User talk:Aretwodeetwo

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Daniel,

I don't understand the decision to block my account. I'm very much here to build an encyclopedia, and I donate to wikipedia every year. I recently edited the Ergodicity economics page, and was blocked soon after that, but I don't know why. I'm interested in and knowledgeable about the topic, and I made edits in response to the following comment at Talk:Ergodicity economics.

PaulT2022 wrote:

"I'm not comfortable with the recent edits by @BenjaminSkjold. They don't solve the issues that were raised in the Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_95#Ergodicity_economics discussion.

Describing 'Ergodicity economics' as an established approach 'yielding alternative solutions to classic problems in economics', apart from sounding like a fringe theory, is entirely unsourced. The text that was added and restored appears to be partly an interpretation of WP:PRIMARY sources not supported by them explicitly and partly unreferenced entirely.

If there are secondary sources that come to same conclusions, they should be referenced. If such sources don't exist, I can't see it as anything other than original research aimed at promoting a theory. PaulT2022 (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)"

My edits:

1) I agree with PaulT2022 that the sentence 'yielding alternative solutions to classic problems in economics' was unsourced, so I went in and deleted that sentence. I think what constitutes a 'classic problem' and a 'solution' is an opinion.

2) To help with sourcing, I added two specific applications of ergodicity economics (in neuroscience and in machine learning) with citations, without any claims about whether these solve problems or not. I described them neutrally as "This has led to applications in neuroscience and machine learning."

3) I also noticed that two citations on the page had formatting errors, and I fixed those.

I cannot see why these edits would lead to the blocking of my account. But I'm not a frequent editor on wikipedia, so please let me know what I've done wrong, and I won't do it again. Aretwodeetwo (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please see my request for clarification of the reason for blocking me, above. I requested clarification from the blocking editor on 28 November but have received no response yet. It's unclear to me what I've done wrong. The reasons given are "not here to build an encyclopedia," which is unspecific, and "single purpose account" -- it's true that I haven't edited many pages but that's because I only want to contribute to topics I have deep knowledge of, and the time I can spend on editing wikipedia is limited. I don't think I should be blocked for this.Aretwodeetwo (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Does not address the reason for the block --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:13, 18 January 2024 (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.

Aretwodeetwo (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The stated reason for the block is "apparent single-purpose account with possible COI". Do you have a conflict of interest with this topic? (See WP:COI). 331dot (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Thank you for highlighting the conflict-of interest part of the reason for blocking me. I have reviewed the WP:COI page. I have expertise in the subject discussed in the article I edited. In the nomenclature used on the COI page, this makes me a subject-matter expert WP:SME. But this does not constitute a conflict of interest. So no, I don't have a conflict of interest. In future I will engage more with other editors via the talk pages to ensure consensus. Aretwodeetwo (talk) 2:28 am, 25 January 2024, Thursday (8 days ago) (UTC−5)

Accept reason:

per user talk. Welcome back. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra, I may be misunderstanding something, but I still seem to be blocked. Is there something else I need to do for the block on my account to be removed? Thank you. Aretwodeetwo (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies try it now -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have expertise in the topic; are you citing your own work when editing about it? 331dot (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't cite my own work when editing, as I understand this is discouraged for good reasons.

@Daniel Case: I'm skeptical, but does this suffice? Thanks,-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is fine per WP:SELFCITE, as long as the source cited would otherwise be an acceptable one. Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is the $64 question. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]