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]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20221229083500","author":"HJHolm","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-HJHolm-20221229083500-November_2022","replies":[]}}-->

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]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20221230045000","author":"Rosguill","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Rosguill-20221230045000-November_2022","replies":[]}}-->

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]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20230110084000","author":"HJHolm","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-HJHolm-20230110084000-You_block_my_updates","replies":[]}}-->

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]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20230110161800","author":"PhilKnight","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-PhilKnight-20230110161800-You_block_my_updates","replies":[]}}-->

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]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20230124072500","author":"HJHolm","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-HJHolm-20230124072500-You_block_my_updates","replies":[]}}-->

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]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20230214103300","author":"331dot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-331dot-20230214103300-You_block_my_updates","replies":[]}}-->