User talk:Msturm 8

Welcome!

Hello, Msturm 8, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Hello, I'm Marvellous Spider-Man. I noticed that you made a change to an article, JT LeRoy, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Marvellous Spider-Man 15:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Msturm 8, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Msturm 8! 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 experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Your recent editing history at JT LeRoy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 73.96.113.120 (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of this information. I appreciate it, and will heed your advice. I am new to Wikipedia and just trying to learn the rules.Msturm 8 (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to JT LeRoy has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: JT LeRoy was changed by Msturm 8 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.857373 on 2016-09-25T07:20:02+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. 73.202.53.43 (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thank you for this information. I will remember that when making future edits.

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Thank you! I actually tried to make an edit, and I see that it says that the page is protected so only administrators can edit it. I submitted an edit request, but now I wonder if that was the correct way to handle the situation? Was I suppose to go to the Talk Page first? Maybe I will try that as well. Thanks! and I think I forgot one of the tildas last time. I see it four of them. Hope this works! Msturm 8 (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Msturm 8. I've put your userpage on my watchlist just in case you run into any problems. Just so you know, any username on Wikipedia that has the word "bot" in it is an automated program that helps do some of the more menial tasks to keep Wikipedia users sane. This includes undoing possible vandalism or well-meaning edits that didn't look right. (Remember that it's completely automated. Though it's well-tested, it can make mistakes.) Anyway, the page was protected for one week for edit-warring so users who took part in it would resolve it on the talk page. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, Gestrid. Once again, lots of thanks. I posted to the Talk Page as well. I'm actually excited that the page (slowly but surely) can be revised. Msturm 8 (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JT LeRoy/Laura Albert pages

This post on https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents is being shared with you: I protest most strenuously the interference with my October 15 edit of the JT LeRoy page. I replaced properly cited, pertinent information, and for Aloha27 to pull it down claiming "unreliably cited information" is completely unfair -- and suggests a different agenda is at work here, one that seeks to advance the argument of the original vandalism that I undid. Aloha27 needs to explain in what way the original text had "unreliably cited information", or else undo what they did. Now a brand-new editor -- 2601:646:4000:5076:d464:a479:a51b:ddc6 -- makes their first edit on the page for Laura Albert (the actual author behind the JT LeRoy books), adding something shamelessly judgmental and biased: After a quote of Argento praising Albert in 2013, this editor added the following commentary: "However in July of 2016, Asia Argento came further forward and break her silence on her real thoughts about the scandal." Ignoring the grammatical failings, who on earth is this person to say what Argento's or anyone else's "real thoughts" are? It was quite right that a vandalism warning accompanied that edit. It was totally unacceptable editing and I have repaired it; in the spirit of balance, however, I have not removed the 2016 quote.

The Wikipedia editors have to ask themselves a very simple question about the JT LeRoy and Laura Albert pages: Do they want an unbiased article with cited and accurate information, which leaves readers free to make up their own minds -- like we do for everyone else, from Britney Spears to Joseph Stalin -- or do they want a page that continuously seeks to judge and denounce its subject? A page rewritten to legitimize the hate-filled screed "The Cult of JT LeRoy" by Marjorie Sturm. It's no accident that "Msturm 8" and her previous sock puppets -- Itzat94118," "Earthyperson," "Truthlovepeace," "174.119.2.166" -- keep putting up the same judgmental, slanted language that currently distorts the JT LeRoy page.

I urge all the editors I have cited to stop moralizing and slanting information, stop distorting the record. The JT LeRoy and Laura Albert pages have to be as legitimate as all the other Wikipedia pages. I am adding this post to the Talk pages for JT LeRoy, Laura Albert, and all the editors involved in or cited in this thread.NVG13DAO (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I would suggest you keep all comments about Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Help_with_JT_Leroy_page on that page. Besides, saying someone is a sockpuppet is a serious accusation and would need very concrete proof. — Gestrid (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Huon has explained in great detail and much more succinctly here and here than I did here why the edits by NVG13DAO are not satisfactorily cited. Regards, Aloha27 talk 20:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha27 is deliberately trying to obfuscate what they have done. The links given above are completely unrelated to what Aloha27 did on October 15. Huon's edits have nothing to do with Aloha27's October 15 undoing of my edit, which was vandalism. Instead of hiding what they're doing, I insist once again that Aloha27 either explain in what way the original text that was on the page had "unreliably cited information", or else undo what they did ASAP.NVG13DAO (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, all of this can and should be addressed at ANI in a more public forum, especially since you've already posted the exact same initial comment there. — Gestrid (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hold it.

To be absolutely 100% clear: you are the producer of a not-yet-finished documentary about LeRoy/Albert? Acceptable answers:

a) yes b) that's not my job title c) the documentary's already finished d) I have no involvement with the documentary.

Please do not select any options other than one of those four. Thank you. DS (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C Msturm 8 (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What happens if I was to select one of the other options? What happens if even if I answered above, the answer isn't complete? What is with the controlling tone with your question?

Msturm 8 (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering. DS (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to JT LeRoy while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Katie^talk 19:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for that. My computer has always logged me in automatically in the past.Msturm 8 (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest you use a skin other than the default? That way, if you're logged out, you can instantly tell. DS (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is a skin other than a default? What do you mean by that? Thanks. Msturm 8 (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As well, I will of course be more aware of it from now as well. Msturm 8 (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go to your user preferences. Select 'Appearance'. There are four skins provided (there's also the option to create a skin from scratch by tinkering with your CSS and JavaScript, but I don't recommend that unless you know what you're doing). The default skin is "Vector"; this is what appears when you're logged out. DS (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, Dragonfly!! Msturm 8 (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the DRN regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:JT LeRoy#Discuss_with_User:_76.21.32.54".The discussion is about the topic JT LeRoy. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --JustBerry (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the filing party. The filing party is PacificOcean.

Thank you, I will get to it soon. Msturm 8 (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Msturm 8: Not a problem. Also, just to note, there is no obligation to participate in the content dispute discussion. This is only an invitation/notification. --JustBerry (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, just made a lengthy contribution! I had gone to the Talk Page first . . . but I am interested in keeping things moving in a good faith way . . . thanks! Msturm 8 (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, and thanks for your participation. --JustBerry (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curious but no worries if you want me to remove the question, hope you don't mind me asking

Hello Msturm 8. I am User: PacificOcean, the one that opened the DRN (thanks for your discourse on that by the way). I have a question not related to content directly, so thought I'd reach out here; hope you don't mind.

You mentioned you were present at Albert's trial and it made me wonder, did you have a personal experience with Albert (in which you were wronged)?

Also read that you made a doc about her, and you've been following this for a long time.. the books were published at least 10 years ago, the 'reveal' was at least 10 years ago.. and Laura Albert doesn't seem that rich or famous.. and it seems like that LeRoy thing ended around the time of the reveal and she's not pretending to be anyone else anymore. I wouldn't have known about her if I hadn't run into her in SF and then googled her out of curiosity. You seem smart and passionate, so why champion this over anything else? Just doesn't seem important enough to merit the dedication.

Of course I understand if you don't want to answer these questions on Wiki; you can respond/not respond and I will respect your privacy. Just remove this or I will if you want me to. Thanks! PacificOcean (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, I made the documentary, "The Cult of JT LeRoy," so if you haven't watched it, perhaps you should and it could help answer your questions. Other than working on this film, I have no personal relationship with Laura Albert. The reason I was at the trial is because as I mentioned I was making a documentary and that's what you do when you are working on a film. The JT LeRoy story is a microcosm of many issues in our society and culture, and it is symbolic of that is wrong within the art industry. My interest in the topic supersedes Laura Albert. As to whether this topic is important enough to merit my time, kind of you to worry. The fraud overlapped with thousands of peoples' lives internationally and hundreds of people's lives on a personal level. It's the largest literary fraud to have ever taken place. As you know, it has warranted the attention of other films and a biopic in the future. It does so precisely because of the large-scale deception that took place.

The topic continues to be relevant into the present moment considering also the mirror it provides on this "Post-Truth" era where people feel they can continue to lie publicly and nobody will bother to fact check or more interesting (take note) people don't care if someone is lying--they find ways to rationalize the behavior (take note, Pacific Ocean). Some media drops the ball on this. Other media doesn't care what is true if it is sensational and can bring them ratings or attention.

Perhaps if you have to ask this question, you have doubts about it warranting your own time. Nice to meet you, Pacific Ocean. Msturm 8 (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I have doubts about it warranting my time. What's your goal? When will you know your work is done? PacificOcean (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My goal here is rather simple, just that the page reflects the topic in an even-handed way and isn't misrepresenting the topic as it has been doing for a very long time. Considering I did make a documentary on the topic, I am very familiar with the ins and outs of it. I'm aware how Laura has continued to spin the topic without taking responsibility for her actions towards those she hurt. I think the topic is very symbolic of what's wrong with our society at this point in time. Laura Albert isn't the only one who acts this way. I hope there can be real learning and reflecting, as opposed to deflecting and creating false narratives . . . that might be catchy but are ultimately false. Good luck with dealing with her! Msturm 8 (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	It is truly wonderful to see you collaborating with User:PacificOcean. JustBerry (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Hello, I'm What cat?. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to JT LeRoy seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – 🐈? (talk) ^{(ping me!)} 19:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for It is clear that you have a conflict of interest in this matter, as the author of a documentary about JT LeRoy, and you are editing only this article in a manner that brings its narrative closer to your own work. Another administrator may agree to unblock you if you can assure them that you are interested in editing Wikipedia rather than using Wikipedia to advance your own work.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Blocked

{unblock|1=I recently added a factual and cited reference to the JT LeRoy page about Geoffrey Knoop that was changed for no reason. The citation was from the New York Times. The Vanity Fair one is factually incorrect, and if someone reads it, they will see that it is so. I fairly recently started to try and update the page because the page, as the history has shown for YEARS, has been factually incorrect and not neutral and heavily controlled by the person who was found liable for fraud-Laura Albert. I have contributed and expressed all of this in the Talk page. In particular, the last PoP culture section is not neutral at all. Pacific Ocean (the person I discussed this all with) in fact agreed that those references to celebrities could be taken out. To include positive references with no references to the fall out or the victims is not neutral. The page is supposed to be neutral. This doesn't have to do with promoting my documentary. This is about making the page factually correct as it is the first thing that comes up when people Google this controversial topic. This has nothing to do with 'the biographies of a living person' as JT LeRoy is a fiction. "} Msturm 8 (talk) 22:52, 9 August 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).

Msturm 8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Also, now that I have been blocked I can't even talk to another editor like Aloha27 who has followed this situation in the past. In the Wikipedia page it says if you have a lot of knowledge about a sujbect that you come forth and be honest. That is what I did. I was transparent that I made a documentary about this subject. My intention here is to not promote my film but rather to clarify a version of a story that is being promoted by a person who was found liable for fraud in a court of law in New York City. JT Leroy is a fictional character that was created, not a 'biography of a living person. I would like to be able to reach out to other editors but as you have the situation, I am unable.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks and no admin has decided to weigh in. You are welcome to request another unblock, but if you do so, please rewrite your request. Yamla (talk) 01:15, 2 October 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.

Msturm 8 (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No administrator has weighed in

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).

Msturm 8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

I have extensively read your editing, over the whole period since your account was created in September 2016. You may be able to pick out individual details which are objectively incorrect, as for example you claim is the case in connection with Vanity Fair/New York Times, but the substantial thrust of your editing has not been about factual inaccuracies: it has been a persistent attempt to make the article conform to the particular emphases and point of view that you personally hold. Whoever has an opinion contrasting with yours is not "neutral" in your eyes, while your personally held view is "neutral". You seem to be sincerely unable to see that what you believe is the correct presentation is simply what you believe to be correct, i.e. your opinion. As long as that is so, it is unlikely that you will ever be able to edit in the dispassionate, uninvolved, way that Wikipedia requires. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:55, 5 October 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.

(talk The JT LeRoy page is FACTUALLY not correct as I have pointed out. Vanity Fair did not bring to light Geoffrey Knoop's participation. The NY Times did. There was even a consensus that occurred between me and the party a dispute occurred with. In popular culture, it is biased to reference celebrities who had no relationship to the abuse on a personal level, but not mention those who had other opinions. Either it should be balanced or omitted. Because I'm blocked, I can't even contact other editors to discuss it. The site has a long history and I have tried to update it. "JT LeRoy" is a one of the largest literary scandals and there is no 'biographical person.' I have already explained quite a bit, and this process has been very informative about the credibility of Wikipedia.

Msturm 8 (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Marjorie[reply]

Thank you, James Watson, for reading and responding since September 2016. I would love for someone who is 'neutral' and 'objective' (if something exists in this world) to edit the page so that it is factually correct. That it doesn't put in celebrities opinions and not people who were abused. Being victimized and abused by someone isn't 'neutral.' And to eliminate the history and facts isn't 'a personally held view.' I have used citations and if my tone wasn't correct (or 'neutral') it's because there has been a degree of frustration in the process. Laura Albert, aka. the person who was found liable fraud in a NY Court and notable liar, has been actively editing the page for years and reversing the process. One editor admitted to working with her during the process. The page IS significantly improved since I took on the challenge of editing it. And I knew it would be a challenge, but I didn't think I would be put on the defensive for approaching the page with cited facts from established newspapers. If "JT LeRoy" was a 'pseudonym' like the page was claiming then there wouldn't be any controversy. No one has a problem with a pseudonym . . . that is until people start abusing and ripping people off via 'the pseudonym.' You may see this as an 'opinion' that I have but it is widely held one that overlaps with our legal rights and our human rights.

We are all humans and we experience frustration. So I apologize if my tone hasn't been up to Wikipedia's standards. Msturm 8 (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk I can't connect with you on your talk page James Watson because I am blocked. But I was wondering oes anyone plan on correcting the factually incorrect information about Geoffrey Knoop's participation with Vanity Fair? Or that will sit like that indefinitely and incorrect? Similarly, the Popular Culture section is all factually incorrect. Msturm 8 (talk) 15:25, 5 October 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).

Msturm 8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to discuss with others on their Talk pages and can't at the moment

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 21:09, 6 October 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.

Msturm 8 (talk) 15:47, 5 October 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).

Msturm 8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So I understand that I am supposed to try and relate that I am aware of the reason of why I am blocked. I understand that it's because the page is coming into alignment with my own work on the topic. I read on Wikipedia that if you knew a lot about a topic that you were supposed to be open about that, and it wouldn't be used against you. It's ironic because the page as it stands is a lot stronger since I've been editing it because it is now more factually based as opposed to all over the place. I don't even have a problem not editing it anymore, but I would like to have the ability to discuss editing changes with other people. It seems a bit odd that my point of view has shaped the page already for the better, but you want to leave in assertions that are factually untrue-- that are one google search away, such as the Geoffrey Knoop being exposed by Vanity Fair. As I've said many a time, a trial took place that proved "JT LeRoy" wasn't merely a 'pseudonym." This isn't a 'point of view' that I'm aligning myself with. That is a fact. If someone is found liable for fraud, that is a fact. If people felt hurt by the fraud, that is a fact. My documentary is factually based, that is why I was aware this page was completely misleading. In any case, I feel good that I have been successful in improving it despite the absolute ludicrousness and ridiculousness of the process. What reality are you busy protecting? 2601:646:4000:5076:914D:8ADF:DA42:30CC (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Two reasons for a decline, firstly you need to log into your account to post a request for an unblock. Secondly, your request is combative and provides no reassurance that you understand the concerns with our editing and will modify your approach accordingly. PhilKnight (talk) 00:08, 7 October 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.

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).

Msturm 8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sorry, I didn't realize that I was not logged in. Phil, what aspect of what I wrote is combative? What are the concerns specifically with my editing? Could I have an example so I can better understand. I actually go a "Civility Barnstar' which I wasn't familiar with.

Decline reason:

Closing this as a duplicate of the request below. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:22, 11 October 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.

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).

Msturm 8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Once again, I don't mean to be "combative." But I would love someone to clarify which "biography of a living person" am I violating?? JT LeRoy is a fiction. There is no such person. No one was born in 1980. How can I violate a fiction's biography? Would love someone to explain? Thanks so much for your time.

Decline reason:

duplicate below. —SpacemanSpiff 04:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC) —SpacemanSpiff 04:48, 12 October 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.

It seems that the locus of the dispute is the article about the psuedonym JT LeRoy. If you can assure us that you intend to leave that subject alone, and stay away from that article and all related articles, it would go a long way towards convincing the admins here you're going to be useful. --Jayron 32 20:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JT LeRoy is Not Merely A Pseudonym

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).

Msturm 8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Truly not trying to be combative or contentious, but I find it strange that the editors of Wikipedia are insisting that JT LeRoy is merely a pseudonym when it was proven to be a fraud.[1] A trial occurred for over ten days in New York that debated the use of the term. Again, to repeat, a "pseudonym" doesn't make phone calls in another voice on the phone or masquerade another person posing a character. There are factual guidelines for using that term. If you all are insisting on the term, against the verdict of renowned judge and an entire jury, it is really not in my hands. This isn't a matter of my opinion. Please check the NY Times article. Thanks you. 76.21.32.54 (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is clear that you don't want to listen and continue harping on the same point. Jayron32 offered you an option to get unblocked but you don't seem to be interested in that. I'm also revoking talk page access as the unblock requests are repetitive and exhibit WP:IDHT, see WP:UTRS for other options and only submit an unblock request through that showing what YOU will do differently. —SpacemanSpiff 04:48, 12 October 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.

I am "harping on the same point" because facts are facts. The page is supposed to be "non-biased" and factual. If someone could refute the point I'm making that would be a conversation or discussion. I guess you want me to just comply and agree to something not factual? I find this very confusing and disturbing.

Msturm 8 (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]