User talk:Corpse7718

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/S.V.D.C..
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your submission violated Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy. For this reason, I have asked that it will be deleted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Corpse7718, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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!

Matt Sicher moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Matt Sicher, 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. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

California Sober moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, California Sober, 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.

Please do not move this back into mainspace until it's had time to be reviewed. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm wondering if you can answer a question or me. Someone has created a redirect from the article California Sober to an album by Demi Lovato that contains a song named California Sober. Demi Lovato is not the only songwriter to use that term, nor did she invent it. At best, it belongs in the pop culture section. In the article Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons under the heading Reasons for deletion, the 10th reason is "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." The target article has literally no information on the subject of California Sober except to reference a song by that name. While I understand this article needs work, it is definitely a better source of information about what California Sober is than a song by Demi Lovato (or in that case Billy Stings featuring Willie Nelson) that doesn't even warrant its own article. Am I missing something in this? SVDC (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Corpse7718. 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 for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2024 (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).

Corpse7718 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Multiple users in one house share one PC. I'm not even the same race or gender as him. I've had my account much longer than him and shouldn't be blocked because we occasionally use the same IP address. This is unfair. The 7718 that is common in both of our usernames has to do with where we live as well. I have had this account for 11 years. Why are you doing this to me? What have I done wrong? Not nice.SVDC (talk) 11:22 am, Today (UTC−5)

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. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2024 (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.