User talk:Keeline

Your account has been indefinitely blocked from editing because of the following problems: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

You may request a change of username and unblock if you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization. To do this, first search Special:CentralAuth for available usernames that comply with the username policy. Once you have found an acceptable username, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked. In your reasons, you must:

Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement.
Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. Alexf^(talk) 07:37, 20 April 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).

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

Request reason:

Yes, my name is James Keeline and my account uses my last name. I don't hide my identity like so many online and on Wikipedia. I have been a researcher and writer about juvenile series books like Trixie Belden for about 35 years -- longer than Wikipedia or the Internet has been around. My only change to this page was to correct a broken link which had http to https. Why this would be end of the world for Wikipedia's "integrity" I cannot understand. It seems that there has been some kind of automatic conclusion made about what I did.

And, yes, I use a VPN because my employer as a system administrator requires it.

Although I don't expect you set policies for Wikipedia, I find many of them to be counterproductive. For example, the Edward Stratemeyer entry was allowed to have completely false statements made just because it was in a book full of errors by Dinan. This concerned whether Gilbert Patten hired Edward Stratemeyer. Patten's own memoir, which I pointed out in the comments for the page, said that it was Stratemeyer who hired the younger Patten. Some of my material that I share online has been used as a source on many entries. No permission was asked or granted. Indeed, some entries have used my original research WITHOUT attribution (e.g. Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew authorship) but as a subject matter expert, I know better than to try to fix that myself.

It seems that Wikipedia policies are set up to repeat provable errors and falsehoods on many topics just because someone wrote about them and passed along.

One of the other sources on the Edward Stratemeyer entry is a home education textbook (self-published) by Veritas. This is hardly the most authoritative source about the popularity, success, and influence of Edward Stratemeyer's writings and productions. Yet, because it promotes this textbook, it is OK. Why not find a real source that has consulted primary sources? Because the editor of Wikipedia who put that in found something online that was easy and inserted it. Most of the real books on the topic are not so freely published online so it requires a bit of awareness of the field and consultation of printed books and not just online sources. Critical thinking and evaluation of sources is a cornerstone of academic inquiry. But I am only an independent scholar.

While I don't agree with your policy on subject matter experts, I do try to respect it and restrict my comments to the Talk section of page in hopes that the blessed Wikipedia editors may be persuaded to do some research and make changes. But really, the whole thing ends up being a situation where the blind and the ignorant which to spread their biases to the world.

Your form letter asks about my financial interest, I have had a net-negative income to pursue my interests in juvenile series books for the past 35 years. It costs me more to do the research and write about it than I will ever see. Even when I publish my Series Book Encyclopedia (which Wikipedia editors will find and gleefully copy into entries) after 30 years, any small income from it will be less than 1/10 of 1% of the cost to put it together.

Adding an "s" to the http of a link of my 1998 Popular Culture Association conference presentation on Trixie Belden so modern browsers will not show a warning or block it makes me not a single penny. But it prevents it from being a broken link. As it was I only yesterday saw that this entry had a link to it. I realized that with a server move that it was not to be found at that URL. I installed it and set up an http => https redirect to help out. Maybe you wish to have broken links so it is an excuse to drop them, regardless of the quality of the content?

This whole experience has been distasteful. I think conclusions have been made without knowing anything about me or my contributions to this field. Keeline (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The username issue is that your website is "keeline dot com" and it is not permitted to use a website name as your username. If you want to use your real name as your username, you may do so. This isn't about fixing a broken link. It is true that Wikipedia is written largely by lay people for lay people, and is different than academic or scholarly publishing, as well as other websites which limit contributions to experts in a field. You seem to be chafing against this and hold other editors in some level of contempt("blessed Wikipedia editors", "the blind and ignorant", "I don't hide my identity..."). I think Wikipedia isn't for you. This doesn't make you a bad person, Wikipedia doesn't work for everyone. It does make me curious as to why you want to be unblocked, though. There are proper ways to address the concerns that you offer; you even started this by using article talk pages. Please read conflict of interest and tell us how you will contribute- if that's what you want to do- consistent with that policy. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 18:20, 20 April 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.

Note that many people have good reasons to want to not use their real identity; fear of government surveillance/persecution, fear of community/family disdain, fear of personal safety/identity theft. If you want to use your real name, you may, but don't condemn people who choose differently. If you want to edit via your employer's VPN, you'll need to request an exemption once unblocked. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]