User talk:Professorreason

November 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article List of F-Zero characters (Q–Z), you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.  « ₣M₣ »  21:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:RobertStewartKneeling.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:RobertStewartKneeling.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:RobertStewartInDomodossola,Italy.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:RobertStewartInDomodossola,Italy.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Civility
I strongly encourage you not to accuse editors of hostility, vandalism, or (in particular) racism, as you did with this edit summary. See Civility. On the content of the article, please re-read what two other editors wrote on the talk page. EddieHugh (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And almost immediately you repeat the racism accusation. I politely suggest that you withdraw the accusation. EddieHugh (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I withdraw the accusation, but your terms DELUSIONAL,PUFFEREY, and vandalizing my approved site by TWO before you was, brash or snobbish to say the least. I'll overlook this, however. Professor Reason (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm always amenable to talk to anyone. However, CIVILITY must be a TWO-WAY VENTURE. Firstly, the last two editors AGREED that my descriptive language had to have outside sources. I DID THIS AS AGREED. They then agreed to leave my page as is. I would hope that you would abide by their previous agreement. Secondly, I've been reading encyclopedias for over 40 years now. ALL of them use DESCRIPTIVE words for color so as not to bore the reader to death. Here are examples from ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA & OXFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA:

BRITANNICA: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Michael-Leonard-Brecker

Brecker, Michael Leonard, (born March 29, 1949, Philadelphia, Pa., U.S.—died Jan. 13, 2007, New York, N.Y.), American tenor saxophonist, whose stark, jagged, yet driving jazz style influenced many tenor saxophonists in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

OXFORD: http://www.oxfordreference.com/search?submittedFilterId=by-availability&sort=relevance&btog=chap&q=tom+jones&pageSize=10&isQuickSearch=true&avail_0=free

Tom Jones Subject: Music

Stage songwriting team. Often departing from the norm in their stage projects, the partners created some unique musicals, none more unique and successful than The Fantasticks (1960)

Consequently, I prefer the Britannica and Oxford style being that they are world renowned encyclopedias. Since, I have over 100 citations as agreed with the other two critics. Please leave my quotes intact for they are verbatim. Lastly, the instructions clearly state that we are to put what's in the articles in OUR OWN WORDS, not plagiarize the articles word for word. I have done this as requested. Hope we can work this out, for all that is written is FACTUAL with nearly 100 publications on my career.

Professor Reason (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

3RR
I alerted you to the WP:3RR in an earlier edit summary. You've now reverted Robert Stewart (saxophonist) four times. If you self-revert immediately and continue discussing, the 3RR sanctions may be avoided. EddieHugh (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe it is 3 in 24 hours, but if you say four maybe so. But, you too have done so four times. So maybe I'll just get an administrator to make my sound case to. My article was just fine as it was for nearly a year now. Don't get your fixation on my accomplishments out of the blue. Professor Reason (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. EddieHugh (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Robert Stewart (saxophonist)
Per WP:OWN, you don't have an article on Wikipedia, nor does anyone else. Wikipedia has articles on a variety of subjects. The consensus determines what the articles say. I'm not sure if you misunderstand on this point or your language was simply imprecise. Also, you would do well to calm down. Wikipedia is just some website. It's not that big of a deal. If you feel the need to scream in all caps and accuse editors of being racist, maybe you need to take time off. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 00:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Warning
Like mentioned above by and many other editors involved, you do not own any articles on Wikipedia. You clearly have conflict of interest over the Robert Stewart (saxophonist) article, so I strongly suggest you to cease editing the article now and instead, propose your edits using request edit on the article talk page, and refrain removing any maintenance tags until contested issues have been resolved. Please try to remain calm and do not resort to personal attacks, thank you. You may lose your editing privilege if you cannot follow the policies and guidelines that have been supplied to you. Alex ShihTalk 05:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't trust that anyone here is not in collusion with EddieHugh after finding evidence of this on his talk page. Please refer all future messages to Robert Stewart's talk page, for Professor Reason is me, Robert Stewart. Lastly, I never expect fairness or kindness from anyone. So, thanks for responding. I have a neutral administrator that I've contacted, and hope that person will at least read my full complaints on my talk page. That is the hope, indeed. Professor Reason (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Robert. I got your message on my talk page and replied there. Then I came here and found that you have been blocked! which means you can't post a response at my talk page. If you would like, I will copy my message here and we can discuss it here, to see if you understand the points I was making. If you are able to respond here in a way that shows you now understand what the problem is and intend to comply with Wikipedia guidelines in the future, I will ask User:JamesBWatson to review the situation and see if he thinks you could be unblocked. But that will depend on your understanding and accepting the Wikipedia guidelines that everyone has been trying to explain to you. You can reply here; I will see it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops! I just noticed this edit summary: |Robert Stewart did not write this article, nor did any friend of his. A writer took all articles from published sources and compiled them here.


 * That is simply a lie. You (User:Professorreason, aka Robert Stewart) created the article, in virtually its present form, in November 2016. Lying about things like this is a major no-no here. I'm sorry but I am withdrawing my offer of help. --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Resolution of content disputes is not an administrator function. See WP:DR for complete guidance on this. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much Mandruss! :-) Finally some kind assistance rather than more scolding. Thanks again for this link Professor Reason (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

(1) Your only purpose here is to edit about yourself, in violation of the guideline on conflict of interest, which you have continued to do despite being informed of that guideline as far back as 2010, and reminded of it since then. (2) Much of your editing has been unambiguously promotional, in violation of Wikipedia policy. (To give just two recent examples, you have said of yourself "Stewart was able to rise from the flames of this netherworld to become a Phoenix of the jazz idiom" and that you are "one of the premier saxophonist [sic] in Jazz". There is much more.) (3) You have persistently attacked other editors with whom you disagree, including, amongst other things, making totally unsubstantiated claims of conspiracy, and accusing anyone you don't agree with of racism, without producing any reason or evidence to support such accusations. (4) You seem unable to grasp the fact that Wikipedia seeks to present the subject of an article from an outside, independent, point of view, not to act as a medium for the subject to publicise his or her own preferred account, and that the subject of an article does not own that article. (5) Civil and constructive attempts to communicate with you and to explain the reasons why your editing is considered problematic are at best dismissed without consideration, and at worst you retaliate with attacks and belligerence. (6) You have been edit-warring, continuing to do so after being alerted to the policy on doing so.

After editing for well over a year (ignoring a few fairly isolated edits from the previous nine years) you show no sign at all of being likely to change your ways and start editing in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your account has therefore been indefinitely blocked from editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks before doing so. I also advise you that it is unlikely that any administrator will unblock you if it seems that you will continue to edit in violation of the conflict of interest guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello there
Hi, it seems that you might be the subject of one of our articles and are displeased with some of the contents. See Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) for a general overview of ways to get problems fixed (as well as an email address). Ordinarily, you would be directed to mention specific problems on Talk:Robert Stewart (saxophonist) if you want specific mistakes corrected (and strongly advised not to edit the article directly), but you've completely violated so many of our policies that you've been blocked from editing, indefinitely.

The email address is info-en-q@wikimedia.org. The first thing you might be asked to do is to privately establish your identity. Toddst1 (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I thank you for the kind "Hello" Toddst1! Also, thanks for your assistance in delivering the contact information above. You're a credit to Wikipedia for sure. Thanks again. :-) Professor Reason (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Note to Administrators: Prolific IP socking
For the record, it appears that this user frequently edited while logged out using many different IP addresses. I think the list of IP addresses found here easily pass the WP:DUCK test. Note that some of these IPs have added content to other articles about this person as well and have participated in discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also other IP addresses in the same IP ranges. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Mr. Watson, I'm Robert Stewart (as is clear from the talk page on Robert Stewart (saxophonist). Can you at least unblock the talk section of that page, so that I can deliver the citations asked for. Also, you blocked me before I learned how to respond to the other editors' allegations on the Administrator Message Board. I don't understand all of the rules here as you stated. I'm not a Wikipedian as you all. I've been trying to get the help of an administrator for nearly a year. Every time that I put the template up on my talk page, Vmavanti would remove it. Just so you know and this is in record on this page. My other talk page on Robert Stewart (saxophonist) was erased by someone other than me. Fortunately, I saved the entire page since day one in my files in case I pursue arbitration; still deciding if it's worth it. Thanks for your time. Robert Stewart Professor Reason (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "pursue arbitration" ?? Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Troutman, arbitration committee against EddieHugh & Vmavanti. They've painted a picture of me that is not accurate in any way, shape, or form. I've now read most of the bylaws of Wikipedia (I hadn't before) and see what I've been doing wrong. I should not have listened to advice from them. I tried to work with them and I was the one who offered olive branches by asking to talk in my talk section. I have the evidence from a year ago. Anyway, thanks for talking to me. Robert Stewart Professor Reason (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, if any administrative action (aka pursue arbitration) is going to happen, it's going to be to have you as an individual (we know your name) life-time banned from editing this site.   We're done screwing around.  We've been collectively polite, tried to educate you about how to edit here and incredibly patient with you.  It's clear you're only here to promote your own legacy and to some measure WP:RGW.     We want to be accurate with what we report but your chronic disruption and now threatening "arbitration" is just plain nonsense and I think you've used up all of our collective patience around here.    Toddst1 (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

'''No, I'm the one who was being kind to you people for this long. This you can be certain of, indeed. So, please DELETE my entire article from this site which you all own. The latest hit job on my history (and your nasty tone) is the final insurrection. I honestly thought that you people were fair. But, the following is an example of the bias that I've been relaying, an online book (before the article even begins) of puffery & peacock terms''' is fine for certain folks I see:

[Copy of Brad Mehldau article removed. -- Huon (talk) 09:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)] Professor Reason (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed the copy of the article. Copying within Wikipedia is problematic for reasons of copyright and attribution. If you want to point out puffery and peacock terms in the article on Mehldau, it helps to not copy-paste the entire thing but to provide short quotes that highlight the phrases you see as problematic. You'd need to address your block first, though; if you want to do that, WP:UTRS is an available route. Please note that you should address your own conduct; accusations against others will not help to get you unblocked. Huon (talk) 09:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Your bylaws are CONTRADICTORY - CONVOLUTED....
1.	User and user talk page vandalism Unwelcome, illegitimate edits to another person's user page may be considered vandalism. User pages are regarded as within the control of their respective users and, with certain exceptions, should not be edited without permission of the user to whom they belong.

Someone erased my user page without my permission others don't have to follow your laws, eh?'''

2. Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement).[2] Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking.

I didn't even get a HEARING of my side of the story. But doesn't matter now. Please DELETE my article from this unfair institution.

3. Edit summary dos and don'ts - Don't   '''Make snide comments. Make personal remarks about editors. Be aggressive.'''

'''All of these rules were broken or simply don’t apply to EddieHugh & Vmavanti I suppose, eh? Their edit summaries were the initiation of uncivil commentary and behavior for the record!'''

“If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.”

'''Why am I the only one who has to follow the letter of the law, eh? You all can keep this biased site for sure.''' You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia. If you do what seems sensible, it will usually be right, and if it's not right, don't worry. Even the worst mistakes are easy to correct: older versions of a page remain in the revision history and can be restored. If we disagree with your changes, we'll talk about it thoughtfully and politely, and we'll figure out what to do. So don't worry. Be bold, and enjoy helping to build this free encyclopedia.

'''I asked to talk to both EddieHugh and Vmavanti FIRST. Not the other way around. They just made edits without even saying a word to me!'''

•	You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Yes, we already said that, but it is worth repeating. •	Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit (see also Use common sense, below). •	Rules derive their power to compel not from being written down on a page labeled "guideline" or "policy", but from being a reflection of the shared opinions and practices of many editors (see also Wikipedia:Consensus). •	Most rules are ultimately descriptive, not prescriptive; they describe existing current practice. They sometimes lag behind the practices they describe (see also Wikipedia:Product, process, policy). •	Wikilawyering doesn't work. Loopholes and technicalities do not exist on the Wiki. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; nor moot court, nor nomic, nor Mao. •	The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored (see also Wikipedia:The rules are principles). •	Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate, always bearing in mind that good judgment is not displayed only by those who agree with you (see also Wikipedia:Civility).

Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia Dealing with edits by the subject of the article Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of '''showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern.'''

Both of them were snobby, unkind, and rude from the beginning

Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a BLP, this might be the subject attempting to remove problematic material. Edits like this by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited to explain their concerns. The Arbitration Committee established the following principle in December 2005: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, a guideline, advises Wikipedia users to consider the obvious fact that new users of Wikipedia will do things wrong from time to time. For those who either have or might have an article about themselves, there is a temptation - especially if apparently wrong or strongly negative information is included in such an article - to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity for the new user. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap, rather than see this phenomenon as a new editor mistake.[4] Dealing with articles about yourself Wikipedia has editorial policies that will often help to resolve your concern, as well as many users willing to help and a wide range of escalation processes. Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself. But beyond that, post suggestions on the article talk page, or place on your user talk page.

'''Every time I put a sign for an administrator on my talk page, Vmavanti took it down. Now I have a whole team of administrators GANG TACKLING me. You all can have this site for sure. I made a huge mistake trying to join your little private clubhouse, indeed.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professorreason (talk • contribs) 08:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In order:
 * You never had a user page. What was deleted was, for all I can tell, User:Professorreason/Robert stewart (saxophonist), a stale draft that hadn't been edited in almost a year. Those can be speedily deleted because there's an assumption that if they haven't been worked on for more than six months, they likely never will be finished, and we don't keep drafts indefinitely. If you wish to improve the draft I can restore it for you, but since we have a live article on the saxophonist Robert Steward, I suggest you directly improve that article, not your draft - wholesale substitution of the article for your draft likely would get reverted anyway, and the live article at a glance seems to be in much better shape, too.
 * Speedy deletion is not subject to a debate; it's meant for clear-cut cases. Per above, if you can present a reason why that draft should be restored when we already have the live article, I'll gladly do it. If that's not what you mean by the second point, you'll need to provide more context. Who engaged in vote-stacking, where?
 * If you accuse other editors of misconduct, you should provide evidence, preferably a diff. I went through what I assume are the relevant edits of EddieHugh and Vmavanti and didn't find any edit summary more snide than "You're missing the point". That doesn't strike me as particularly uncivil or aggressive. If I missed something, please point out the relevant edit. There's a lot of discussion on the talk page and now in its archive, so it's hardly correct that others didn't engage in a discussion. Regarding accusations of rudeness, again, evidence please. I don't see any, but I might have missed something. As far as the "acceptable for the subject of an article to edit it" quote goes, I don't think the main concern was that others introduced unsourced or badly sourced content that you wanted to remove, was it? Rather, to me it seems a main thread of the discussion is the addition of unsourced, badly sourced or otherwise inappropriate content by you that others removed. I didn't read through the full talk page archives, but if you have concerns about the current content of the page being inaccurate or containing errors of fact, you're welcome to point out which parts, specifically, are wrong and we can deal with that.
 * I also browsed the history of both your user talk page (this one) and Talk:Robert Stewart (saxophonist). I didn't find any instance of Vmavanti removing a request for administrator intervention; if I missed something, again I'd ask you to provide some evidence of your accusation of misconduct. Huon (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Just as an FYI: Professorreason (Robert Stewart) just sent me a copy of an email he said he was sending to Jimmy Wales and ArbCom. I'm sure they will consider his complaints carefully and respond appropriately. I would just like to say two things: 1) I was one of the administrators that he reached out to, on my talk page. I know of at least two others where he did the same. I truly did sympathize with his frustration. I wrote a detailed and (I thought) friendly response, explaining why he should not be trying to edit his own article. By the time I had finished my reply, I found he had been blocked. I came here and posted (above) an offer to try to help him deal with his conflicts. However, when I noticed that he had repeatedly lied about the authorship of the article about himself (repeatedly saying that his biographer had written it, and then that it had been written by someone with no connection to him, when in fact this same user account Professorreason had written it), I withdrew my offer to help him. 2) As an administrator I would oppose any request by him to have the article deleted. There is no valid reason for deletion. He is clearly notable, and the article is fairly written, with no WP:BLP or other concerns. If he could detail what exactly he objects to we could work with him, but he seems to feel it has to be his version or nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. I see that his talk page access has been revoked. Mr. Stewart, if you have SPECIFIC things about the article that you think are unfair or incorrect, you can email them to me and I will see what I can do. Restoring your original version is not an option, but I would be glad to correct any documented errors. --MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I also received a similar email as Melanie. I also object to removal of the article.  Toddst1 (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Me too; I assume it's the same email. It asserts vague generalities without any actionable issues being pointed out. I don't see that a deletion discussion could lead to a consensus to delete; nominating it would be a waste of time. Huon (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Melanie, I tried to send you another email today, but JamesBWatson blocked me from reaching you. If we can't discuss the problem, how can it ever be solved? I'm a person of vast monetary means, and have many computers, so blocking is not productive in solving this problem.

I will work with you, and you tell me (line by line) what needs to be changed or omitted in my version. Eddie's version is so cut to shreds & distorted, I can't even salvage it. But, I'll re-edit his version with you if I must.

Further, if an administrator had told me to stop editing, I would have. I told Eddie to wait for an overseer before shredding the article. He refused to wait, so the edit war began to get him to stop. I simply lost count.

Lastly, I'm NO LIAR. I did not write the article itself & said so from day one of my arrival. No friend did either. She is my significant other / biographer. So, it is UNCIVIL for people to make accusations without actual fact evidence. No one was present to witness the writer, so I hope that we can move on.

Thanks Dearest Melanie :-) Robert Stewart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B042:F87:6EF8:531:B59B:85CF (talk) 03:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Robert. First thing: you are blocked from using your talk page so you should not edit here at all, not even when you are logged out. That's called sockpuppetry and is a no-no. For now, restrict your comments to email - and wait to hear what ArbCom says. I think you will find that you can still email me. But don't abuse the privilege by sending emails to people who haven't asked for them; that probably would result in your being blocked from emailing. If your email interactions with ArbCom and Jimmy Wales, and with me, are positive, maybe User:Yunshui or User:JamesBWatson will consider restoring your talk page access. But for now, don't post here.


 * Next, you say you didn't create the article. But someone using the username Professorreason did create it, and that's your account.


 * Let's not argue about that. Let's see what we can do about your article. I am willing to help you, within reason; I understand your frustration and admire your talent, and after all we are both Oaklanders. First, though: you seem to want to start over, to go back to your version and have me justify any changes to it. That is not going to happen. We are not going back to the version you originally posted and tried so hard to defend. We going to keep the current version, as trimmed and edited by Wikipedians trying to make it into a proper Wikipedia article. The article has not been "ripped to shreds"; it has had some things deleted that were not properly sourced or not encyclopedic, but the basic structure and outline are the same. If there are distortions - specific things in the current version that are incorrect - tell me and I will see if I can fix them. Please make sure your emails are focused on specific corrections that need to be made in the current article.


 * Bottom line, the article is never going back to the version you originally posted here. In an encyclopedia, the subject of an article (or his biographer) does not get to write the article about himself. If you want a biography totally written by you, you should follow SmokeyJoe's recommendation below and work on the bios at your web page - and maybe Amazon. --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe you found you couldn't send email when you aren't logged in to your account. It should work if you log in. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * When you're blocked from editing, that means there are significant problems with your conduct. It doesn't mean "we want you to jump through an extra loop and make editing more difficult", it means "you should not edit". Block evasion is not going to help your cause. As I said, if you wish to contest the block and address the reasons that led to you being blocked, WP:UTRS is available. Otherwise, consider this an admin telling you to stop editing. Huon (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no idea how the editor got the idea that I had blocked him from sending an email to MelanieN. I certainly haven't blocked email access. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

external biography
Robert, I suggest the best thing for you to do at this stage is expand and perfect your biography at http://therobertstewartexperience.com/biography.html —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for unblock
Hi, Robert.I have received your recent email, asking to be unblocked. I have restored your ability to edit this talk page, so that you can post an unblock request here. I shall be very pleased if you can be unblocked and become a constructive editor for Wikipedia, but that will happen only if you show an understanding of why your previous editing was considered unacceptable, and make it clear that you won't continue any of the same mistakes. Also, your offer in your email to pay to be unblocked suggests something of a misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia. If you are going to post an unblock request then I very strongly recommend reading the guide to appealing blocks first, as otherwise there's a risk that you may put time into making an unblock request which stands no chance of success. JBW (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that your instructions have solved my problem. THANKS so much for your time and effort my friend! :-) Professor Reason (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)