User talk:Consultant09

Welcome!

Hello, Consultant09, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding links

Hi, I noticed you added some "See Also" links to Archaeology. The proper way to link to a wikipedia article is not by using http but by surrounding the article name by [[ and ]]. Example: [[Dump digging]]. Hope this helps. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the case matters so Dump digging is not the same as Dump Digging. See Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#articlelink for more help. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you really need to learn how to make proper wikilinks. All of the wikilinks in Historical Digging are improperly formatted, I fixed a few for you as an example and you just undid it and formatted them with the entire URL again. Once again, try reading Help:Link. -- œ ^™ 22:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alexandria (chew out) 14:43, 1 December 2011 (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).

Consultant09 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Very simply, I am not a sock puppet. I am the sole owner and creator of this account. I do not have any other accounts. I do know the editor Olesachem but we are not the same person, though we do have the same interest in Privy Digging and Historical Digging. We have both worked on the articles as I am sure many people have worked on Archaeology or baseball. I am extremely busy (I know most of us are) and have had little time to work on the articles since my initial contribution, but when I learned they were going to be Deleted or Merged I got back on Wikidpedia in an attempt to improve the articles and Keep them. Please let me know what additionial information I can provide to convince you that I am not a sock puppet.

Decline reason:

If, by our procedures, which include checking your IP address and various technical data, we decide you are a sockpuppet, then you are for our purposes. You will have to request someone else with checkuser authority review that evidence ... that's the only avenue you have on appeal of this block. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 2 December 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.

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).

Consultant09 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you for your response. How do I request someone with checkuser authority to review this? I would like to point out that I did state above that I know the user Olesachem, and it is entirely likely that we had the same IP address at several points because we were in the same room discussing our concerns about the articles. We both have a strong interest in these articles and were doing our best to improve their quality. Consultant09 (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Explanation for the below was not provided after more than 48 hours. To the blocked user : You are free to submit another review with the explanation. - Mailer Diablo 16:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Mailer Diablo 16:39, 5 December 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.

For clarification, how does User:Themischr fit into this? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]