User talk:Alex Hortman

Your submission at Articles for creation: Troy E. Brown (October 1)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Troy E. Brown.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! the one sean 01:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed sandbox for you

Hello, your sandbox had become a WP:Redirect to your draft, so if you want to go back from the redirect, look for a little link under the page title that says "XYZ redirects here", and you can click to go back to the original item.

I went and neutralised the Redirect coding for you, so your sandbox is back at User:Alex Hortman/sandbox. Note also, you can make any "sandbox" space you like within your own user area. For example, you could make a page User:Alex Hortman/Purple apples, then create that page and draft an article about "purple apples" there. Alternately, you can do User:Alex Hortman/sandbox1, User:Alex Hortman/sandbox2, etc. All totally your call, but I cleared your simple "sandbox" title for you. Sorry for the confusion, Wiki takes a little getting used to at first.

BTW, I see you blanked your draft because we already had an article on your topic. That said, if your draft had any cited/footnoted facts currently missing in the article, by all means add them to the existing article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Alex Hortman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

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. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I was blocked recently after being accused of being a sockpuppet. While I recognize the challenges in proving my case, as it is difficult to prove that you are not someone else, I will do my best. As the article said to be brief, I will get to the main points now. First, I do my best to edit articles according to Wikipedia's policies. If you go through my contributions, you will see that all of my edits were constructive and well sourced. I took pains to source and create internet archives. None of my edits were malicious in intent, nor were they grossly negligent.Please assume good faith. Second, I do believe it is possible for someone to have similar interests as another user without being a sockpuppet. Please look closely at the contributions I have made, and compare them to the other user. Third, and most importantly, the user who blocked me said that I posted a "Trivia" section in an article. I can state for a fact that I have never posted a "Trivia!" section, as that would be highly unusual on a BLP. Fourth, the user who blocked me said that my name and the other's were "practically anagrams." This is very weak evidence, considering the amount of people living in the world, two people are bound to have similar looking last names. Finally, I would like to conclude that I hold no malice towards the user who blocked me, as I know it was a mere mistake, and that I look forward to contributing more to this encyclopedia. If this block is not overturned, however, I understand. Thank you. Alex Hortman (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

Decline reason:

As to what Drmies said:

The anagrams is a minor piece of evidence, looks like an afterthought. If it was just that, you wouldn't have been blocked.
He never said that you added a trivia section; only adding trivia content. (I haven't taken a close look at the evidence here)
The primary evidence is that you tend to edit articles on Louisiana politicians, and especially obscure ones; and the high overlap with previous sockpuppets of the same user.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:21, 5 March 2017 (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.