User talk:Snowballgamers

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Snowballgamers, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 08:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Snowballgamers! Thank you for your contributions. I am Berrely and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. If you wish to contact me on this page, please use {{Ping|Berrely}} such that I get notified of your request. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
How to write a great article
The Teahouse, our help forum for new users
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 08:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 101 Pony Pets 3D

The article 101 Pony Pets 3D has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (video games), with the only sources being primary. Prodding this article with 101 DinoPets 3D and 101 Penguin Pets 3D as they are almost exactly the same.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 101 DinoPets 3D

The article 101 DinoPets 3D has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (video games), with the only sources being primary. Prodding this article with 101 Pony Pets 3D and 101 Penguin Pets 3D as they are almost exactly the same.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 101 Penguin Pets 3D

The article 101 Penguin Pets 3D has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (video games), with the only sources being primary. Prodding this article with 101 Pony Pets 3D and [101 DinoPets 3D]] as they are almost exactly the same.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of AbalaBurn

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (video games). Is not in any published or independent sources in significant coverage. The article's only source is from a user-editable game index and research generally only finds Fandom articles, which cannot be used per WP:FANDOM

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take some time to read the policies

Snowballgamers, thank you for creating articles on Wikipedia. Really, thank you, it's users like you that help this encyclopaedia more, but there seems to be a correlation in the pages you are making. Almost all of the articles you have created have been deleted, or are currently facing processes that decide if they will be deleted or not. The articles you are creating seem to be well written and formatted, and you seem to be acting in good faith, but almost all of them seem to lack one thing; notability.

Yes, notability is often hard to get one's head around, I myself and taking part in New Page Patrol School, so I can help get a better grasp of it, but understanding it on Wikipedia is quite important. Generally, articles should at least follow the general notability guideline, but exceptions to this exist, known as subject-specific notability guidelines. As most of the articles you are creating seem to be related to people and video games, it would do you good to read their relevant notability information, WP:BLP, and WP:NVG (the latter is not a formal guideline or policy, but what the Video Games project generally accepts). If you do read these guidelines and understand them, it is likely your articles will not be deleted in the future. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Hello, I'm HMSLavender. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Draft:Minecraft Creeper Crunch—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 03:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lore City, Ohio. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Draft:Minecraft Creeper Crunch

Please do not introduce inappropriate pages, such as Draft:Minecraft Creeper Crunch, 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 Mz7 (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent further vandalism.

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 ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Popup Dungeon

The article Popup Dungeon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (video games), zero in-depth sourcing from reliable independent sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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} 14:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block Appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, it has come to my attention that I have been blocked from editing and creating new articles. I have seen the disgusting vulgar vandalism that has been brought to Wikipedia from my account. I was not even on Wikipedia at the time of the vandalism. You may or may not believe me but I think I was hacked! I would like to ask for an unblock but I understand if you don't think it's safe for me to be unblocked.

Decline reason:

Confirmed sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2020 (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.

Apology for sockpuppet

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).

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

Request reason:

I fully admit to making another account to try to bypass my ban and I apologize for that. I should not have made a new account and it was the wrong thing to do. Also if you have not seen it yet, please review my other unblock request. Snowballgamers (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've worked hard to demonstrate you cannot be trusted. Your best bet is to wait six months with zero edits, then apply under WP:SO. At that point, you will need to deal with your hateful contributions and setting up sockpuppet accounts. Yamla (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2020 (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.

Yamla I know the things that have been posted through my account are hateful and disgusting but you may or not believe me but I was hacked

In that case, this account is not eligible for unblock consideration. See WP:COMPROMISED. --Yamla (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla Fair enough, but what if I still want to contribute to Wikipedia? --User:SnowballGamers

Assuming you want to apply under WP:SO, wait six months then use one of your sockpuppet accounts. Point back to this account and explain the situation. --Yamla (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help and i will take that into consideration. --User:Snowballgamers

You'll also want to be honest about your vandalism. Taking a look at the technical logs, it's very, very clear that this was you; there's zero evidence your account was compromised. But that's a discussion for another day. If you are honest about this in six months, you may be welcomed back. --Yamla (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Owning Up.

Hello, I do not know if anyone is going to see this but I´m sorry. I was not hacked, I vandalized Wikipedia with disgusting vulgar things as an attempt to be funny with my friends. I want to clear the fact that I am not racist, it was a dumb attempt of dark humor and being edgy but the things I said were far from funny. I also apologize for making a sockpuppet account. I know it has only been a day or so but I have changed and learned from my mistakes. I ask for forgiveness but I understand if you don´t forgive me. I was a liar, a sockpuppeter, and a vandalizer. --User:Snowballgamers

It's good to hear that you are admitting to the issues. I suggest that you take the standard offer, so wait 6 months without block evasion (i.e. editing using other accounts or while logged out to evade the block on this account). Once that time is past, request an unblock again. Your apology is good, but with the level of disruption paired with the vandalizing to be funny with friends, the standard offer is your best bet here. This apology has done good for your chances of an unblock in 6 months. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to User:GeneralNotability

Hey User:GeneralNotability, so I have seen you are investigating if KullyKeemKa is a sockpuppet of mine and I wanted to let you know that the account is not one of my sockpuppets. Before I learned about moving drafts to the article space, I copied the draft and made a whole seperate article in the main space. Me and KullyKeemKa have no connection and are two different people that happen to be fans of Penguinz0. -- User:Snowballgamers

Another unblock request...

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, it has been over a month since I have been indefinitely blocked from editing to prevent further vandalism and it was the right choice for the admins to make. I have disgusted myself by the hateful attempts of trying to be funny on Wikipedia and promise if I was unblocked to never vandalize again. I have also made sockpuppet accounts although I did not intend for User:Snowsplit to be a sockpuppet as it was a forgotten account. I fully admit that I did in fact do everything that I have stated and have no excuses. I understand if you choose to not unblock me but I would love to contribute more to Wikipedia. Snowballgamers (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It was suggested that you make use of the standard offer, which requires six months of no editing or socking, not just a month. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2021 (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.

Okay, my bad. I will wait 6 months. ~~Snowballgamers

MfD nomination of Draft:Mooshroom

Draft:Mooshroom, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, 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/Draft:Mooshroom and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Mooshroom 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Draft:Tubbo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Draft:Tubbo 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/Draft:Tubbo until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

EGL¹²³⁴ 04:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Ebola (La La)

Hello, Snowballgamers. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ebola".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 05:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request after 6 months of being 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).

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

Request reason:

It has been 6 months since I have been blocked from Wikipedia in November 2020. I was banned for vandalism and owning sockpuppet accounts and I had also tried to lie my way out of it to get myself unblocked. The block was completely reasonable and justified, I deserved it. Ever since then, I have grown as a person and want to continue editing for Wikipedia. I’m not sure how I can prove to you that I deserve to be unblocked but I have a passion for writing articles like the Action Bass article I made for example. I have no excuse for my actions, I was playing around with my friends which was a very bad idea. I am not trying to put the blame on my friends because I was the one who was vandalizing Wikipedia and it is completely my fault. I promise to follow all of the Wikipedia rules and to create and edit articles with good faith intended. I completely understand if I do not get unblocked, but I just want to contribute to Wikipedia and earn my trust back. I also know that I had created a lot of articles that were not notable and kept getting deleted. I will read over the notability guidelines and make sure all created articles are notable for an inclusion on Wikipedia. Snowballgamers (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I agree with Cullen below. Why would anyone want to associate with an account with vile edits like that -- and why would Wikipedia want such an account? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:09, 5 June 2021 (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.

@Mz7: What are your thoughts with regard to this request? SQL ^{Query me!} 23:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: I took a look at this user's deleted contributions again, and honestly speaking, the vandalism was so grossly offensive that I am disinclined even to give this user the benefit of the doubt. WP:NORACISTS may be relevant, although I suppose it could alternatively be chalked up to teenagers being dumb. Additionally, I ran a check, and I found one probable example of logged-out block evasion from February 2021, but admittedly the edit was extremely minor (adding a category to an article) and constructive in nature. Overall, I would not stop you if you extend WP:SO in this instance, but personally, because of the egregiousness of the vandalism, I believe we may be on the outer fringes of WP:AGF here. Mz7 (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7: Thank you for your opinion here. I probably should have run a check first. Snowballgamers - How would you address the above? SQL ^{Query me!} 00:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7: I understand not giving be the benefit of the doubt and keeping me blocked, but I am definitely not racist. Although it may seem that what I did is a racist act but like Mz7 said, I was just me being dumb. (I am NOT saying those actions were okay, they were horiible and I should not have done it.) If I were to get unblocked, I promise not to do anything like that ever again, I regretted it immediately after and have learned my lesson and have grown as a person. Yes, I did make one edit on my phone where I was not logged in, but I was just adding a category to a page, nothing harmful. Snowballgamers (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7: Hey, sorry to bother you but am I still going to be blocked? Or are you still deciding? Snowballgamers (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snowballgamers, I am an administrator who came here to see if you should be unblocked. What I found is that you are not an ordinary vandal. Instead, you are a vandal whose vandalism was so deeply racist and vile and despicable and disgusting that I am opposed to ever unblocking you without a much better explanation and a much stronger commitment. What type of friends are you hanging out with who think that vicious racist hatred is funny? I never had any friends like that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I do not find those deeply racist things I said funny anymore and have changed as a person. I thought that it would have been funny to create a draft article and call my white friend the n word and spam the n word on the page. I have no excuses for my actions and fully admit to everything. Although you may not believe me, I promise you that I am not racist and never was, I just found the n word funny for some stupid reason. I want to continue editing Wikipedia with good faith intended on every edit that I make. I am very ashamed of what disgusting things that I have said. Before the vandalism, I have contributed to this website with good faith intended on everything that I would do, until I decided to be a complete idiot and vandalize the site with what I found humorous then. After doing what I did, I felt a deep regret and still do. I hope you consider unblocking me and giving me the benefit of the doubt, but completely understand why you would not. Snowballgamers (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator, I can see some but not all of what you wrote. Six months ago, you wrote "I HATE NIGGERS!" and also something much worse than that which I will not repeat because it is so disgusting. You also wrote much worse things that I cannot see because those remarks have been suppressed by an overnighter because they were so bad that not even administrators can view them. So, I do not think that you are ready to return to active editing after only six months. I do not believe that someone can transform from a stone cold racist hater to a responsible editor in six months. I am sorry, but I cannot accept that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:8 Ball Pool

Hello, Snowballgamers. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:8 Ball Pool, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:8 Ball Pool

Hello, Snowballgamers. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "8 Ball Pool".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Toby Smith (YouTuber)

The article Toby Smith (YouTuber) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Inadequately sourced - all sources are unreliable passing mentions. Serious WP:BLP violations and fails WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Laplorfill (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Smith (YouTuber) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Toby Smith (YouTuber), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Troutfarm27 ^(Talk) 23:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tubbo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tubbo 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/Tubbo until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

15 (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]