User talk:Labor Watch

Hi Labor Watch, welcome to Wikipedia. I saw your edits to AFGE and the labour portal, so I thought I would say hello and welcome. I'm guessing by your name (not much of a guess) that you're interested in the labor movement. You've found the portal, but you might also find some useful resources at the WikiProject - WP:UNION. Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 02:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, there has been a bit of discussion at Portal talk:Organized Labour about the "Did You Know..." section of the labour portal. It was sparked by the entry that you added, and your input into the conversation is certainly welcome. My apologies for not notifying you sooner - the conversation has been going on for a few days, and I think a general agreement has been reached to more closely link the DYK page with the DYK page on the main Wikipedia page. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 16:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:22, 2 April 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

not a sock puppet or a puppet master

Decline reason:

Checkuser leads us to believe otherwise. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2012 (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.

As you may guess by my name I have an interest in labor issues, but I don't know labor reporter. Since I haven't edited in six weeks, I'm not sure what I did to deserve being blocked. Perhaps a shared IP? Labor Watch (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shared computer. Labor Reporter, and the two other accounts I blocked, all were used from the same computer as you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Charles E. James, Sr.

The article Charles E. James, Sr. has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. TM 11:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]