User talk:Powder River 1865

Welcome!

Hi, Powder River 1865. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Minor edits are those could never practically be opposed, and not for adding or removing actual content from an article. Thanks again, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Powder River 1876. 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 ~~~~}}.

Unfortunately, I need to block this account because you created this account in order to get around the block on your previous account, Powder River 1876 (talk · contribs). However, as a couple administrators indicated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Powder River 1876, given your good-faith contributions to date, we would look favorably upon an unblock request that demonstrates that you understand why you were blocked previously. For guidance, see Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Mz7 (talk) 19:38, 3 January 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).

Powder River 1865 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, Please consider this request. I understand why my prior edits were a problem, and I will keep working to do better. I'm really trying to contribute and do a good job, and I really care about the subjects I write about. I also already submitted an unblock request through the ticket request system (the request was approved and my IP address was unblocked) in order to create my new account. I believed that was the resolution to this problem. I'm really trying to contribute and do a good job, and I really care about the subjects I write about. I only wish to make Wikipedia better. Thank you, Powder River 1865 (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 17 January 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.

I took a look through the archives of the Unblock Ticket Request System, but I could not find the approved request you referred to—all of the requests you submitted to have your previous account (Powder River 1867) unblocked were declined, and indeed, your previous account remains blocked.
Your previous account was blocked for copyright violations. I would be willing to unblock you if you explain why your previous edits constituted copyright infringement and how you will avoid similar mistakes regarding copyright violations in the future. Do you think you could elaborate on that? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7: I believe by "approved" the user is referring the fact that an account creator created this new account for them. I am not an account creator so I don't know if the user was being honest in their ACC request or not. Sro23 (talk) 07:38, 4 January 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).

Powder River 1865 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Mz7 Yes, thank you. I copied and pasted information in block quotes, and in the future will paraphrase such information and improve citations in order to follow Wikipedia's copyright policy. *The ACC request. Thank you, Powder River 1865 (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declining as stale, as no administrator has been sufficiently persuaded to review your request. You may make another request that is more persuasive. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 17 January 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.

Proposed deletion of Alexander Moore (soldier)

The article Alexander Moore (soldier) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability, one of 400,000 buried at Arlington, an officer but not a very high ranking one, mentioned in some sources but not indepth.

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. Fram (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]