and deleted it.

2. Will no longer create a hoax like this again

3. I will help out other Wikipedia users and will make useful contributions.

I apologize for my actions and would like to be unblocked - Yours truly, Dyllon Biggs 2009Dbiggs (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Hi, I'm declining this for two main reasons. 1) The appeal is unspecific as it describes neither an understanding of the potential damage of your actions (with WP:BLP in mind, but please without repeating the statements that led to the block) nor what you will actually do in the future ("useful contributions"?). The Task Center contains helpful ideas. What exactly would you like to do next, in which article? 2) Your account is 5 days old. Five. The behavior that led to your block includes severe violations of the biographies of living persons policy, and we shouldn't risk allowing you to edit again at this time. The potential benefits are negligible and outweighed by the potential further damage. People change, but not as dramatically as needed here, within five days. Feel free to re-appeal in a few months or years. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:10, 22 December 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.

Speedy deletion of Draft:Rabbi Bill Clinton

Please do not introduce inappropriate pages, such as Draft:Rabbi Bill Clinton, to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been deleted. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, i was refering to a meme at the recent game awards of 2022 2009Dbiggs (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the 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.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

I hope you have a wonderful christmas 2009Dbiggs (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've learnt my lesson

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).

2009Dbiggs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked please 2009Dbiggs (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.

Let me also add, should you request another unblock, you need to follow these guidelines, or else your rights to your talk page will likely be removed RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2023 (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.

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Trainrobber66 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trainrobber66. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Girth Summit _(blether) 18:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding User:2009Dbiggs/sandbox

Hello, 2009Dbiggs. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:2009Dbiggs/sandbox, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]