User talk:HJHolm

HJJHolm

I guess you are User:HJJHolm? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is that important? Writing books and articles in peer-reviewed journals takes all of my time. From time to time I controll what wiki has and try to correct it. Have a good 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJHolm (talk • contribs) 14:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any updating of our knowlege is welcome. Anything else not. We should not be too generous with our data and thus I preferred not to be loggied in generally. Now I am blocked for this. An extreme unfair misuse of power! HJHolm (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Before Present are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. As did the person you replied to. Doug Weller talk 10:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC

Hello, perhaps I misunderstood these different cases. I try and tried for decennia to serve the readers of wikipedia and nothing else. I now am constantly logged in. Others simply did not reply, while I tried to explain why I could no longer do so in individual cases, which, however, led to blocking me. If you understand this, and have the power to do so, do the readers a favour and unblock. Thank you and all the best.HJHolm (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(My sentence deleted because background now missing)

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).

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

Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here Good day

1. I have only ONE account and unlike many others with my real name, but do not log in for every trivial small stuff. Everybody can see that via my IP-address - thus I do not see the "socketpuppetry" in its real sense. That can't be a reason for blocking me. BTW, in the de.wiki I can log in by a single click, which is more comfortable.

2. I have published a peer-reviewed book and a lot of peer-reviewed articles, to be found in many university libraries in the world, and try to keep up to date in the fields of Indo-European studies, archaeology, and population genetics, which is, as you might understand, extremely time-consuming. Feel free to google me.

3. For this I am very happy to be instructed about newer or better facts and refrences, but I have neither the desire nor the time for endless discussions of views, having nothing to do with the aims of wikipedia. Blocking me is thus a great harm to many wikipedia users.

4. I spent a lot of effort and time for wikipedia entries, especially graphics, prompting many positive mentionings. Thus it is a mistake to block me from Wikipedia.

It is petty and narrow-minded to block me because of a few clear statements against one or two audringly lecturing self-appointed overseers. Sorry that is what it looks like. Moreover, it is unfair to blockpeople without a warning and clarification of the warners position.

I did not damage wikipedia! In the interest of the overwhelming majority of users who benefit and can continue to benefit from my contributions, I ask that the block be lifted.

Thank you and all the best for our wikipedia. Hans J. Holm

HJHolm (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:50, 30 December 2022 (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.

HJHolm (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair

I remember struggling for months to bring the "Glottochronology" page up to an international standard, but being constantly vandalized by a Russian chauvinist who would only accept a Russian scientist (his father, also PhD supervisor) as a reference. Nobody helped me and wikipedia. This is how dirtily wikipedia rewards my decades of cooperation and substantial donations. My respect for Bishonen's by far more editions which, however, do not entitle him to require a kotau. In particular, it is extremely unfair and unusual to block somebody unlimited without a formal warning. By the way, I now am persitently logged in.HJHolm (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You in particular block my updates

I would like to update the Genetics section of the article "Lepenski vir". But your personal sensitivies seem to be more important to you than informative updates in wikipedia. All users are happy now ...HJHolm (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lie

Beshonen accused me of refusing discussions. This is a lie. I repeatedly stressed that I very much welcome discussions about new and substantiated informations. My time, however, does not allow longwided discussions about personal views.HJHolm (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You block my updates

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).

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

Request reason:

Good morning, I would like to update the date (twice) in the article "Koelbjerg Man" to 8'515 cal BC (calibrated, reservoir-corrected) ^[1] Unfortunately your blocking, in this and many other cases, once again prevents my ever actually referencing updates. By the way, I am now always logged in with my real name, as always. So this reason for the ban no longer applies. The second alleged reason is a lie, at least in part, because I am very much interested in information like this and corrections of my possible mistakes, but not in endless discussions by ignoramuses of the specific problem. That should actually be understandable and tolerable. With best regards,HJHolm (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC) HJHolm (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The wiki model that Wikipedia uses is not perfect. A downside of the "anyone can edit" philosophy is that you have to hold discussions with users who are enthusiastic, but not knowledgeable. From your unblock request it seems you are unwilling to do this. My conclusion is that you are not suited to Wikipedia. This is not meant as a personal criticism, and you will almost certainly flourish in other environments. In my humble opinion, excluding you is a loss to the project to write an encyclopedia. Nonetheless, communicating with other users, even those who are not knowledgeable is a requirement. PhilKnight (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or

< If you please read my replies: it was never my intention to damage a Wikipedia article, but on the contrary to contribute useful updates to the article's topic. That should be understandable.

the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,

  Point one: I understand what You mean by "different accounts". This was a misunderstanding. I always had only one account, in my view defined by the IP-adress. Obviously this is insufficient and I am now continuously logged in. Thus, this point is solved.

(In addition, during my decennia of participation, I had several moves regarding my dwelling place, computer type, and system. At the very beginning, I started with a nickname, only later I - in contrast to many others - switched to my real name. You might recognize that this is anything else but hiding or conceal my identity. Please tell me, what either I am expected to do.

  Point two: supposed "failure". You wrote: "One disadvantage of the 'anyone can edit' philosophy is that you have to have discussions with users who are enthusiastic but have no idea. It is clear from your request for unblocking that you are not prepared to do this."

< This is a misunderstanding. What am I supposed to "discuss" if people are not able to distinguish between views and facts that I substantiated with high-level sources? And most importantly, people who simply don't reply don't get banned. But I, who for the sake of better communication and understanding, have given reasons why I can't engage in page-long meta-discussions, get banned for it. I hope you can see the difference. Accordingly: I don't "not communicate" as you want to put it. What else am I supposed to do?

1. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and

< I always did and will continue to do my very best. I never "caused damage or disruption" to wikipedia, in particular not to any article. If so, it was unintendedly. Please tell me what else I am expected to do.

1. will make useful contributions instead.

< "Instead" ???? Again, apparently you are woefully unable to recall and acknowledge my decades of - I hope overwhelmingly - useful contributions to many articles and the overwhelmingly positive responses. And I would very much like to try to continue this, until my not to far end. I very much feel treated authoritatively and not being respected. Best wishes, HJHolm (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to be trying to justify your lack of discussion, not tell us how you can improve, nor tell us how you can resolve editing disputes if discussion fails. I would concur with PhilKnight above. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2023 (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.

Final Note

<< This is the "thanks" of two overzealous admins, for my well over 6000 edits in almost a dozen international Wikipedias over decades, who cruelly fail to understand that after all that my time is also limited somewhere, and I once forgot to log in. A great service to all the users who have thanked me for my contributions. This is a short-sighted abuse of power or hypersensitive reaction to criticism. "Show a smart person a mistake and they will thank you. Show a stupid person a fault, and he will insult you." (Lao Tzu, 554 B.C.) Please do not get the idea to delete this.HJHolm (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bishonen, PhilKnight,331 dot and the whole hidden KuKluxClan gang, Since I'm hitting a wall of short-sighted, mindless, and limited "Freisler" types here, the account is senseless and I'm logging out forever. The warning to other admins, not to override this block, is exremely undemocratic and dictatorious. Go to hell and be cursed forever and ever. You can delete it, but the curse will follow you in your dreams ans you will never forget it. You left me no other choice. HJHolm (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Bishonen | tålk 19:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today 2A02:8108:9640:1A68:850E:FDF0:59BE:BB49 signing as Hans J. Holm posted a complaint at Wikipedia:Help desk#misuse of admin power. It was clearly about this block.

HJHolm gave an unclear answer at #HJJHolm and said 'I have only ONE account' in the next section. HJHolm has edited 74 pages.[1] 31 of them have also been edited by HJJHolm.[2] HJHolm modified a talk page post by HJJHolm in [3]. In #Unfair HJHolm said: 'I remember struggling for months to bring the "Glottochronology" page up to an international standard'. HJHolm has never edited Glottochronology. HJJHolm has edited it 94 times. It seems clear that HJHolm is HJJHolm. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ Allentoft et al, POPULATION GENOMICS OF STONE AGE EURASIA, bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.04.490594; this version published 6 May 2022.

[1] Allentoft et al, POPULATION GENOMICS OF STONE AGE EURASIA, bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.04.490594; this version published 6 May 2022.

[1]