GEBStgo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
my account was blocked because some of my contributions included external links. I had included those because they provide free access to otherwise subscription-requiring background sources, but was pointed to wikipedia policies in this regard, which are understandable. I have no personal intention to diffuse those external links, but simply to improve articles with backed-up, verifiable, relevant, and purely academic research results
Decline reason:
That's not why you were blocked. You've been spamming the same information to multiple pages, referencing articles from Hilbert and Lopez. Sometimes it did include external links, sometimes not, but either way it looks like a form of advocacy which is not allowed per WP:SPAM. -- Atama頭 19:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
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.
For the record, I disagree with blocking this user. The user was overzealous in adding new information from Science magazine to several relevant articles. Science magazine is one of the world most prestigious and thoroughly vetted/reviewed journals. I think the point the author was adding could have been better accomplished with 1-2 sentences (not 1-2 paragraphs). But "The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information" article applies to many disciplines. I hardly think that adding a citation (not, each listing was different and customized to the article) constitutes abuse. Wxidea (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Had the GEBStgo added the paragraph in question to a single article, it probably wouldn't have been a big deal. The issue was they went on a spree, canvassing the same paragraph all over the place, and (1) edit warred against several other editors and (2) ignored multiple warnings. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Understood. Though reading a few comments, it struck me as good faith edits. Though I think 'spree' is a good term. I restored the main point into Information Age which is a good place for it. Though Information Age still needs editing. Note, as part of the blacklisting, it seems like the URL http://www.history and policy.org was blacklisted. That seems excessive. It's a credible site, and is cited a lot -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.history and policy.org -- I don't know how unblocking works. Also, I don't know wikipedia psychology, but it sounds like user GEBStgo could be unblocked in a few days with a warning not to accidentally get swept into edit wars. Wxidea (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- The user would need to make another unblock request and agree to heed warnings and discuss disputed edits. Given those conditions, I wouldn't oppose an unblock. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's not my beef; but the user does not appear to be related to the blocked site. The site, History & Policy says it is a unique collaboration between the University of Cambridge, The Institute of Historical Research, and The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Pretty dumb to block it. (I'm not saying you blocked it.) Wxidea (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, I didn't blacklist it. It was blacklisted this year per this request. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's not my beef; but the user does not appear to be related to the blocked site. The site, History & Policy says it is a unique collaboration between the University of Cambridge, The Institute of Historical Research, and The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Pretty dumb to block it. (I'm not saying you blocked it.) Wxidea (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- The user would need to make another unblock request and agree to heed warnings and discuss disputed edits. Given those conditions, I wouldn't oppose an unblock. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Understood. Though reading a few comments, it struck me as good faith edits. Though I think 'spree' is a good term. I restored the main point into Information Age which is a good place for it. Though Information Age still needs editing. Note, as part of the blacklisting, it seems like the URL http://www.history and policy.org was blacklisted. That seems excessive. It's a credible site, and is cited a lot -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.history and policy.org -- I don't know how unblocking works. Also, I don't know wikipedia psychology, but it sounds like user GEBStgo could be unblocked in a few days with a warning not to accidentally get swept into edit wars. Wxidea (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for this support Wxidea. As a stated before in my comment to Johnuniq, the first time I worked on including the findings of the study into various relevant wikipedia articles, I was simply very lazy, and it was certainly not the right thing to do to copy-paste the same paragraph. It was also not my intention to "ignore warnings". First time I "undid" the deletion of the edits I changed them and included tailor-made contributions to various of the articles (not copy-paste anymore, but custom-made to the context). Then they were deleted again, and I started to suspect that the problem was that I include external links, so I worked on this an took out any links (not even the link to the original publication in Science, since I'm not sure if this would be "commercial" or not...?). In this sense, it was not my intention to ignore, but I incorporated the feedback that I got... I am aware that it was not the best way to go through this learning-curve while doing active edits on the sites... I should have first gotten better feedback and understand the problem with my edits...
GEBStgo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
original unblock reason
Accept reason:
I am taking your statement above, including "I should have first gotten better feedback" as indicating that you will be more careful in future, and discuss disputed edits, as suggested by OhNoitsJamie. Also, this was one incident in a career which includes much constructive editing, and an indefinite block is probably not needed. Please do be more thoughtful though. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)