User talk:Gentleexit

Welcome!

Hello, Gentleexit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your addition, as it was in a section which is very clearly indicated to be closed, and is no longer allowed to be edited. You may, however, contribute to the discussion in the active section just below the move request. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

The block has no reason beyond IP address which I assume is from some cafe I was in some time. The only time I have contributed (so far) was to a discussion referenced above by Carl. Now I want to get more active (specifically in entries on Late Antiquity) and can't.

Decline reason:

One possibility is that your cafe is frequented by people who are interested in using Wikipedia to write about the same fairly obscure subject. But a more likely possibility seems to be that you are indeed the same user. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

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

Request reason:

but there is no stated reason for this block. Is that usual? Shouldn't an explicit reason be given, one that gives the offending edit? I have no idea why I, in particular, was blocked - as I said, I made one (reversed) contribution, detailed above, a simple comment on a discussion. I understand the need for blocks but this seems circumstantial at best and there is no explanation of the circumstances. It's right out of Kafka. Anyhoot ...

Decline reason:

It's in your block log ... "abusing multiple accounts", with a link to the SPI page. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{{unblock|1=but what multiple accounts? My blog is called "The Gentle Exit", hence the user name. I have no other at Wikipedia. I blog at http://www.conorpdowling.com (no surprise what my name is!). The blog is about the world of late antiquity. I check Wikipedia often about its figures and history and would like to contribute. Simple as that. I don't know why Carl or some other editor thought me malicious. I hope I'm being as clear and transparent as you need to unblock me. The block is an honest mistake but a mistake nonetheless.}}.

Note to reviewing admin: Gentleexit is technically

Unrelated to Doktorspin (talk · contribs). -- Luk ^talk 08:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

The block was made in error, I apologize. I blocked because your contribs matched fairly closely with that of a few other "new" accounts, but not directly relating you to the suspected sock master. Again this is my error and I apologize for the inconvience this caused you. If you have any questions or concerns you may drop me a note on my talk page or email me (link is in my sig). Thanks

Request handled by: —— nix eagle^{email me} 12:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Friendly note

I'm restoring everything on your page, just because you may be unaware that users are able to archive their pages, rather than deleting old stuff. The advantage of archives is that they create a clear, easily-accessible record of the talk page. Blanking can often be taken as a sign a user wants to whitewash his record, and hide wrong-doings. As you haven't done anything malicious, I'm sure this isn't what you were attempting. You're perfectly within your rights to blank the page, but it is a sign of good faith to archive old threads rather than deleting them. If you want any help with archiving, just let me know. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Athanasius of Alexandria

Thank you for your recent edits to this article. However, as a general rule, blogs are not acceptable as reliable sources. (See especially here: "self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable". I hope you will continue to work to improve this article, but please do not use blogs as a reference in the future. Thanks. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your civil note on my talkpage. In response to your questions: Yes there are exception to the rule about blogs as sources. For example, when the author of the blog is the subject of the article. However, in most cases blogs are not acceptable because of the lack of critical review involved in anything that is self-published. I understand what you are saying about the information, but surely someone has published on it? If not, then it is not material that would be acceptable for wikipedia. We only carry information that has been already put forward by other reliable sources.

The only other possible exception I can think of is if you are an established, widely accepted scholar in the field. That is, if you have previously published (in a reputable publisher) on the topic. If that is the case, we can find a way to verify that information, and probably use the blog. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from. However, wikipedia is not just about knowledge, it is about verifiable knowledge. Read these policy pages to see what I mean: WP:RS and WP:V. Further, what you are describing - looking at primary sources and then drawing conclusions - is what we call "original research", and it is frowned on. In short, no, that information is not appropriate for wikipedia unless and until it is published by a reliable source. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 21:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, just a couple of things to help you out. When making a comment on a talk page, it is customary to sign your name. If you leave four tildes (Like this ~~~~ ) after your comment, it will add your signature. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 21:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section of the "No Original Research" policy might be helpful. Certainly there are some limitations to working on Wikipedia, but I hope that at the end of the day you will find it rewarding. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 00:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]