User talk:BevFayeL

Welcome![edit]

Hello, BevFayeL, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Blythwood (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heeelllp Blythwood, and hello. I was sent a message from Ponyo, but I don't know how to respond.BevFayeL (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________[reply]

To NinjaRobotPilot--thank you for your kind response. Bevflowen was blocked because I tried to add a peace organization to Wikipedia. I was not being paid for it, I do follow the rules. I didn't realize that the way I wrote it was considered spam, and it wasn't academic style.

If I ever tried to write anything new, I would definitely do it in the sandbox, or even better, make a request for someone to do it. As for the 2nd username (BevFayeL), when I volunteered for the "Smithsonian Women in the Arts" editathon, Bevflowen was already blocked. So someone (who?) had to grant me permission to work the editathon, and they gave me a new username so I could do it (I don't remember all the details). It was like dominoes--after the editathon, I lost the p/w for my new username (BevFayeL), so I tried to use Bevflowen, but I didn't have the correct p/w for that, either. I just kept digging a deeper hole for myself. FYI, I'm not so young--I was a computer programmer/analyst in the days of mainframes, in the last millennium.

Thanks for your help. I hope the block will be removed. If you have time, maybe I could ask you a few questions about how Wikipedia works. BevFayeLBevFayeL (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet 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 sock puppet, 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. Huon (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

The sock puppetry charge is because I made a very stupid mistake, which follows: On my old laptop, I had stored my old Wikipedia username & P/W on a sticky note, on the desktop. When my old laptop died and I got a new one, Microcenter transferred all of the data from the old laptop to the new laptop, but a few of the sticky notes, including the one for Wikipedia, were not transferred. When I worked on an edit-thon a few years ago, I couldn't remember or find the P/W for my old Wikipedia account. Wikipedia was nice enough to give me a new username/password (BevFayeL). At that point, I still had not learned my lesson, and I lost the P/W for username BevFayeL. So I was trying to use both the old and new usernames/PWs. I learned my lesson (finally!). I sincerely have no intention of sock puppetry. I just want to make useful, informative, and simple corrections. I hope you will restore my BevFayeL access; I also hope you will delete my old username, which I think was Bevflowen. Thank you.BevFayeL (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC) BevFayeL (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2019 (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 seems to have been a rather confusing experience for you. I can understand that. The problem is that your original account, which looks to be Bevflowen (talk · contribs), is blocked from editing. That means that you shouldn't have created a new account and started editing again. Can you look over User talk:Bevflowen and address the concerns raised there? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unblock | reason= I shouldn't have tried to add a page to Wikipedia when I was using Bevflowen. I didn't know what I was doing and I didn't understand the Wikipedia guidelines for editing. As a peace activist, I wanted to add a few peace organizations; I learned my lesson. I never intended to have 2 usernames. I assumed that after I was allowed to choose a new username (BevFayeL), the old username (Bevflowen) would be deleted--WRONG. I sincerely have no intention of sock puppetry. I just want to make useful, informative, and simple corrections. I hope you will restore my BevFayeL access; I also hope you will delete my old username, Bevflowen. Thank you.BevFayeL (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few comments here. There are two things you can agree to do that would help admins feel more comfortable unblocking you. First, if you agreed to use articles for creation to create new articles, that would give the articles that you create more oversight. Second, once you're unblocked, you should consider going through The Wikipedia Adventure, a tutorial on Wikipedia editing. You should also read through our core content policies. The most relevant policy right now is neutral point of view, which means that we write dispassionately and without bias. So, for example, peacock terms are disallowed.

One problem I saw with your edits is that you are unintentionally giving the impression that you're a spammer by linking external websites so prominently. This is something that spammers are infamous for doing – plus, we have a guideline on external links that says not to embed external links in the article body. This, too, is something that spammers are infamous for doing. Instead, you should consider working the external link into the article as a inline citation. A decent rule of thumb is that it doesn't need to be used as a citation, it probably doesn't need to be in the article (unless, of course, it's the official website).

It's not obvious whether you have any conflicts of interest. One instance of when this might be the case is if you are affiliated with a group or person. For example, if you are a friend or employee of an article subject, and that person asks you to edit Wikipedia, other editors may interpret that situation as your having a COI. So, you should make an edit request on the article's talk page using {{requested edit}}.

Finally, Wikipedia has a few places where you can get help. The Tea House is our forum for new users, and it tries to be as helpful as possible. If you agreed to go there and ask questions when you have trouble, I think that would help a lot. There's also the Help Desk, which is somewhat more technical in nature. If you agree to the above (and to use our help forums), I think we can unblock you. Please just reply below without making a new unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed your second unblock request to a comment. Multiple unblock requests are not required. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked your editing history with a view to responding to your unblock request. When I was ready to post my response I saw that Yamla had meanwhile closed the request, but I may as well post my comments here anyway, in case they may be helpful to you if you post another unblock request.
You were blocked for posting promotional material on behalf of an organisation, the name of which was reflected in your original username (Uspmf2015, later renamed to Bevflowen). You requested an unblock of that account. Two administrators indicated that you needed to provide further information for that unblock request to be assessed. You sent two emails to one of those administrators, who indicated that you should respond on your user talk page. You made no response on that page, and while the unblock request was still open you went ahead and used another account to get round the block. From what you have said someone helped you to do so in order that you could take part in an "editathon". Whoever did that should not have done so: helping an editor to evade a block is sufficient reason for being blocked oneself. All the stuff about losing and then (apparently) re-finding passwords is irrelevant. In order to be unblocked you need to respond to the comments from administrators about your unblock requests, which are on the talk pages of both of your accounts. If you can reply to those in such a way as to make it clear that you understand why your accounts were blocked, and that you will not make similar mistakes again, I am confident that any administrator will be willing to grant your unblock request, but you really do need to answer the concerns that have been expressed first. The reason for that is not that anyone thinks you have malicious intent, but that experience over the years shows that very often editors who re blocked and then unblocked actually don't understand the reasons, and therefore do repeat the same mistakes; obviously, we would like to be reassured that that won't happen in your case. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 14:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]