There is no original research or synthesis in the Proclus, Neoplatonism or Plotinus articles I edited. All articles contain many secondary sources from leading scholars. If you have noted any original research or synthesis, please give examples. I have tried my best to maintain a neutral point of view and tried to source the very best scholarship. Regards Daryl.

Yes, that's it, right there- you sourced "the very best scholarship". This isn't the place to directly post scholarly work; a summary of scholarly work would be fine, but not the work itself. 331dot (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20220929190000","author":"331dot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-331dot-20220929190000-September_2022","replies":[]}}-->

The original reason for the block was "flooding multiple articles with reams of original research". There were no specific examples of original research shown to me in any of the articles I edited. I cited many, many reliable primary and secondary sources in the article, evidenced by the references and citations, see Neoplatonism: Revision history [[1]] 01:11, 21 September 2022‎. Over the last year I have tried my best to reword cited text, often spending hours in thesauruses. The Proclus, Neoplatonism and Plotinus articles had hundreds of citations added by me to leading 20th and 21st century scholarship, both primary and secondary. Practically all sentences in the articles were reworded scholarship with specific citations and an extensive linked (via sfn tags) bibliography. In all the articles I have edited, I have tried to improve Wikipedia by adding well cited content, and spending many hours improving uncited content or wrongly cited content with correctly cited content. You can see evidence of this in my collaborate efforts in the many Talk page articles I started on Talk:Neoplatonism/Archive1. I saw that Wikipedia needed accurate information on important topics Proclus, Neoplatonism and Plotinus, and tried my best to improve those articles with well sourced and reworded text from the leading scholars in the field, and spent hundreds of hours on the Neoplatonism and Proclus articles. And all of that undone in a moment, without one specific example shown to me of original research by me, let alone enough to revert a year's work. I have had the following compliment on the references I used for the Proclus page: "I am also extremely impressed by the breadth of your knowledge of Proclus...I can see you're using excellent sources" - Pabsoluterince 11:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Other editors have also thanked me for all my work on Neoplatonism: "Thank you for your work on Neoplatonism." Hardyplants 21:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC) "...this page [Neoplatonism] is extremely impressive" Horsesizedduck 22:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC) Apart from the above comments, I have found little other encouragement towards me in the last year. Finally, I regrettably note that recently (14 September 2022) I was the victim of a possible threat to disrupt my work on Wikipedia and possible intimidation: "you've edited 105 pages. I've edited 164,602. I could ask you to zip it until you've edited 10,000 pages, or some other random number" taken from Talk:Neoplatonism page's topic "Length of Article Templates". I have not mentioned the editor's name on this page out of courtesy, and only include it to give you some idea of the writing environment I have been faced with. Please don't take any action on that editor, it was probably a heat-of-the-moment comment. With all that, and seeing how easy it is to remove a year's work by an editor, even if you do unblock me, I don't think that I will be writing for Wikipedia again. Thank you for your patience in reading this message. Have a lovely day. Darylprasad (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20220929191700","author":"Darylprasad","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Darylprasad-20220929191700-September_2022","replies":[]}}-->

After a fairly long set of reads through the three main articles, their talk pages, two ANI threads, and your own very difficult to parse user talk pages, I'm making the following notes. Blade blocked you for disruptive edits as a direct decision premised on the complaints raised at this thread, which included several facets. 331dot's decline was likely somewhat unclear - a good part (perhaps a majority) of what might be claimed to be original research is actually primary-sourced. However, if it were just an OR/primary issue, I wouldn't have declined the appeal, I'd have sent to AN for community review.

Instead, I was more concerned by the other reasons raised in that ANI thread. Consistently on the pages you edited actively, where someone would revert an edit you made, you would immediately oppose their actions or state they should have communicated beforehand when, in fact, doing it that way is a standard wikipedia methodology. In others you demonstrate a significant amount of ownership of the articles and working against consensus. You also refused to communicate with a user on the talk page - I've reviewed their original edit, and assuming you take the full paragraph that quote is the middle of to give it context, I do not believe it is a threat or intimidation - but if you disagreed than you have to take it to a conduct review, just choosing to ignore their participation on a content page is not an option.

Ultimately, even if the content you've been adding was beyond reproach, the methods with which you've engaged (or not) multiple users on three talk pages have been repeatedly flawed to the point that I view them as at least half the cause of the block. Any unblock appeal (which may well be community reviewed) will need to handle the following problems: resolving the addition of verbose sections that others argue can exist elsewhere (we're looking for a method, not actual content suggestions) and resolving your engagement with others and the consensus on a talk page. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20221003155800","author":"Nosebagbear","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Nosebagbear-20221003155800-September_2022","replies":[]}}-->

Original Reason for the Block

The original reason for the block was "flooding multiple articles with reams of original research". There were no specific examples of original research shown to me in any of the articles Proclus, Neoplatonism or in the biography of Plotinus (other topics in the Plotinus have not been edited by me). The reason for reverting the articles is baseless, unfounded, and has no reasonable or logical reason. You still have left unexplained why a year's worth of editing was simply reverted without a shred of evidence to support the baseless claim of original research (the original and unfounded reason for the block). Even if you did want to block me for issues that were a year ago, the articles now on Wikipedia were reverted from articles in which there was no original research and no incorrect information to articles where there is plainly original research and incorrect and out of date information.

Indeed, the Plotinus article is a candidate for copyright breach as editors think they can include slabs of copyrighted material in the Notes topic. All that was meticulously replaced by me and non-copyrighted text added with citations to the relevant sources. Also note that the majority of primary sourced material was for blocked quotes (from hard to get sources no longer in copyright). If you have evidence to the contrary on the inclusion of original research, please show me. As yet, the unsupported and erroneous claim that any of the articles; Proclus, Neoplatonism and the biography of Plotinus, contained original research, is simply not true.

Method for Splitting Articles

I have already detailed in the Proclus Talk page topic 19 (end of the topic) the method of how to split the (former) article, in 5 logical steps, into other articles and was working towards that with the proviso that it would take a long time to complete. The same method could be used for the (former) Neoplatonism page.

Collaboration

I have made many attempts at collaboration, with no response. Please look at Talk:Neoplatonism/Archive1 topics 22-61 for efforts made by me to collaborate and extremely detailed explanations of changes made by me. Since there was no response, I perceived agreement from the community for the changes. For other communications to the community, see also Proclus Talk page topics 9-21 and the Plotinus Talk page topics 11-17. In total there have been about 60 Talk page articles that I started in my efforts to collaborate with the community. If you would like me to collaborate more extensively, please tell me what that would entail.

Warnings

Please note that I have never removed maintenance templates as I do not know how to do that. Note topic 53 in Talk:Neoplatonism/Archive1 where I reported a Microsoft Notification of Wikipedia Account Breach, maybe this had something to do with someone removing stuff that I have no clue how to do. The other warnings are from a year ago and I modified my editing in response to those messages, as evidenced by no more messages from those editors.

Reverting Edits

As for "where someone would revert an edit you made, you would immediately oppose their actions or state they should have communicated beforehand"...that has not been the case in all but one instance that I can recall in the articles Proclus, Neoplatonism and Plotinus. Only once can I recall reverting a change in the Neoplatonism article where an editor removed a whole slab of text about Damascius' biography with the totally incorrect reason that he was not a Neoplatonist. That slab of text, Damascius' biography, predominantly written by me and cited by me, is now still on the Damascius page without any suggestion of original research. I did remove the "Very Long template", which is being inconsistently applied and hence I removed it and sought clarification on why other articles that broke the guidelines didn't have one. In the end, I just left it there.

Darylprasad (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20221004115700","author":"Darylprasad","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Darylprasad-20221004115700-September_2022","replies":[]}}-->

This is too long to comfortably read. Please be concise and follow the guide to appealing blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20221111231100","author":"NinjaRobotPirate","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-NinjaRobotPirate-20221111231100-September_2022","replies":[]}}-->

I have explained why it was wrong to block me by responding briefly to each point raised by Nosebagbear.

As per guide to appealing blocks:

1. "Show that you understand the blocking administrator's concern"

2. "It is not enough if you just say that the block was "wrong" or "unfair", or another user violated a policy first. You must explain why it was wrong to block you, or why it should be reversed."

Darylprasad (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20221114224500","author":"Darylprasad","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Darylprasad-20221114224500-September_2022","replies":[]}}-->

This just tells us what the guide said, it doesn't do as requested, which was condense your above, longer request down. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20221218082100","author":"331dot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-331dot-20221218082100-September_2022","replies":[]}}-->