326:. I saw that Knowledge needed accurate information on important topics Proclus, Neoplatonism and Plotinus, and tried my best to improve those articles with well sourced and reworded text from the leading scholars in the field, and spent hundreds of hours on the Neoplatonism and Proclus articles. And all of that undone in a moment, without one specific example shown to me of original research by me, let alone enough to revert a year's work. I have had the following compliment on the references I used for the Proclus page: "I am also extremely impressed by the breadth of your knowledge of Proclus...I can see you're using excellent sources" - Pabsoluterince 11:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Other editors have also thanked me for all my work on Neoplatonism: "Thank you for your work on Neoplatonism." Hardyplants 21:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC) "...this page is extremely impressive" Horsesizedduck 22:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC) Apart from the above comments, I have found little other encouragement towards me in the last year. Finally, I regrettably note that recently (14 September 2022) I was the victim of a possible threat to disrupt my work on Knowledge and possible intimidation: "you've edited 105 pages. I've edited 164,602. I could ask you to zip it until you've edited 10,000 pages, or some other random number" taken from
322:] 01:11, 21 September 2022β. Over the last year I have tried my best to reword cited text, often spending hours in thesauruses. The Proclus, Neoplatonism and Plotinus articles had hundreds of citations added by me to leading 20th and 21st century scholarship, both primary and secondary. Practically all sentences in the articles were reworded scholarship with specific citations and an extensive linked (via sfn tags) bibliography. In all the articles I have edited, I have tried to improve Knowledge by adding well cited content, and spending many hours improving uncited content or wrongly cited content with correctly cited content. You can see evidence of this in my collaborate efforts in the many Talk page articles I started on
515:
The reason for reverting the articles is baseless, unfounded, and has no reasonable or logical reason. You still have left unexplained why a year's worth of editing was simply reverted without a shred of evidence to support the baseless claim of original research (the original and unfounded reason for the block). Even if you did want to block me for issues that were a year ago, the articles now on
Knowledge were reverted from articles in which there was no original research and no incorrect information to articles where there is plainly original research and incorrect and out of date information.
559:
reverting a change in the
Neoplatonism article where an editor removed a whole slab of text about Damascius' biography with the totally incorrect reason that he was not a Neoplatonist. That slab of text, Damascius' biography, predominantly written by me and cited by me, is now still on the Damascius page without any suggestion of original research. I did remove the "Very Long template", which is being inconsistently applied and hence I removed it and sought clarification on why other articles that broke the guidelines didn't have one. In the end, I just left it there.
631:
426:
234:
94:
43:
519:
sourced material was for blocked quotes (from hard to get sources no longer in copyright). If you have evidence to the contrary on the inclusion of original research, please show me. As yet, the unsupported and erroneous claim that any of the articles; Proclus, Neoplatonism and the biography of
Plotinus, contained original research, is simply not true.
358:, which included several facets. 331dot's decline was likely somewhat unclear - a good part (perhaps a majority) of what might be claimed to be original research is actually primary-sourced. However, if it were just an OR/primary issue, I wouldn't have declined the appeal, I'd have sent to AN for community review.
330:
page's topic "Length of
Article Templates". I have not mentioned the editor's name on this page out of courtesy, and only include it to give you some idea of the writing environment I have been faced with. Please don't take any action on that editor, it was probably a heat-of-the-moment comment. With
550:
where I reported a
Microsoft Notification of Knowledge Account Breach, maybe this had something to do with someone removing stuff that I have no clue how to do. The other warnings are from a year ago and I modified my editing in response to those messages, as evidenced by no more messages from those
538:
topics 22-61 for efforts made by me to collaborate and extremely detailed explanations of changes made by me. Since there was no response, I perceived agreement from the community for the changes. For other communications to the community, see also
Proclus Talk page topics 9-21 and the Plotinus Talk
514:
The original reason for the block was "flooding multiple articles with reams of original research". There were no specific examples of original research shown to me in any of the articles
Proclus, Neoplatonism or in the biography of Plotinus (other topics in the Plotinus have not been edited by me).
378:
the content you've been adding was beyond reproach, the methods with which you've engaged (or not) multiple users on three talk pages have been repeatedly flawed to the point that I view them as at least half the cause of the block. Any unblock appeal (which may well be community reviewed) will need
361:
Instead, I was more concerned by the other reasons raised in that ANI thread. Consistently on the pages you edited actively, where someone would revert an edit you made, you would immediately oppose their actions or state they should have communicated beforehand when, in fact, doing it that way is a
518:
Indeed, the
Plotinus article is a candidate for copyright breach as editors think they can include slabs of copyrighted material in the Notes topic. All that was meticulously replaced by me and non-copyrighted text added with citations to the relevant sources. Also note that the majority of primary
319:
The original reason for the block was "flooding multiple articles with reams of original research". There were no specific examples of original research shown to me in any of the articles I edited. I cited many, many reliable primary and secondary sources in the article, evidenced by the references
179:
There is no original research or synthesis in the
Proclus, Neoplatonism or Plotinus articles I edited. All articles contain many secondary sources from leading scholars. If you have noted any original research or synthesis, please give examples. I have tried my best to maintain a neutral point of
840:
The
Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please
526:
I have already detailed in the Proclus Talk page topic 19 (end of the topic) the method of how to split the (former) article, in 5 logical steps, into other articles and was working towards that with the proviso that it would take a long time to complete. The same method could be used for the
558:
As for "where someone would revert an edit you made, you would immediately oppose their actions or state they should have communicated beforehand"...that has not been the case in all but one instance that I can recall in the articles Proclus, Neoplatonism and Plotinus. Only once can I recall
817:
353:
After a fairly long set of reads through the three main articles, their talk pages, two ANI threads, and your own very difficult to parse user talk pages, I'm making the following notes. Blade blocked you for disruptive edits as a direct decision premised on the complaints raised at
370:
that quote is the middle of to give it context, I do not believe it is a threat or intimidation - but if you disagreed than you have to take it to a conduct review, just choosing to ignore their participation on a content page is not an option.
820:
331:
all that, and seeing how easy it is to remove a year's work by an editor, even if you do unblock me, I don't think that I will be writing for Knowledge again. Thank you for your patience in reading this message. Have a lovely day.
539:
page topics 11-17. In total there have been about 60 Talk page articles that I started in my efforts to collaborate with the community. If you would like me to collaborate more extensively, please tell me what that would entail.
191:
Yes, that's it, right there- you sourced "the very best scholarship". This isn't the place to directly post scholarly work; a summary of scholarly work would be fine, but not the work itself.
834:
379:
to handle the following problems: resolving the addition of verbose sections that others argue can exist elsewhere (we're looking for a method, not actual content suggestions)
366:
of the articles and working against consensus. You also refused to communicate with a user on the talk page - I've reviewed their original edit, and assuming you take the
842:
21:"I am also extremely impressed by the breadth of your knowledge of Proclus...I can see you're using excellent sources" - Pabsoluterince 11:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
803:
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.
622:
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.
417:
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.
225:
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.
833:
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the
80:
671:
466:
274:
134:
76:
788:
725:
607:
585:
402:
210:
68:
734:
2. "It is not enough if you just say that the block was "wrong" or "unfair", or another user violated a policy first. You must explain
355:
666:
461:
269:
129:
769:
This just tells us what the guide said, it doesn't do as requested, which was condense your above, longer request down.
61:
643:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
593:
547:
535:
438:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
323:
246:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
106:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
685:
644:
480:
439:
288:
247:
148:
107:
56:
51:
638:
433:
241:
101:
546:
Please note that I have never removed maintenance templates as I do not know how to do that. Note topic 53 in
589:
388:
327:
33:
A big thank you to Knowledge for allowing me to use The Knowledge Library. A great resource!
854:
797:
774:
748:
649:
616:
563:
444:
411:
384:
332:
252:
219:
196:
112:
848:
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
830:
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
363:
362:
standard wikipedia methodology. In others you demonstrate a significant amount of
29:"...this page is extremely impressive" Horsesizedduck 22:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
25:"Thank you for your work on Neoplatonism." Hardyplants 21:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
770:
192:
534:
I have made many attempts at collaboration, with no response. Please look at
818:
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
42:
857:
778:
756:
597:
571:
392:
340:
200:
86:
67:
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
584:
This is too long to comfortably read. Please be concise and follow the
383:
resolving your engagement with others and the consensus on a talk page.
71:, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:
731:
1. "Show that you understand the blocking administrator's concern"
180:
view and tried to source the very best scholarship. Regards Daryl.
716:
I have explained why it was wrong to block me by responding
629:
424:
232:
92:
41:
785:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
604:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
399:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
207:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
805:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
624:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
419:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
227:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
811:
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
699:
695:
689:
680:
676:
662:
658:
654:
494:
490:
484:
475:
471:
457:
453:
449:
302:
298:
292:
283:
279:
265:
261:
257:
162:
158:
152:
143:
139:
125:
121:
117:
637:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
432:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
240:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
100:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
837:to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
320:and citations, see Neoplatonism: Revision history
8:
821:Please help translate to other languages.
73:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
60:from editing for persistently making
7:
851:On behalf of the UCoC project team,
14:
77:The Blade of the Northern Lights
738:it was wrong to block you, or
523:Method for Splitting Articles
511:Original Reason for the Block
341:19:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
201:19:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
87:18:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
1:
779:08:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
757:22:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
598:23:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
527:(former) Neoplatonism page.
641:, who declined the request.
572:11:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
436:, who declined the request.
393:15:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
244:, who declined the request.
104:, who declined the request.
873:
548:Talk:Neoplatonism/Archive1
536:Talk:Neoplatonism/Archive1
324:Talk:Neoplatonism/Archive1
789:guide to appealing blocks
726:guide to appealing blocks
608:guide to appealing blocks
586:guide to appealing blocks
403:guide to appealing blocks
211:guide to appealing blocks
69:guide to appealing blocks
835:voting page on Meta-wiki
752:
742:it should be reversed."
567:
336:
858:23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
720:raised by Nosebagbear.
843:review the U4C Charter
634:
429:
237:
97:
46:
718:briefly to each point
686:change block settings
633:
481:change block settings
428:
289:change block settings
236:
149:change block settings
96:
45:
635:
430:
238:
98:
47:
827:Dear Wikimedian,
328:Talk:Neoplatonism
864:
802:
796:
705:
703:
692:
674:
672:deleted contribs
632:
621:
615:
590:NinjaRobotPirate
555:Reverting Edits
500:
498:
487:
469:
467:deleted contribs
427:
416:
410:
308:
306:
295:
277:
275:deleted contribs
235:
224:
218:
168:
166:
155:
137:
135:deleted contribs
95:
83:
74:
62:disruptive edits
872:
871:
867:
866:
865:
863:
862:
861:
813:
808:
800:
794:
793:, then use the
782:
760:
693:
683:
669:
652:
645:blocking policy
630:
627:
619:
613:
612:, then use the
601:
575:
488:
478:
464:
447:
440:blocking policy
425:
422:
414:
408:
407:, then use the
396:
344:
296:
286:
272:
255:
248:blocking policy
233:
230:
222:
216:
215:, then use the
204:
182:
156:
146:
132:
115:
108:blocking policy
93:
90:
89:
81:
72:
65:
39:
19:
12:
11:
5:
870:
868:
825:
824:
812:
809:
783:
767:
763:Decline reason
745:
723:
714:
710:Request reason
707:
628:
602:
582:
578:Decline reason
562:
554:
542:
531:Collaboration
530:
522:
509:
505:Request reason
502:
423:
397:
368:full paragraph
351:
347:Decline reason
317:
313:Request reason
310:
231:
205:
189:
185:Decline reason
177:
173:Request reason
170:
91:
66:
49:You have been
48:
40:
38:
37:September 2022
35:
32:
28:
24:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
869:
860:
859:
856:
852:
849:
846:
844:
838:
836:
831:
828:
823:
822:
819:
815:
814:
810:
807:
806:
799:
792:
790:
781:
780:
776:
772:
766:
764:
759:
758:
754:
750:
746:
743:
741:
737:
732:
729:
727:
721:
719:
713:
711:
706:
701:
697:
691:
687:
682:
678:
673:
668:
664:
663:global blocks
660:
659:active blocks
656:
651:
646:
642:
640:
639:administrator
626:
625:
618:
611:
609:
600:
599:
595:
591:
587:
581:
579:
574:
573:
569:
565:
560:
556:
552:
549:
544:
540:
537:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
506:
501:
496:
492:
486:
482:
477:
473:
468:
463:
459:
458:global blocks
455:
454:active blocks
451:
446:
441:
437:
435:
434:administrator
421:
420:
413:
406:
404:
395:
394:
390:
386:
382:
377:
372:
369:
365:
359:
357:
350:
348:
343:
342:
338:
334:
329:
325:
321:
316:
314:
309:
304:
300:
294:
290:
285:
281:
276:
271:
267:
266:global blocks
263:
262:active blocks
259:
254:
249:
245:
243:
242:administrator
229:
228:
221:
214:
212:
203:
202:
198:
194:
188:
186:
181:
176:
174:
169:
164:
160:
154:
150:
145:
141:
136:
131:
127:
126:global blocks
123:
122:active blocks
119:
114:
109:
105:
103:
102:administrator
88:
84:
78:
70:
63:
59:
58:
54:
53:
44:
36:
34:
30:
26:
22:
16:
855:RamzyM (WMF)
853:
850:
847:
839:
832:
829:
826:
816:
804:
786:
784:
768:
762:
761:
747:
744:
739:
735:
733:
730:
722:
717:
715:
709:
708:
681:creation log
648:
636:
623:
605:
603:
583:
577:
576:
561:
557:
553:
545:
541:
533:
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
510:
504:
503:
476:creation log
443:
431:
418:
400:
398:
380:
375:
374:Ultimately,
373:
367:
360:
352:
346:
345:
318:
312:
311:
284:creation log
251:
239:
226:
208:
206:
190:
184:
183:
178:
172:
171:
144:creation log
111:
99:
57:indefinitely
55:
50:
31:
27:
23:
20:
749:Darylprasad
650:Darylprasad
564:Darylprasad
445:Darylprasad
385:Nosebagbear
356:this thread
333:Darylprasad
253:Darylprasad
113:Darylprasad
677:filter log
472:filter log
280:filter log
140:filter log
787:read the
696:checkuser
655:block log
606:read the
551:editors.
543:Warnings
491:checkuser
450:block log
401:read the
364:ownership
299:checkuser
258:block log
209:read the
159:checkuser
118:block log
667:contribs
462:contribs
270:contribs
130:contribs
798:unblock
724:As per
690:unblock
617:unblock
485:unblock
412:unblock
376:even if
293:unblock
220:unblock
153:unblock
52:blocked
771:331dot
193:331dot
82:θ©±γγ¦δΈγγ
17:Lovely
791:first
610:first
405:first
213:first
775:talk
753:talk
594:talk
568:talk
389:talk
337:talk
197:talk
64:.
740:why
736:why
700:log
647:).
495:log
442:).
381:and
303:log
250:).
163:log
110:).
75:.
845:.
801:}}
795:{{
777:)
765::
755:)
728::
712::
694:β’
688:β’
684:β’
679:β’
675:β’
670:β’
665:β’
661:β’
657:β’
620:}}
614:{{
596:)
588:.
580::
570:)
507::
489:β’
483:β’
479:β’
474:β’
470:β’
465:β’
460:β’
456:β’
452:β’
415:}}
409:{{
391:)
349::
339:)
315::
297:β’
291:β’
287:β’
282:β’
278:β’
273:β’
268:β’
264:β’
260:β’
223:}}
217:{{
199:)
187::
175::
157:β’
151:β’
147:β’
142:β’
138:β’
133:β’
128:β’
124:β’
120:β’
85:)
773:(
751:(
704:)
702:)
698:(
653:(
592:(
566:(
499:)
497:)
493:(
448:(
387:(
335:(
307:)
305:)
301:(
256:(
195:(
167:)
165:)
161:(
116:(
79:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
