User talk:VictoriaBlaire

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username, VictoriaBlaire, does not meet our username policy. '''Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing.''' 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 on your user talk page. 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 "E-mail 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 the text, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. El_C 17:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Because you were spoofing VictoriaGrayson—that's why. El_C 16:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's the case. Sure, if they are this Victoria Blaire and the only thing they had created was Victoria Blaire photography, I might understand a block a bit more, but otherwise I really don't get where you are coming from. If you're suggesting this account is a sock of, say that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe it was just a coincidence —VictoriaGrayson complained of spoofing and it seemed legit. El_C 16:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't unblock, I object — it dosen't look legit. Look at the contributions. El_C 16:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * VictoriaGrayson dosen't deserve to be treated this way, take to AN if you disagree. El_C 16:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The trouble with "Username violation, soft block" is I jumped to conclusions that this was somebody trying to promote their own business (which is what a block this type normally is about). I'm not going to unblock without a consensus, this doesn't need to go to ANI. We can probably resolve all this by asking this following question : What articles on Wikipedia are you planning to edit except for Trijang Chocktrul Rinpoche? Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  16:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The editor is not permitted to spoof the username of an editor whose edits they contest, full stop. El_C 17:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * But I don't actually see cast-iron evidence that has happened! You'd have a much stronger case saying the editor is a single purpose account who has caused disruption by repeatedly adding unsourced content. IIRC I have never interacted with VictoriaGrayson and have no opinion on their edits. If you're best friends with her, perhaps it's better for another admin to handle this (mind you, this is probably the pot calling the kettle black since people say the same about me every time I've complained about Cassianto blocks) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The contributions are revealing enough. No, I've never heard of VictoriaGrayson before this—but say that I was friends with her, that would change nothing here. El_C 17:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I am getting the sense the user has gotten exactly what they wanted out of this exchange—attention—but unblocked they will not be. They will have to re-register for that. El_C 17:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I've declined the unblock request. All I really wanted was for you to explain yourself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. El_C 17:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I am NOT looking for attention, I intend to edit further pages on Tibetan Buddhism, and I am truly surprised that a page such as the one on Trijang Chocktrul Rinpoche can even exist on Wikipedia. Anyone with an unbiased mind can see that the page has never been used to provide proper information on that living person. Look at the edit history and you will see that it has been used to defame the person primarily. Adding some simple life facts, with all effort not to slander anyone got removed in one block, without any effort of the removers to edit any point that they might deem inappropriate. That alone should cast an according light on the removers. Is this really Wikipedia style?? VictoriaBlaire (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Then do it. Your IP is not blocked, you're free to register a new username, without spoofing any opponents' usernames, of course. El_C 08:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the encouragement! Now that an administrator has drawn his attention to the page, how about a suitable flag? Something like 'This page does not fulfill Wikipedia standards and must be entirely rewritten'? VictoriaBlaire (talk) 07:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay. The tag is to be used only in the most extreme circumstances. Is the article really in such a bad shape to warrant being rewritten. El_C 01:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)