User talk:DavidBiga

This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article David_Biga.

This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Novelist Music Group on behalf of David Biga for their contributions to Wikipedia.

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, DavidBiga. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page David Biga, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 23:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidBiga, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidBiga. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:51, 23 October 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

the block is no longer necessary because I understand that I was blocked for having more than one account and using those accounts to attempt to recreate an already decline submission without correctly improving the source material, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions that align with Wikipedias terms and conditions moving forward. I hope you give me another chance at being a valuable part of the Wiki community DavidBiga (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:01, 22 December 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.

DavidBiga (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What precisely do you intend to edit about if unblocked? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If and when I were to contribute again, I would make sure that any edits or contributions are accurately sourced and follow all terms and conditions regarding account activity. DavidBiga (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to address your violation of WP:SOCK and you forgot to convince us you'd adhere to WP:COI. --Yamla (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will adhere to WP:COI and am aware of the violation of WP:SOCK with regards to my use of multiple accounts. As mentioned, moving forward I will adhere to all Wikipedia terms and conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidBiga (talk • contribs)

You now abusively have three open unblock requests. Which single unblock request do you wish to be reviewed? --Yamla (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the formatting from two of the three unblock requests. Please note that the unblock template is not a reply button, and opening multiple requests will not get you unblocked any sooner. SQL ^{Query me!} 23:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered the question, what edits you intend to make? 331dot (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]