User talk:ReferenceSF

Welcome!

Hi ReferenceSF! I noticed your contributions to Pomona College and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Katherine Delmar Burke School (February 28)

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

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Katherine Delmar Burke School instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft contains information that is not in the article and should be added to the article. Portions of this draft have an informal tone that should be reworked on folding into the article.

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 Draft:Katherine Delmar Burke School 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 Draft:Katherine Delmar Burke School, 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ReferenceSF! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

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) 16:52, 28 February 2022 (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).

ReferenceSF (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 sock puppetry. The draft was created by the experienced user who suggested that it be included in the article. Please unblock. Please also restore the work as I was fine tuning edits and working with the suggestion to increase the formality of the tone by the experienced editor who read the draft and suggested inclusion in the main article. Please look at the quality of the work and include that even if you block me as a second option. I appealed the block on the 2601 address last night and the response was that they could not find a block. I then created my one and only wikipedia account and am using wikipedia exactly as I promised in the unblock appeal: collaborating with more experienced editors, learning the ropes, etc. ReferenceSF (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm not really clear on what this has to do with the block. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2022 (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 don't know what you're referring to ("the 2601 address"). As for the draft, what you're saying is wrong: you created the draft; the "experienced editor" reviewed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what I meant by the draft is that I was not the person who linked it to the other page. I put it in my sandbox, and the experienced editor took it and put it in drafts and then suggested it be added to the existing article. For the 2601 that is my IP address that was set to expire from a block today. Last night I asked about the block and someone from Wikipedia couldn't find it. My intentions are true. This is my only wikipedia account. Please unblock. Thank you.ReferenceSF (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your reply is not helpful or fully responsive to my questions. Another admin will review your unblock request.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I tried my best, sorry that it was not helpful. My intentions are honest. @Bbb23: I may have missed your questions and am happy to answer them if you'll provide a list. Thanks for reconsidering. ReferenceSF (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)ReferenceSF (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

my understanding was that this was a block for sockpuppetry when this is my only account. I do not understand why I am blocked and the 26 edits I made reverted. If anyone could explain I'd appreciate it.

Decline reason:

Confirmed to Factsforsure44. Yamla (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2022 (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.

In case anyone hasn't noticed, ReferenceSF has been confirmed to Factsforsure44.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Factsforsure44 has been retired. I read sock puppetry and that's not what SFReference is about. My 2601 IP address was blocked and that ended today. I inquired about it last night and they couldn't find it. There is only one account that I am using and it is SFReference. Please let me work with you and the experienced editor who suggested the material deserved inclusion this morning.ReferenceSF (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note that there has not been abuse by this account. That's a critical part of sock puppetry and not what ReferenceSF intends.ReferenceSF (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry is, itself, abusive. --Yamla (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not truthful to say Factsforsure44 was retired. Factsforsure44 wasn't retired, that account was blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. Until that account is unblocked, you (you the person) are not welcome here. --Yamla (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that I went into the account and put "retired" in the signature. That is blocked indefinitely and there's no place to write on it. The IP was blocked ending today and am not pretending to be anyone other than who I am. The info was written by a keen new editor not by a sock (that has bad faith which no one ever said about me). Please reconsider as I want to contribute.ReferenceSF (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that @Yamla is being too hard on me here. (I read your page where it asks for a heads up on that). ReferenceSF is intended as a fresh start after waiting the correct amount of time with this IP. The time on blocks were different in different browsers and last night from this browser (Chrome) I asked to have the block for the IP looked at and was told that for the IP 2601 etc they could not find a block. Then this morning I was free to contribute and was working well with editors with no intents of sockpuppetry. I believe some newbie biting has happened plus a whole lot of misunderstanding by me that I am more than willing to study up and emerge from productively. @Bbb23 ReferenceSF (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TPA revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]