User talk:LongLiveReagan

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, LongLiveReagan. I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Dabomb87 (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. –MuZemike 23:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not a sock of that guy/gal. SPI was initiated by Neutralviews, a single-purpose account, and likely one of several sockpuppets who has -- over the last four years -- tried to turn the Marshall Sylver page into an advertisement, and delete sourced biographical material on Sylver. For one egregious example, please look at this edit, and ask yourself whether "Neutralviews" is doing anything more than pushing POV. As for the sock charges against me, I have copied -- to save time -- text eleemonysary placed on the Sylver talk page because the exact same vandalism has continued to take place for years.

P.S. I also note the SPI was originally dismissed by the clerk, and a block appeared several days later, without explanation, by a different admin. Can someone shed some light on this? Update: Upon further reflection, I believe the SPI was filed against me as retaliation by Neutralviews after that user failed to gain consensus for edits to the Sylver talk page, and several sockpuppets were blocked. For more on this, please see here. What's most likely is that Neutralviews is yet another sock of ProFromDover, and that the last SPI on ProFromDover did not include a check of Neutralviews.

I request an unblock, and an investigation of this by an admin. Thank you. --LongLiveReagan (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I've looked into this. First, your suggestion that the SPI was "dismissed" was false. A request to run checkuser was declined because it has been too long since Eleemosynary or related sockpuppets have edited, so technical information can't be compared and behavioral evidence had to be checked. Your actions show quite obviously that you are not new to Wikipedia, you are well-versed in the history of the article, and you've edited along the same lines of a known sockmaster (even copying and pasting previous text from Eleemosynary as you admitted to). Neutralviews, on the other hand, was subject to checkuser and was cleared as unrelated. So nothing in your unblock request holds any weight. -- Atama頭 21:16, 28 June 2011 (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.

Checkuser note: I've just Confirmed that you are also User:BozellHammer. That account is now blocked indefinitely. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]