User talk:Votejimmartin

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, celebrity or other well-known individual, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Probably not. See WP:FAQ/Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.
 * Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company, organization, or clients. If you do intend to make useful contributions on some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:
 * What can I do now?


 * Add the text on your user talk page.
 * Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
 * Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, please see how to appeal a block. 7 22:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

email
I received your email - you were blocked for a combination of your username and your edits. Please see WP:U for the guidlines on acceptable usernames and for the details of why you were blocked please see WP:SOAP. Please follow the instructions above in the What can I do now section if you would like to request an unblock and pick a new name, but please make sure to read our conflict of interest guidelines first. Regards,  7  23:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for forwarding me to WP:U, WP:SOAP, and conflict of interest. I can reasonably speculate why you find the username "Votejimmartin" to be unacceptable. Be advised that deactivation of this account occurred during an edit of the candidates listed for the Minnesota House of Representatives elections, 2010, as some the entry contains errors and is incomplete. Re-activation of this account is requested to edit said list and provide a link to the Minnesota Secretary Of State for verification by the public.

Upon reviewing the aforementioned documents further and applying them to the edit in question (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metropolitan_Council&diff=prev&oldid=450164716), confusion remains. Jim Martin was the only known state legislative candidate whose campaign was primarily focused on exposing this issue to the public. He was a diving force in bring this issue to the public and the relevant offices in Minnesota's government. If he had not campaigned on this issue in 2010, the Legislative Auditor may not have advised the Minnesota Legislature to restructure the Metropolitan Council upon the completion of the 2010 general election. (Take notice that the Legislative Auditor did not act until after Jim Martin's campaign for the Legislature.) In the article on Controversy, it is suggested that passion is inversely proportional to the amount of true information available. By removing the facts concerning how the Metropolitan Council's unaccountability to the public was exposed, more passion will be invoked as the issue will become increasingly controversial. It is my understanding that Wikipedia's objective is not to publish controversial articles or invoke rage amongst its readers. In this light, hiding the means of an issue while at the same time exposing the ends defeats Wikipedia's purpose. What would be acceptable content to submit regarding how the issue was brought to the public?

Secondly, Wikipedia has (and is) promulgating the campaigns of Jim Martin's competitors, Julie Bunn and Kathy Lohmer. Why is it acceptable for Wikipedia to publish links to Jim Martin's political competitors' websites while, at the same time, expressly striking public access to the campaign website of Jim Martin? Doing so impairs the credibility of Wikipedia by infringing on the rule of fundamental fairness. What would be acceptable links to submit regarding the issue at hand if not the exact argument brought to the public that aroused the controversy in the first place?