User talk:Robertinventor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

REMINDER TO SELF - YOU ARE NOW ON WIKIPEDIA - USE SANDBOX TO COMPOSE YOUR COMMENTS IF THEY ARE LIKELY TO NEED EDITING AFTER POSTING User:Robertinventor/subpages

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Robertinventor, again. . Abecedare (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  • And per that ANI thread, you have been blocked indefinitely. Your appeal route, should you desire it, is to WP:ARBCOM. Courcelles (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

GCR[edit]

Since you recently took part in the discussions, your opinion? See recent talks here. prokaryotes (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Sadly I have been indef blocked from Wikipedia. I still have talk page access but the only appropriate thing to say is just to refer you to the indef block. Sorry about that. Robert Walker (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, sorry just focused on the topic at hand. prokaryotes (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
No problem :). It's not obvious on this page, a short comment in the #ANI section and I can understand how you missed it. I'd make a longer more friendly reply to you but there are risks of giving the impression of trying to evade a block if you say anything more than the minimum so sorry for abruptness. Robert Walker (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Robertinventor/Mars Surface Life[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg User:Robertinventor/Mars Surface Life, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Robertinventor/Mars Surface Life and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Robertinventor/Mars Surface Life during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem. I've copied all my Wikipedia user space files over to my new encyclopedia of astrobiology. They are no use to me here since as a blocked editor I can't edit them. Robert Walker (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Robertinventor (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Firstly, apologies for taking up so much of everyone’s time in the past. If unblocked I will restrict myself to minor edits and corrections for the first three months. After that I will work with collaborators from the start for any major new content. That should prevent the same problems arising in the future.

The background is that I only did one or two major articles a year, usually without collaborators. About a third were deleted suddenly, by editors who hadn't taken part in content creation. It was similar for the Buddhism topic ban but someone else's content not mine. My talk page comments to defend the content lead to all the sanctions for verbosity (for bad faith charges see collapsed section below).

As per WP:OTHERWIKIS I've put all this deleted material into other wikis or blogs[4][5][6][7][8]. This is where I do any new content on these topics now, with a considerable backlog. Most new articles are under Wikipedia compatibe licenses if anyone wants to reuse them here.

I also write for Wikinews occasionally, where I collaborate with other editors[9][10][11][12]. Wikinews articles are reviewed before publication with criteria[13] similar to Good Articles[14]. By collaborating similarly in Wikipedia, and submitting major content for Good article status once finished, any matters of Wikipedia:COMPETENCY such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV, ecyclopedic tone etc would be sorted out during content creation. My most likely topic area for a new article would be microtonal music as for my proposed project[15] with 11 other voters that may include potential collaborators.

However, most articles I edited in Wikipedia involved minor edits. As an example, my Black hole edit[16] is for a Good article[17] with 1,871 watchers[18]. It was immediately reviewed by WolfmanSF[19] who retained the sources and conclusions and made small changes, and in similar form it's also retained in two other articles[20][21]. Two of the other three minor edits I mentioned in the debate are also still there[22][23]. So are nearly all my other minor edits for the year before the indef block, e.g. [24][25][26][27] etc.

The Perigean spring tide edit was reverted[28], but these are rare. WP:BOLD says "if you don't find one of your edits being reverted now and then, perhaps you're not being bold enough".

My minor edits never cause problems to anyone and help reduce errors in Wikipedia[29]. In the year before the block, I fixed over 90 articles[30], with only 2 reverts[31]. I also collaborated with discussion and minor edits on David Meade (author) which got rated as a "Good article"[32]. (Note the cites I removed to myself were added by another editor[33].)

I wish to be unblocked to continue this gnoming activity to benefit Wikipedia. For examples see my backlog of 11 minor edits from the talk pages[34] plus 33 I've noticed since then[35].

I have always been a good faith editor and would like to issue some corrections relating to claims of bad faith editing

Corrections

(expand references section below for the cites)

  • Wikipedia license permits commercial use[36]. There was no problem including a few sentences of a deleted section[[37]] correctly attributed[38].
  • Wikipedia's license also permits dual licensing of your own content[39][1], CC by SA in the material I contributed to the deleted article, and all rights reserved in my book[40].
  • The article I contributed on fringe medicine[41] was in good faith, carefully following the guidelines for such articles in WP:FRINGE, e.g. stating that it is fringe science in the first sentence.
  • The article about my software was WP:COI but not WP:PROMO. I added the article about my software in 2008, before I knew about WP:COI, because I thought it fulfilled Wikipedia's notability requirements. I cited[42][43] "Sound on Sound", which is often used in the topic area to source articles([44][45][46] etc), and a book[47] which has 563 cites in Google Scholar[48]. I added a COI statement to my user page[49] and the article talk page, as soon as I found those guidelines[50].
  • The deleted article[51] described views of others, not myself. Its title was the title of an Astrobiology sub-session[2] and I was doing my best to summarize sources such as NASA who have the search for extant life on Mars as objective B of goal I[3][4].

Previously I was the majority editor of Planetary protection, with 68.8% of it my content (checked with WhoColor). However, there is an overlap with the material the community decided to delete. As a good faith editor, accepting that this is the community decision here, I do not think I'm the one to resolve this.

The relevant section[52] is short and uncited. In my wiki it is expanded and cited[53]. I think it is best if I continue to edit my own version in my wiki. It is of course released under CC by SA if anyone here wishes to use any of the content.

If I have left anything out please ask me about it, thanks!

References
  1. ^ "It is legally possible to add more restrictions than the original license in some cases, for example, releasing a derivative work under all rights reserved which incorporates source materials licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license." Compatibility among different CC licenses
  2. ^ Session Topics (scroll down to find the sesssion below) - ArbSciCon 2017:
    • Theme: Solar System Sites
    • Session: Mars
    • Subsession: Habitability
    • Topic: Modern Mars Habitability
    • Summary:

    Recent discoveries on Mars, including recurring slope lineae, ground ice, and active gully formation, have been interpreted as indications for the transient presence of water. The potential for liquid water on Mars has profound implications for the habitability of the modern Mars environment. This session solicits papers that examine the evidence for habitable environments on Mars, present results about life in analogs to these environments, discuss hypotheses to explain the active processes, evaluate issues for planetary protection, and explore the implications for future explorations of Mars.

  3. ^ Hamilton, V.E., Rafkin, S., Withers, P., Ruff, S., Yingst, R.A., Whitley, R., Center, J.S., Beaty, D.W., Diniega, S., Hays, L. and Zurek, R., Mars Science Goals, Objectives, Investigations, and Priorities: 2015 Version.

    Goal I: determine if Mars ever supported life

    • Objective A: ...[past life].
    • Objective B: determine if environments with high potential for current habitability and expression of biosignatures contain evidence of extant life.
  4. ^ See also third video on the overview page of the NASA Office of Planetary Protection[1], NASA's Planetary protection officer[2] explains why the spacecraft we send to Mars are sterilized, 33 seconds into this videio[3],

    “So we have to do all of our search for life activities, we have to look for the Mars organisms, without the background, without the noise of having released Earth organisms into the Mars environment”

    Please note - I give these three Mars astrobiology cites solely to show that I was a good faith editor, presenting views expressed by others and not myself.

Can I kindly ask you to give me time to respond to any similar reasons given for rejecting the appeal before you vote.

Thank you for your time in considering this appeal.

Decline reason:

I've just read this, together with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Mars habitability and have looked at Modern Mars habitability (the last not in any great detail as I did not have a week to spare), and this unblock request really does not address the problems behind your block as highlighted in those pages. In fact, in this request you are repeating one of those very problems - extreme verbosity.

As your block was made by the community, it would need a further community discussion to reverse. I see no chance of that succeeding based on this unblock request, and so I must decline.

If you wish to make an unblock request that could be presented for discussion, you need to make it brief and to the point, and without extensive "corrections" and dozens of references. And you need to address, seriously, the problems you have exhibited for a significant time with your style of research and writing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:04, 28 May 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.

"My talk page comments to defend the content lead to all the sanctions for verbosity." False! You were blocked for a very extensive list of violations on multiple articles, a consistent pattern you maintained to the end. I hope the administrators reviewing this take look into your history, and at your well established lack of Wikipedia:COMPETENCY. Rowan Forest (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting these points. Hopefully this makes it clearer[54] Robert Walker (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)