User talk:Librarian887

Welcome!

Hello, Librarian887, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Librarian887, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, as you did at Benjamin Bocio Richardson, you may be blocked from editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me give you your 5 minutes of reasons, you cannot come and delete something without researching or knowing the importance, this guy has notability, it is the main Dominican activist and it is part of the Dominican portal. Librarian887 (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to lie you will be reprimanded too you are not above anyone boo, who do you think you are ?? To come and lie about edition without checking Librarian887 (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you are a racist supramacism that does not respect the national merit from a country such as Dominican Republic Librarian887 (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass fellow Wikipedian(s) again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Equine-man (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising. Please stop creating multiple versions of pages and accusing editors of racism when they correctly process the deletions. You're very close to a block. Star Mississippi 03:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, for the inconvenience, I will not do it again, but we have to be fairly equal here, the user implicated lies in the deletion process and I was not understanding why, I thought that there was an underlying issue behind everything not related with the article, the user said I copy/paste an old article, That's not true and I am completely sure that the user also did not research before stating what was stated.. --Librarian887 (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not created multiple versions intentionally, I wanted to change the name of the bio with the 2 full last names of the biography that I am creating, and this person is totally notable, because is an internationally recognized activist from the Dominican Republic, probably I did not write the bio in a proper and solid way, but I am going to fix it.Librarian887 (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please create it in draft space and wait for an AFC reviewer since you do not yet understand the requirements of sourcing and notability Star Mississippi 15:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I do understand them, I just did not write it in the proper way. I asked the user that deleted the bio to reestablished so I can edited. I do not want to start everything from the getgo. Can you please help me with that? By the way I have seen many Dominican biographies created with minimal sourcing I try to source every paragraph or line that I write, so I think we have to be fair here. Víctor Bisonó, and check this Lourdes Stephen, she won the same award that Benjamin won, the National Youth award which is given by the president, her bio does not have almost any reference, but that does not mean that is not notable in the Dominican Republic or in the world. Benjamin as an activist has more recognition. I will also use more Dominican Press. but I can bring 1000 Dominican bios and is the same issue in all of them even in the Bio of our president and vicepresident Raquel Peña de Antuña. That's the way we write, but I understand and I am going to work on it, and fix all the others Dominican Bio. I am taking Dominican bio in wikipedia as a personal project to improve my analytical and writing skills, so happy to join you guys. Librarian887 (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and those have been tagged as having issues since 2012 and 2014 respectively. They're not models of articles to use, which is part of why I don't think you understand the issues. I suggest you take @Seraphimblade up on their offer of the sources rather than pursue restoration. Draft space gives you time to write and edit rather than face deletion again. Star Mississippi 15:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Start Mississipi, I know you understand the issue but Benjamin has notability enough and that should not be discussed, the bio was not a promotion like in the case If I wanted to write my bio in wiki, so probably the deletion should be for not writing in a proper way, but th person has national and international notability, and because of that deserve to be in wiki like other many Dominicans doing more or less. So Do I need to start everything again? what about if the article is restored and then converted to draft? Librarian887 (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It needs now administration access. So give me a last advice, should I start from the get go? Librarian887 (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you may create it in draft space. That is where works in progress are best developed for relatively new editors such as yourself. Star Mississippi 15:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both @Seraphimblade and I are declining to restore the draft so I do not think pursuing it further is going to be fruitful, although you're certainly welcome to try WP:REFUND. I don't advise it, however. You can take the sources, but none of the writing was going to be usable. Write in draft space and submit it for neutral review. Please keep in mind that whether someone "deserves" an article is not a piece of notability. Star Mississippi 15:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Completely understood, notability is what he has achieved in the world, and to the Dominican people, many juvenile delinquency these days, and is amazing that he has done an amazing job, and he has become a pioneer like others too that I am planning to write like Eddy Alvarado working in Climate Change, and Rainier Mallol in technology/heath... thank you for your sincere help and advice.

Star Mississipi, just to inform you of everything because I am planning to write a lot of Dominican Bios and I don't want more issues. I will work on it as Draft:Benjamin Bocio.

Great, let us know if you have any questions as you work on it. Star Mississippi 16:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Star Mississipi, happy Holidays, I sent the draft for review, I corrected the article and I worked on the references, can you please take a look ?Librarian887 (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Librarian887. Thanks for the note. I'm mostly offline this week but will have a look when I return if someone else doesn't get to it first. Happy holidays! Star Mississippi 14:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Star Mississippi, thank you for taking time from your holidays to reply my message. I am still waiting for someone to take a look at it. Happy New Year !! Librarian887 (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Humanitarian2 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Humanitarian2. 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 ~~~~}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:52, 6 January 2023 (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).

Librarian887 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, duplicate. Yamla (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2023 (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 am not a Sockpuppet, I don't even know where this is coming from.. I have not manage that account in my life. I did one mistake Star Mississippi gave me an opportunity, I understood my mistake and I have been working respectfully. An IP address is not enough to accuse me of Sockpuppet. This is real, I don't understand why I am been accused... Librarian887 (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)|decline=As the SPI notes, you might very well have only one account, but that would just make this meat puppetry, which is treated the same. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2023 (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).

Librarian887 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was wrongfully accused of creating multiple accounts to affect the integrity of Wikipedia. This is not my purpose. I probably created an account in the past, I don't remember, but I never intended to create any issues with anyone, I have a list of some notable people that I want to create their bio in the Wikipedia community. Therefore, I request the opportunity to be unblocked so I can contribute to this amazing community, I traveled in December to the Dominican Republic to visit my daughter, and I visited a public library several times there. I don't know if that was the confusion with the IP ADDRESS. Right now, someone else is creating a bio from the same person I was creating the wiki-bio, and it is under investigation because it is believed that I am behind that, but I am not. I was creating a notable living person's bio for Dominicans and the field of activism. Please allow me to work. I plan to respect the rules and contribute positively to the Wikipedia community, always following the advice of senior moderators. I did not send these requests before because I did not understand how I could do it. I am an avid reader, and I like to write, so this platform is perfect for me. Please allow me to be part of it. I am not a "meat puppetry".

I was working respectfully following the guidelines of a senior Wikipedia user, and that's what I plan to do.Librarian887 (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

My review of technical evidence has Confirmed that, at the very least, you have been evading your block using Historian8587 and Human087; that sort of deception makes it hard for me to view this unblock request as a good-faith effort to rejoin the editing community. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2023 (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).

Librarian887 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I always forget my passwords. I am an old lady; I admitted two things in my last paragraph; first, I admitted to probably creating an old account in the past but not to harm anyone, but I did not create the account Humanitarian2, and I was blocked for that I also said that I did not answer before because I did not understand how I could fix the block of my account so I created a new account because I am passionate about this. Someone else is creating a new draft about the same living person bio I was creating, and I am also being accused of that when I am blocked. I recently created a new account to start from 0, but then I found out that another user started a draft about the same living person I was working when I was blocked, so I decided to see how I could recover my account because I was wrongfully accused and I wanted to prove it to you guys because the thing is happening again and the new account got locked when I access this account. I really plan to rejoin Wikipedia in good faith, and I can prove it. I will read more about the rules. Wikipedia allow users to have 2 accounts, not violating the policies but I did not do that, I was accused of being humanitarian and that's not true. I was accused of having an account that I did not create it, there is still people accusing me of creating the same bio under different accounts when I am blocked. I know you deal with many cases, but I am telling the truth; give me a chance. I did not create a new account to create problems; I did not know what I could do to fix it. Librarian887 (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your continued violation of WP:SOCK demonstrates you have no intention of following our policies at this time. No sooner than six months after your last edit (with any account), you may apply again under WP:SO. At that point, we'll expect you have read the policies you've been violating and can convince us you understand them. We'll also need you to address your attempts to mislead us about your sockpuppetry. Yamla (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2023 (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.