User talk:DemSocLib

Welcome!

Hello, DemSocLib, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Reference errors on 13 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Statism page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Great western Corridor

The article Great western Corridor has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails to meet WP:GNG; no "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject"

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. Imzadi 1979 → 05:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of TheLibertyLover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) 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 sock puppet, 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. Rs chen 7754 06:14, 3 May 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I dont know what and or who thelibertylover is, I have only been on Wikipedia since like January. How can I sock? Is the IP the same? I move to Prescott Valley a three months ago. I just want to edit on Wikipedia were there might need to be edits, why can I not? I create page on new proposed road and people want to delete and than I get blocked for sock for someone I dont know. I dont understand. DemSocLib (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'd say that it's somewhat Likely that you are a sockpuppet of TheLibertyLover. —DoRD (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

But I'm not, I dont even know who that is. What sort of proof do you have of this claim? This block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption, I did not violate any wikipedia rules or anything. I make good faith edits, I did not edit war, etc. My conduct is not consistent with any libertylover person and if I it is or I did violate any rules I would like to know what I did, learn from them and not do them again and continue to contribute to the encyclopedia. I simply want to be unblocked so I can continue to make good faith edits and contribute, I do not want to cause any problems or violate any rules. If I cannot be unblocked may I make an account for second chance? [User:DemSocLib

Decline reason:

If you are really a completely separate person with no knowledge of the serial sockpuppeteer "TheLibertyLover", then the amount of similarity of your editing to that of known sockpuppets is a truly amazing coincidence. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2017 (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.

Help Please

Imzadi 1979 tells me I need to explain why the page should not be deleted but I have been blocked for a reason I do not understand. How can I remove the deletion on pages I cannot edit and explain why in the talk page when I cannot edit there as well? DemSocLib (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with my block, I am not a sock puppet. I did not violate any rules and I simply want to add good faith edits to encyclopedia. If creating a page on a road plan was not allowed I apologize and will not do it again.

DemSocLib (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really an appropriate use of the help me template; you'll need to wait for an admin to take a look at your previous unblock request. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final 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).

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

Request reason:

I am a completely different person, I have done the encyclopaedia no harm. I violated no rules, this block is purely off false speculation. I ask to simply be unblocked on the basis that I have not broken any rules, don't plan on breaking any rules and the block is unnecessary. As I said before I have no connection to anyone else, after reading through this person you claim I'm associated with I don't see how I am in any way shape or form connected to them. It looks like this editor made multiple accounts, edit warred, used personal attacks against admins and had serious problems in general. Non of those things I have done. The only thing remotely related is we seem to live in the same state according to this persons talk page which is no reason to assume I am some sort of sock puppet. At the very least if you have time please go through the edits I've made (not that many), see have they been in good faith and that they haven't violated any rules. this block is truly unnecessary and really unfounded I honestly do not believe how you can think I am related to this nor any sock puppets. If you don't go through my edits that's fine, this is the last time I'll request. I'll leave you guy's alone, I just wanted to positively contribute but sorry I tried to contribute to the encyclopaedia. DemSocLib (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A checkuser above has noted it is likely you are indeed a sockpuppet, as well as behavioral evidence as stated above. Since the same basic request just keeps getting rehashed, I have disabled your talkpage access. SQL ^{Query me!} 05:22, 13 May 2017 (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.