Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Fmrjournalist", may not meet Wikipedia'susername policy because it appears promotional perWP:CORPNAME.. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for achange of username, or you may simplycreate a new account for editing. Thank youKatieh5584 (talk)18:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Fmrjournalist (talk)19:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)RESPONSE: It is not a corp name, it is short for former journalist and has no association to any company or business name whatsoever.[reply]

Just checking. Thanks! -Richfife (talk)17:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toYank Barry may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• with Robert Lifton and Ben Lanzarone at Regent Sound Studios in New York.<ref>{{cite web|title=[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 171 |url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2013-12-04/html/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, followthese opt-out instructions. Thanks,BracketBot (talk)17:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's areliable source that a particular thing was said, but not that it was the truth. It can't be used by itself to support an assertion, particularly when there are other more fully documented sources that point the other way. You should probably contribute to the discussionhere before re adding the claim. -Richfife (talk)17:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This account has beenblocked indefinitely as asock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts areallowed, but using them forillegitimate reasonsis not, and that all edits made while evading a block or banmay be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you mayappeal this block by adding the text{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read theguide to appealing blocks first. —Darkwind (talk)06:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

This is not a sockpuppet. Please offer your proof. Just because I made edits that some editors did not like does not make me a sockpuppet and it's more than a bit scary that you have that much control over this objective editing encyclopedia. I was enjoying editing and as a former journalist I am quite good at it :-). Would you please revert?Fmrjournalist (talk)17:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

First, as I often say, saying you're not a sock will not get you out of a sockpuppetry block ... if it did, we might as well not block anyone for sockpuppetry. Second, the behavioral evidence is convincing. Third, I'm a former journalist too, but I don't sock. —Daniel Case (talk)16:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.

Please seeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Accurateinfo973. —Jeremyv^_^v^Bori!02:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]