User talk:ClarenceRSB

October 2020

Hello, I'm Tbhotch. An edit that you recently made to History of the Wales national football team (1876–1976) seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use your 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! (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ClarenceRSB, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi ClarenceRSB! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Green Technology (November 1)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Theroadislong was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

Theroadislong (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read...

Please read WP:ENGVAR. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Safe Technology (November 1)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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 User:ClarenceRSB/sandbox/Safe Technology 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 User:ClarenceRSB/sandbox/Safe Technology, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Safe Technology (November 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Curb Safe Charmer were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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.

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 User:ClarenceRSB/sandbox/Safe Technology 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 User:ClarenceRSB/sandbox/Safe Technology, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, 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.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Green Technology

Hello, ClarenceRSB. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Green Technology, 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) 12:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Hello, I'm Sro23. An edit that you recently made to Template:Article templates/Person seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your 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! Sro23 (talk) 09:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of HRH Daniel Muokebe

Hello, ClarenceRSB

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged HRH Daniel Muokebe for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

JW 1961^Talk 10:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:ClarenceRSB/sandbox/Safe Technology

Please do not create hoaxes on Wikipedia, as you did at User:ClarenceRSB/sandbox/Safe Technology. Doing so 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. Fram (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

This account is not a sockpuppet and I will like to be unblocked ClarenceRSB (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clear violation of WP:SOCK. Yamla (talk) 14:06, 30 August 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand what I have been blocked for, I will make productive contributions instead and will not repeat it ClarenceRSB (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

What have you been blocked for? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:23, 30 August 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for sockpuppetry, I will steer clear away from it and will make productive contributions instead ClarenceRSB (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Just, please, really think about what you're saying next time. That was so superficial as to make it seem as if you're just trying to say what you think we want to read (And as for "next time", please note that this is your third straight decline in less than 12 hours. If you choose to make another request, and it reads like this one, the reviewing admin may well consider not only declining the request but revoking your access to this talk page to prevent further wastes of our time). — Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 31 August 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I sincerely apologise for sounding superficial. I know I have been blocked for sockpuppetry as I have created an alternative account to circumvent an active block on my original account. I have realised this is my mistake which is not allowed on Wikipedia and will not repeat it again. If I’m unblocked I will contribute productively only and ensure to abide by Wikimedia Foundation’s Terms of Use ClarenceRSB (talk) 09:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your cynical attempts to spam Wikipedia and this cynical attempt to evade your prior block by continuing in this self serving matter is noted. This cynical, insincere parroting of what you think we want to hear is noted. You will need to confine your unblock requests to your original account. As you have lied when it was convenient to do so, you cannot be trusted and are not compatible with a collaborative project . I will remove talk page access to prevent further disruption. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:08, 31 August 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.

So, just to be clear, you admit that you were lying when you said this account is not a sockpuppet? Why are you attempting to continue violating WP:SOCK by requesting both accounts get unblocked?!? --Yamla (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting UTRS appeal #47468. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]