User talk:SenatorKeithPickard

Welcome!
Hello, SenatorKeithPickard, and welcome to Wikipedia!&#32;Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Keith Pickard, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.&#32;Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I made several minor corrections to my page. The bulk of the "political positions" page was entirely wrong. Who better to state my political positions than me? I am adding citations as I go. I'm not misstating a thing, and I've adhered to the 5-pillars, including the neutrality policy and the protocols and conventions. I'm not sure what else to say, but what was on there was wrong, and mine is accurate and supported with citations. What more must I do?
 * I'm sorry for the bureaucratic hassle, but first of all you must provide proof of identity via email to info-en@wikimedia.org (see WP:IMPERSONATE for details). I am sure you'll understand that, since we currently have no way of knowing that you are the "real" Senator Keith Pickard, some confirmation is needed to make sure this account isn't run by someone else abusing your name as a username.
 * That said, Wikipedia content should be a summary of what reliable third-party sources have reported about the subject. This also holds for someone's political positions - of course you know them better than anyone else, but what positions are seen as significant isn't necessarily something you're the best judge of. Then there is the problem that you're putting your own spin on things that aren't your own positions. For example, "those calls were ignored when the Majority funded other less important projects with that money" - I rather don't expect the majority would agree that those other projects are less important, would they? It might be accurate to say that you considered those other projects - health care, school safety, getting matching federal funds and so on - less important, but that doesn't make it so.
 * I don't think the entire section that you added has a single independent, reliable source discussing your political positions, and certainly not the reasoning behind them. The best is a list of votes that actually confirms you voted in the indicated way, but that's still not a good source - newspapers or reputable magazines reporting on what positions you took would be far better. Huon (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because the username, SenatorKeithPickard, matches the name of a well-known, living person.

If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. You may choose to edit under a new username (see information below), but keep in mind that you are welcome to continue to edit under this username. If you choose to do so, we ask the following:
 * Please be willing and able to prove your identity to Wikipedia.
 * Please send an email to info-en[[Image:At sign.svg|15px|@]]wikimedia.org. Be aware that the volunteer response team that handles email is indeed operated entirely by volunteers, and the reply may not be immediate.

If you are not the person represented by this username, you are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:
 * Adding below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" on their talk page.
 * At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
 * Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Huon (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I am the person represented by the name. That should have been clear from the content of the question.
 * There's no way of telling, merely from what you have written here, that you indeed are who you say you are and not, for example, a political rival who appears legitimate but aims to subtly sabotage the "real" Keith Pickard. Please provide proof of identity by email as explained above. Surely you have an official email address you can use for this purpose. Huon (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, you make a good point. I hadn't considered a rival appearing to be me. I guess I'm just that Pollyannish Legislator who believes people are honest. Thank you for the answer. (And for your edification, I did write an email from my official email account and just received a response.) Thank you again.
 * While you are blocked, the legitimate use of this talk page is only to request for unblock. Please post a proper unblock request first. Masum Reza 📞 03:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality is one of the five pillars
Sorry, SenatorKeithPickard, but your writing was not neutral: Anyway, this is why your edits were reverted. It's not the reason you're blocked, but if you are unblocked, and want to propose editing suggestions, you will need to make sure they are neutrally phrased and properly verified. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "However, those calls were ignored when the Majority funded other less important projects with that money"
 * Value statement that needs to be ascribed to the person or group of people making it.
 * "He also proposed legislation that would make the court system easier to navigate and less expensive for citizens; provide prescription drug protections for seniors and others suffering from chronic conditions; and allowing highly qualified doctors practicing in other states to relocate to Nevada without having to wait months for the bureaucratic system to process their applications."
 * That is obviously not neutral; parts of this may be true, but not without verification, and phrases like "easier to navigate", "highly qualified", "bureaucratic system" are just not neutral.
 * "He opposed the process used in SB 143 (2019) because the testimony showed that"
 * Entirely unclear what testimony, or what kind of testimony, is suppose to show something; again, this claim needs ascription. Such claims cannot be made as if they are objectively true in the way that "the sky is blue" is true. And please don't be pointing at some video--which, I assume, contains the subject's own words.
 * "And while he supported legalization of medical marijuana, he initially opposed the legalization of recreational marijuana as his experience working with youth struggling with addiction demonstrated it is a "gateway drug.""
 * Obviously argumentative, and his experience, if it demonstrated anything, it demonstrated it to him. There is no way in which the subject's experience has demonstrated a now acknowledged truth to the world. (What we have here, of course, is a statement that is meant to explain how the subject apparently, for whatever reason, changed his mind--if I were a journalist I'd ask why he "initially" opposed that legalization. And does he now not oppose it anymore, even though he thinks, or thought, it's a "gateway drug"?