User talk:Leavewikifactsalone

Washington CH

When we're talking about notable people sections in any community throughout the USA, the standard is twofold: evidence of notability and evidence of connection to the place in question. "Notability" means that the person qualifies under our inclusion standards, and we require a Wikipedia article that shows that the person passes those standards, unless they've done something that obviously makes them notable, such as being a professional athlete or holding high political office. On top of that, the person's article (or some other source that gets put directly into the community article) must demonstrate the person's residence in the community, either now or in the past. Neither Derek Myers nor the guy at the bottom of the section had an article, and neither one had done something that automatically made them notable, so inclusion was inappropriate. Someone would have to write an article about them before readding them to the WCH article. Your edits here make it clear that you have a conflict of interest regarding him — that doesn't mean that you shouldn't edit here, and it doesn't mean that you're in trouble, but it means that you should be very hesitant to edit in ways regarding him and the Advocate, and you shouldn't start writing an article about either one.

As for the Advocate itself, I see news sources depending on it for stories, and the first page of this document shows that a couple of your people are considered different from others based on their Advocate status, e.g. the normal citizens are placed in one section, and the Advocate and Record-Herald people are placed together in a different section with board officials. Until I found that publication, I was questioning whether your publication had any offline significance; i.e., I could see that it had some local influence online, but was it just a few bloggers writing stuff that out-of-town publishers thought helpful, or was it also seen as a significant source by local people? This document shows that a local governmental source sees it as a significant source, so I have no objection to including it.

Two quick things here at the end. (1) Please note that sources for Wikipedia articles should be independent of the things they're talking about, so you should use a source separate from the Advocate (e.g. something from the state or from another media source) as a citation for anything beyond saying "it's here". (2) Feel free to return to my talk page for any other questions or comments, and I'll try to help you. Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest comment

Thanks for your note. I've fully protected the article to prevent further disruption, I've responded at the talk page, and I've even asked for outside assistance at the administrators' noticeboard. Nyttend (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are 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 adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because its username is a blatant violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, nor is trolling or other disruptive behavior ever tolerated. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} on your user talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2013 (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).

Leavewikifactsalone (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 sock puppet. I was blocked simply because another user didn't like my argument. Leavewikifactsalone (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After reviewing the conversations at the article talk page, your comments elsewhere, and the ANI discussion concerning your actions and the article, I believe that an indefinite block should remain. I have many of the same concerns as Kuru below, and do not feel that this account will be productive here on Wikipedia. only (talk) 12:52, 25 December 2013 (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.

There seems to be several issues that have lead to this block. 1) The sockpuppet template seems to indicate that you've used an IP before creating this account to further an edit war at that article; I'd have to dig in that more to form an opinion. 2) There is an issue with the username as it indicates you have a single purpose here, and that is to act disruptively. If you propose a new username, it can be changed to alleviate this concern. 3) The bigger problem is that this account is really is a single purpose account focused on that one article and the issue with the blogger. Are there any other articles you are interested in contributing to, or is that your sole reason for editing here? Kuru (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]