(23 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
*As an FYI for the reviewing admin, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abecedare&diff=897118838&oldid=897088584 note on my talkpage] about the reason that led to the email access being revoked. Given the passage of time, I am also withdrawing my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J%C3%BCrgen_Eissink&diff=889004264&oldid=889002383 earlier opposition to an unblock]. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 22:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC) |
*As an FYI for the reviewing admin, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abecedare&diff=897118838&oldid=897088584 note on my talkpage] about the reason that led to the email access being revoked. Given the passage of time, I am also withdrawing my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J%C3%BCrgen_Eissink&diff=889004264&oldid=889002383 earlier opposition to an unblock]. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 22:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
Thank you, both. [[User:Jürgen Eissink|Jürgen Eissink]] ([[User talk:Jürgen Eissink#top|talk]]) 00:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC). |
|||
:I have requested unblocking today, so it might be good to take away the possible impression from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abecedare&diff=897118838&oldid=897088584 Abecedare's mentioned note], that I might have sent "others involved" (i.e. 331dot and Lourdes) abusive emails: those emails were not abusive, as the recipients would surely confirm. [[User:Jürgen Eissink|Jürgen Eissink]] ([[User talk:Jürgen Eissink#top|talk]]) 17:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC). |
|||
== Unblock request == |
|||
[[File:2019-02-23 Rusty tractor.jpg|right|360px]] |
|||
{{unblock|After the restoring of my Talk page access following my UTRS appeal (see right above here), I would like to request the unblocking of my account, that has been blocked since March 21, 2019. I would like to participate again, now and then, mainly by adding pictures and editing bio- and bibliographical sections. I think the UTRS appeal speaks for itself, but I will of course answer questions, in case there are any.<br /><br />I understand very clear why I was blocked. From now on, I will especially avoid discussions on 'current events', and I will certainly not get personal with any editor over any subject anymore. It's hard to express how the current block impacted me: it made me look at my way of interacting with people. I feel I have learned my lesson, and that's why I could issue the recent UTRS appeal. But yet today I wanted to add a [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2010-09-05_USAG_Benelux_Liberation_Memorial_Monceau-Imbrechies.jpg picture] of a Memorial to the [[9th Infantry Division (United States)]] and I could not; a few days ago I wanted to add a [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1914_George_Edward_Moore_(cropped).jpg portrait] to [[G. E. Moore]] and to another philosopher, and I could not. There was a cause for my block, but should it haunt me longer than it already has? I hope someone can and will unblock my account. (See also below.)}} |
|||
*Please take notice of the fact that the involved administrators 331dot and Abecedare stated they don't oppose unblocking – see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J%C3%BCrgen_Eissink&diff=888964011&oldid=888907448 this edit] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J%C3%BCrgen_Eissink&diff=897121264&oldid=897120001 this edit]. But is anybody even watching this request? [[User:Jürgen Eissink|Jürgen Eissink]] ([[User talk:Jürgen Eissink#top|talk]]) 19:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC). |
|||
[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]], could you perhaps take a look at my unblock request? I'm sure you remember the discussion on adding information about the poetry in the Christchurch-shooter's manifesto, and how that discussion ended. I got angry and started quite a personal rage over it, which – justly – got me blocked, but I feel and think I have been blocked for long enough now. It was an isolated incident, I got carried away by the subject, and I know now how not to react... I have the feeling my request is not being noticed, so any help would be welcome. Thanks, [[User:Jürgen Eissink|Jürgen Eissink]] ([[User talk:Jürgen Eissink#top|talk]]) 20:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC). |
Revision as of 20:41, 19 May 2019
Welcome!
Hello, Jürgen Eissink, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Acroterion (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Notification
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
March 2019
Hi Jurgen. I am one of the English Wikipedia administrators looking over the Christchurch page.
Your recent editing history at Christchurch mosque shootings shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I would suggest that you slow down on reverting other editors' contributions, unless these are covered under the 3RR exceptions; and if they are covered, you need to mention the exact clause in your edit summary.
You've already crossed 3RR.[1][2][3][4] apart from other reverts. I'm coming here to ensure you slow down immediately and stop reverting. You may be blocked if you continue going beyond the bright line. Please consider this as a good faith note. Lourdes 01:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Christchurch mosque shootings
This[5] is unacceptable. You are a relatively inexperienced editor and this is a difficult topic so I can understand your missteps. It is perfectly reasonable to discuss how we present information on the talk page and being sentimental is not a bad thing at this time. I am guessing you are a non-native speaker so I am going to assume you do not realise the full connotations of saying if you can't stand the heat, please leave the kitchen
. I am well and truly involved in that article and will continue to be so unless something more official than a misguided talk page threat is brought against me. AIRcorn (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's not a threat, it's a figure of speech. I made the comment almost 48 hours ago and I am not going to pick up that debate again. You misrepresented the article and that's why I said what I said. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC).
Edit-warring at Christchurch mosque shootings
I haven't counted the exact number of reverts but you and FreeKnowledgeCreator appear to be involved in an edit-war at the page. Given that the content involved is hardly critical, even a few days wait for other editors to weigh in (or for more sources to become avaialble) would hardly be deleterious. So please stop. Abecedare (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am not going to revert again right now. I am content to wait for further discussion and am happy to give more editors a chance to express their views. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- As Abecedare rightly pointed out, and as I've warned you some time ago, you're once again at the border of crossing the 3RR bright line. Please note that even without crossing this line, you may be blocked simply for edit warring if you again enter into a reverting cycle with another editor. Please slow down. This is a contentious article and you need to be careful going forward. Thanks, Lourdes 06:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Personal attacks at Christchurch mosque shootings
Anymore of such personal attacks and you will be blocked. I strongly suggest that you step way from Christchurch mosque shootings and its talkpage for a few days. Abecedare (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
March 2019
- a user who doesn't get tired of shitposting his own pathetic poems
- Wikipedia is doomed if we don't stop pedantic shortsighted idiots ruining intelligence
- Whatever. Shitpost overlord
- Some users should be ashamed of themselves and they should really be ostracized for insisting their shallow thoughts should be up and leading. It's disgusting.
- You should change your name to RestrictedKnowledgeCreator.
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Lourdes 03:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC){
Eissink (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This indefinite block is unwarranted. While I could accept a temporary block, I will not accept topic-bans or other editing restrictions.
Decline reason:
This doesn't address the reason for the block, and your comments below seem to suggest to me that your behavior would continue if unblocked. I would tend to agree that being unblocked will require agreement by you to some sort of topic ban. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2019 (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.
- This one and its edit-summary, especially, are beyond the pale, and make me think that any unblocks in the immediate future need to be accompanied by topic-bans or editing restrictions. Abecedare (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- You can deny and delete my words, if that makes you feel better, but I'd suggest you try to see the meaning of that user's daily changing of the message on his Talk page from "personal issues" to "attempting wikibreak", or indeed several times a day even, and try to figure the implications of such schizophrenic behavior on user's further contributions to this site. Maybe then you see that I am not the sick and vile person here, and that I may have my reasons and intentions, which are not only attacking for the attacking, but serve the site as well as that user by bringing a mirror. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC).
Don't expect I will beg you and thereby acknowledge your highly selective dudgeon on the edit warring previously, that you even dare to connect to personal attacks: your examples don't show what you implied and you had chosen sides before searching for stretched reason. My edits tend to attract and irritate narrow minded, stubborn and often longer term users who somehow managed to achieve a level of untouchability, not the least because they are covered (out of fear perhaps?) by people like you, who value seniority over reason. I discussed very reasonable on the subject concerned, but the discussion was ended by uncontradicted deletion just after the discussion had started. And it was even followed by a revenge edit, basically stating that the inspirations of a mass murderer are not significant(!), on a page I had mentioned in comparison, and again nobody adressed the perpetrator. Your apparent correctness will fail you. Letting trolls like the ones I indeed attacked – because nobody else will – have their way, will make Wikipedia redundant. Times have changed and you are blind to it. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC).
Unblock request
@331dot You are mistaken. I know my responsibilities and I know the consequences. I have no interest in being an editor with any gag order. If you want to lose a quality contributor, so be it, but I will not withdraw my unblock request. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC).
- You are certainly entitled to your views. If you can convince another administrator to unblock you, I won't stand in the way, but I don't think one will without you agreeing to a topic ban as I (and another) have suggested. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- What would such a topic ban possibly comprise of, 331dot? I am not familiar with it. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC).
- Lourdes suggested above, "Would suggest a voluntarily accepted ban by the editor to not edit shooting incident articles". 331dot (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- To be honest, I never before had any real interest in a shooting incident or terrorist attacks, but this one got my attention for reasons of semiotic nature (the live streaming, the writing on the weapons, the music played, the "shitposting", the manifesto indeed, etc. etc.), so I would have no problem restraining myself to such articles. Maybe I got stuck to long there. I would accept a temporary topic ban (1 month? 3 months? a year?), but I reject any eternal ban. I'd feel highly limited and uncomfortable, even if I had no wish to edit on any such topic. That's were I stand and that's it. Thanks for your answer. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC).
- Lourdes suggested above, "Would suggest a voluntarily accepted ban by the editor to not edit shooting incident articles". 331dot (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- What would such a topic ban possibly comprise of, 331dot? I am not familiar with it. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC).
- You are certainly entitled to your views. If you can convince another administrator to unblock you, I won't stand in the way, but I don't think one will without you agreeing to a topic ban as I (and another) have suggested. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I understand now that I have to reissue my unblock request in order to have it get attention.
Eissink (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My unblock request was declined within 7 minutes. It seems impossible that any moderator could have reviewed the discussion that lead to the rage that initiated the indefinite block. In my comments I did address the reason for the block – even if it's content may not be to the liking of the moderator, it was a sincere explanation and there is no reason to assume I will return to the subject or the users involved right away, and on the contrary: I have no intention to do so at all. I request again to raise the indefinite block, or to change it to a reasonable 'cool down' block, and waive requirements to topic ban or other edit restrictions. [Edit to add:] I will accept a temporary topic ban, even though I see no point in that, because I am not a single-issue editor. See conversation right above this template.
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request and have removed your talkpage access for continuing to make personal attacks even while you were blocked (example). You can appeal your block by using UTRS. Abecedare (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2019 (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.
Note: Any admin responding to an UTRS appeal from the user is requested to contact me before making a decision. Abecedare (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Is that you?
@Jürgen Eissink. Do you continue editing from as this IP while your named account was blocked? I am asking because this looks like WP:DUCK: they restore exactly the same information as you did [6]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- I should not even answer you, but for God's sake, no, of course that is not me. Even sheer considering that I would sock puppet is insulting, but since it is clear that you don't have any clue about my character and points of view, I cannot blame you for it. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC).
- Looking more carefully at the edit you referred to, I must say you are wrong in that it restored "exactly the same information" as I did. You not for the first time seem to have problems reading, if you don't mind me saying so, and the good user that you are now obviously gotten into an edit war with, is completely right in his comments, which once again show that you don't care or don't carefully read what you are doing. I think you should reconsider your attitude, especially your haughtiness. Everyone who had doubts as about to why and how your tactics and actions provoked my anger find in your current edit war a pretty easy and convincing proof that you are not in your right mind. And I don't mean for that to offense you, but maybe you should consider distancing yourself from the idea that you are some sort of expert on all matters and all dimensions of those matters. Listen to other peoples motives and try to learn. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC).
Re email
I no longer wish to receive email from you about this matter. As I've indicated, if you can convince someone to unblock you, I will not stand in the way. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
If you send me further email, I will remove your ability to send email. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Jurgen, I've also received your email and second Abecedare's move to block your email sending capability. Thanks, Lourdes 03:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Eissink (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #24543 was submitted on Apr 01, 2019 12:07:02.
Notes:
- If you are the blocked user, an administrator will find your request on UTRS and should email you shortly. Please do not request additional unblocks. Tickets may take 24-48 hours to process. Tickets will expire after 1 week if you have not responded via the web interface to any emails from the reviewing administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
--UTRSBot (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Eissink (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #25180 was submitted on May 13, 2019 21:31:23.
Notes:
- If you are the blocked user, an administrator will find your request on UTRS and should email you shortly. Please do not request additional unblocks. Tickets may take 24-48 hours to process. Tickets will expire after 1 week if you have not responded via the web interface to any emails from the reviewing administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
--UTRSBot (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Talk page access restored
Note that I have restored talk access per Jürgen Eissink's GAB-compliant appeal via UTRS appeal #25180 after consulting with Abecedare, who had revoked talk page access. Also pinging Lourdes as the original blocking admin.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- As an FYI for the reviewing admin, see note on my talkpage about the reason that led to the email access being revoked. Given the passage of time, I am also withdrawing my earlier opposition to an unblock. Abecedare (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, both. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 00:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC).
- I have requested unblocking today, so it might be good to take away the possible impression from Abecedare's mentioned note, that I might have sent "others involved" (i.e. 331dot and Lourdes) abusive emails: those emails were not abusive, as the recipients would surely confirm. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC).
Unblock request
Eissink (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand very clear why I was blocked. From now on, I will especially avoid discussions on 'current events', and I will certainly not get personal with any editor over any subject anymore. It's hard to express how the current block impacted me: it made me look at my way of interacting with people. I feel I have learned my lesson, and that's why I could issue the recent UTRS appeal. But yet today I wanted to add a picture of a Memorial to the 9th Infantry Division (United States) and I could not; a few days ago I wanted to add a portrait to G. E. Moore and to another philosopher, and I could not. There was a cause for my block, but should it haunt me longer than it already has? I hope someone can and will unblock my account. (See also below.)
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=After the restoring of my Talk page access following my UTRS appeal (see right above here), I would like to request the unblocking of my account, that has been blocked since March 21, 2019. I would like to participate again, now and then, mainly by adding pictures and editing bio- and bibliographical sections. I think the UTRS appeal speaks for itself, but I will of course answer questions, in case there are any.<br /><br />I understand very clear why I was blocked. From now on, I will especially avoid discussions on 'current events', and I will certainly not get personal with any editor over any subject anymore. It's hard to express how the current block impacted me: it made me look at my way of interacting with people. I feel I have learned my lesson, and that's why I could issue the recent UTRS appeal. But yet today I wanted to add a [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2010-09-05_USAG_Benelux_Liberation_Memorial_Monceau-Imbrechies.jpg picture] of a Memorial to the [[9th Infantry Division (United States)]] and I could not; a few days ago I wanted to add a [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1914_George_Edward_Moore_(cropped).jpg portrait] to [[G. E. Moore]] and to another philosopher, and I could not. There was a cause for my block, but should it haunt me longer than it already has? I hope someone can and will unblock my account. (See also below.) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=After the restoring of my Talk page access following my UTRS appeal (see right above here), I would like to request the unblocking of my account, that has been blocked since March 21, 2019. I would like to participate again, now and then, mainly by adding pictures and editing bio- and bibliographical sections. I think the UTRS appeal speaks for itself, but I will of course answer questions, in case there are any.<br /><br />I understand very clear why I was blocked. From now on, I will especially avoid discussions on 'current events', and I will certainly not get personal with any editor over any subject anymore. It's hard to express how the current block impacted me: it made me look at my way of interacting with people. I feel I have learned my lesson, and that's why I could issue the recent UTRS appeal. But yet today I wanted to add a [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2010-09-05_USAG_Benelux_Liberation_Memorial_Monceau-Imbrechies.jpg picture] of a Memorial to the [[9th Infantry Division (United States)]] and I could not; a few days ago I wanted to add a [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1914_George_Edward_Moore_(cropped).jpg portrait] to [[G. E. Moore]] and to another philosopher, and I could not. There was a cause for my block, but should it haunt me longer than it already has? I hope someone can and will unblock my account. (See also below.) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=After the restoring of my Talk page access following my UTRS appeal (see right above here), I would like to request the unblocking of my account, that has been blocked since March 21, 2019. I would like to participate again, now and then, mainly by adding pictures and editing bio- and bibliographical sections. I think the UTRS appeal speaks for itself, but I will of course answer questions, in case there are any.<br /><br />I understand very clear why I was blocked. From now on, I will especially avoid discussions on 'current events', and I will certainly not get personal with any editor over any subject anymore. It's hard to express how the current block impacted me: it made me look at my way of interacting with people. I feel I have learned my lesson, and that's why I could issue the recent UTRS appeal. But yet today I wanted to add a [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2010-09-05_USAG_Benelux_Liberation_Memorial_Monceau-Imbrechies.jpg picture] of a Memorial to the [[9th Infantry Division (United States)]] and I could not; a few days ago I wanted to add a [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1914_George_Edward_Moore_(cropped).jpg portrait] to [[G. E. Moore]] and to another philosopher, and I could not. There was a cause for my block, but should it haunt me longer than it already has? I hope someone can and will unblock my account. (See also below.) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- Please take notice of the fact that the involved administrators 331dot and Abecedare stated they don't oppose unblocking – see this edit and this edit. But is anybody even watching this request? Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC).
MelanieN, could you perhaps take a look at my unblock request? I'm sure you remember the discussion on adding information about the poetry in the Christchurch-shooter's manifesto, and how that discussion ended. I got angry and started quite a personal rage over it, which – justly – got me blocked, but I feel and think I have been blocked for long enough now. It was an isolated incident, I got carried away by the subject, and I know now how not to react... I have the feeling my request is not being noticed, so any help would be welcome. Thanks, Jürgen Eissink (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC).