User talk:Biggreentreeus

May 2019

Hello, I'm Mutt Lunker. An edit that you recently made to Common Entrance Test seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Manjakombai Sree Nagaraja temple (June 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mjs1991 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. 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Page needs fixing for notability

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Manjakombai Sree Nagaraja temple and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Manjakombai Sree Nagaraja temple, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, 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.

Mjs1991 (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Biggreentreeus! Having an article 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! Mjs1991 (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. P.C.Thomas moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Dr. P.C.Thomas, does not have enough sources and citations 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.

Please try to fix the citations and link to the full URL of the cited articles, many of the cited sources don't appear to exist. The article is also written like an advertisement and needs to be written from a completely neutral point of view.

– Thjarkur (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of P. C. Thomas (educator)

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 P. C. Thomas (educator), requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for 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 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. 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. creffett (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Biggreentreeus! You created a thread called Page Visibility in Google at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi my account is blocked as Sock Puppet, I as a new user might have done mistakes unknowingly, nothing has been done deliberately,I had created an account previously wich was blocked, as I was new to Wikipedia I did not know what was the procedure to unblock it, so created another account which is the current one that is blocked, on this account I haven't committed any mistakes knowingly which will go against the policy of Wikipedia page, so Kindly request the team to check this and unblock my account. I assure Wikipedia team that the mistakes which were done previously will not be repeated and I assure that going forward I will work with complete dedication for Wikipedia

Decline reason:

Creating a new account to evade the block on your previous account is pretty much the definition of multiple account abuse. You, the person at the keyboard, are no longer permitted to edit Wikipedia, under any account. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:16, 10 August 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand the reason for the block, I assure that I will not repeat this mistake again, please consider this as my learning mistake, and I assure that I will contribute productively for Wikipedia. On this account I have also contributed two articles Thuthurmattam and Suhani Jathlia on this account, Please forgive me for what I had done unknowingly and kindly unblock my account

Decline reason:

You are not eligible for unblock consideration here. Go make your request on your original account. There, you will need a substantially more convincing unblock request. WP:GAB will explain how. Yamla (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2019 (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.