User talk:Alechkoist

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alechkoist, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Alexbrn (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand why my account has been blocked, and i admit I was wrong to open a different user account to contest the blocking of my current account, but I only did this because I though my account had been deleted. I never thought that by opening a new account to appeal a blocking would have been considered as abuse. I never entered into a dispute about content in the past, so I mishandled the situation. This will not happen again. The block on my account occurred because I was accused of sockpuppeting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Calospaz#January_2016). I did openly admit to this, but in the process I also accused the editor of I was having the debate over content with of doing the same. The block on my account is not necessary as I have been part of the Wikipedia community for years, and this has never happened in the past, and won't happen again.

Decline reason:

The fewer paid editors in Wikipedia, the better. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:21, 13 January 2016 (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.

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alechkoist, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

McGeddon (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Luanne Hunt

The article Luanne Hunt has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable singer, bio doesn't satisfy criteria of WP:MUSBIO.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Luanne Hunt for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Luanne Hunt is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luanne Hunt until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Widefox; talk 11:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]