{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Guy (
help! -
typo?)
14:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)ArielARM ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I understand your concern that I have been editing pages in an attempt to self-promote or refspam, but I would like to assure admins that my edits have been done in good faith in order to expand the information cited in articles that lack significant development with niche research that directly applies to these small, undeveloped pages. Wikipedia's guidelines state that "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." I would like to argue that my edits have in fact been done in good faith and in order to help build the encyclopedia. On the ergative case page, for example, I added a link to the Bumthang page, because it does use the ergative case, as well as a citation for research into both the ergative case and the Bumthang language in order to expand this article's accuracy and thoroughness (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ergative_case&type=revision&diff=974701059&oldid=974607570). I understand how it would seem suspicious that I have added multiple citations from the same author, but this is because the pages that I have been editing relate directly to their fields of research. I am not one of the authors or one of their associates and stand to gain nothing from citing their work. The articles I have referenced are not fringe theories, but are intended instead to expand the information regarding current research into linguistics (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kusunda_language&type=revision&diff=974701053&oldid=974608901 and https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Austronesian_languages&type=revision&diff=974701070&oldid=974606008). I believe that my contributions fit within Wikipedia's guidelines for productive editing, in that "the contributions are verifiable, do not give undue weight, and where appropriate, comply with WP:FRINGE." I am happy to discuss my reasons for the edits I have made and the ways in which I can be a better contributor to the encyclopedia, as my intention is only to expand the knowledge Wikipedia offers regarding linguistics and endangered languages, the latter being a generally underdeveloped part of Wikipedia. Thank you. ArielARM ( talk) 18:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)ArielARM
Decline reason:
No response -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:49, 7 October 2020 (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.
(Non-administrator comment) As a linguist, I cannot see any common denominator of your edits except for the author of the publications cited in these edits, which cover a wide range of quite unrelated topics. If you focus on a specific field of research, it might happen that you only cite a single author who is the major or even only authority in that topic (e.g. if you had chosen to add information about the Tukang Besi language, this very author would quite naturally fill up the bibliography). But this is obviously not the case here. It looks as if you have grabbed a handful of citations by a single author, and subsequently placed them in articles where you considered they might fit. IMHO, this is a very odd way to expand encyclopedic content, and naturally raises questions. – Austronesier ( talk) 08:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Guy (
help! -
typo?)
14:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)ArielARM ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I understand your concern that I have been editing pages in an attempt to self-promote or refspam, but I would like to assure admins that my edits have been done in good faith in order to expand the information cited in articles that lack significant development with niche research that directly applies to these small, undeveloped pages. Wikipedia's guidelines state that "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." I would like to argue that my edits have in fact been done in good faith and in order to help build the encyclopedia. On the ergative case page, for example, I added a link to the Bumthang page, because it does use the ergative case, as well as a citation for research into both the ergative case and the Bumthang language in order to expand this article's accuracy and thoroughness (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ergative_case&type=revision&diff=974701059&oldid=974607570). I understand how it would seem suspicious that I have added multiple citations from the same author, but this is because the pages that I have been editing relate directly to their fields of research. I am not one of the authors or one of their associates and stand to gain nothing from citing their work. The articles I have referenced are not fringe theories, but are intended instead to expand the information regarding current research into linguistics (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kusunda_language&type=revision&diff=974701053&oldid=974608901 and https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Austronesian_languages&type=revision&diff=974701070&oldid=974606008). I believe that my contributions fit within Wikipedia's guidelines for productive editing, in that "the contributions are verifiable, do not give undue weight, and where appropriate, comply with WP:FRINGE." I am happy to discuss my reasons for the edits I have made and the ways in which I can be a better contributor to the encyclopedia, as my intention is only to expand the knowledge Wikipedia offers regarding linguistics and endangered languages, the latter being a generally underdeveloped part of Wikipedia. Thank you. ArielARM ( talk) 18:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)ArielARM
Decline reason:
No response -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:49, 7 October 2020 (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.
(Non-administrator comment) As a linguist, I cannot see any common denominator of your edits except for the author of the publications cited in these edits, which cover a wide range of quite unrelated topics. If you focus on a specific field of research, it might happen that you only cite a single author who is the major or even only authority in that topic (e.g. if you had chosen to add information about the Tukang Besi language, this very author would quite naturally fill up the bibliography). But this is obviously not the case here. It looks as if you have grabbed a handful of citations by a single author, and subsequently placed them in articles where you considered they might fit. IMHO, this is a very odd way to expand encyclopedic content, and naturally raises questions. – Austronesier ( talk) 08:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)