User talk:I Love Bridges 2

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, I Love Bridges 2! Thank you for your contributions. I am WereSpielChequers and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Ϣere SpielChequers 23:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Bridges 2, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi I Love Bridges 2! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion - (user:I Love Bridges). If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JohnCD (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2015 (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).

I Love Bridges 2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am NOT a stockpuppet of I Love Bridges! Those "random db notices" were legitimate. I did not post the notices on Lordville-Equinunk Bridge. I noticed them and posted a message on the talk page, asking about them. I requested deletion on John Greenleaf Whittier Bridge per CSD g7, but it was declined for not coming from the author of the page. That is not true, as the IP who tagged the page was me forgetting to log in. What's going on here? I Love Bridges 2 (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given the behavioural evidence it's pretty obvious that you are User:I Love Bridges. Also, you did add the deletion notices to Lordville-Equinunk Bridge. Huon (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2015 (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.

Permanent Block?[edit]

It seems to me as if "blocked indefinately" is the same thing as "blocked permanently" because I cannot locate my block expiration date/time. Is this true? If not, what does this all mean? I Love Bridges 2 (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indefinitely= permanently= forever. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, Joseph2302 is incorrect: you are blocked until you present an unblock request which convinces a reviewing administrator that unblocking you would be a benefit to the encyclopedia. However, since you say "I did not post the notices on Lordville-Equinunk Bridge", but these diffs from the history: 1, 2, 3, 4 tell a different story, we evidently cannot believe a word you say, so you are unlikely to be unblocked any time soon. JohnCD (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my other question![edit]

I am still waiting for an answer to my other question that was in my unblock request, which was how come my deletion request per CSD g7 on John Greenleaf Whittier Bridge was declined, even though the IP number who tagged it was me forgetting to log in. I Love Bridges 2 (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't log in, how are we to be sure it is you? In any case, that question was answered four days ago on Talk:John Greenleaf Whittier Bridge, but to repeat: just above the "Save page" button you clicked to post the article, it says: "By clicking the "Save page" button... you irrevocably agree to release your contribution". While you can request deletion, you cannot demand it, and since some of the content was useful and verifiable, that is being kept. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So-called hoax on John Greenleaf Whittier Bridge[edit]

I reread Talk:John Greenleaf Whittier Bridge, which reminded me to mention something else. The Replacement section that was removed is not by any means a hoax! In fact, last summer, I walked the nearby Chain Bridge and saw the replacement under construction form the water myself. In fact, I even remeber seeing Whittier Bridge Replacement signs posted along I-95. If you don't trust me, then you should go to Amesbury Massachusetts and see for yourself, but I'm telling you, this is factual. I Love Bridges 2 (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What someone says they saw is not enough, whether that someone is you or me, because the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy is that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source." See also Wikipedia:No original research. JohnCD (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]