User:Robertinventor/Unblock appeal8: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(Created page with "==Unblock request== <nowiki></nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Firstly, apologies for taking up so much of everyone’s time in the past. With guidance from friends, I have been able...") |
No edit summary |
||
Line 3:
<nowiki></nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Firstly, apologies for taking up so much of everyone’s time in the past. With guidance from friends, I have been able to learn valuable lessons on Wiki editing. I would now like to re-engage, mainly as a wikignome, with no hard feelings on my side.
I am a good faith editor, always have been, and want to find a way to return to Wikipedia editing.
I accept the community decision to delete this material. This is just to affirm good faith. All the other matters raised in the debate were good faith edits, as a result of reading the guidelines and following them to the best of my ability. I could go through them all but was advised I shouldn't issue "corrections".
About half the articles I made were deleted, which is clearly an issue. So how do I show that I can do editing that is okay?
I am aware I tend to become more verbose when this happens, it’s my academic background kicking in!▼
Well, most of the issues arose when I worked on material '''''By myself''''' for a long time and then it was suddenly deleted.
My plan is to avoid that situation for the future. I am also committed to reducing my word count. I will do minor edits and corrections for six months. After that, to do any major content with collaborators from the start. I already do this on Wikinews[https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:NASA%27s_InSight_Lander_makes_it_to_Mars][https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Mysterious_dimming_of_Tabby%27s_star_likely_due_to_space_dust,_not_alien_superstructures,_say_scientists][https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Simple_animals_could_live_in_Martian_brines:_Wikinews_interviews_planetary_scientist_Vlada_Stamenkovi%C4%87#Review_of_revision_4457552_%5BPassed%5D][https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Sun%27s_mood_swings_not_so_strange_after_all,_say_scientists]. After completing it together we'd submit it for review as a Good Article, similarly to WikiNews. Also similarly to this article where I contributed mionr edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Meade_(author)] and it was eventually passed as a Good article[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Meade_(author)&diff=prev&oldid=830640681] which retains all the cites I added.▼
▲Note, I never edit war. Just talk. I am aware I tend to become more verbose when this happens, it’s my academic background kicking in!
As per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_was_the_page_I_created_deleted%3F#If_all_else_fails,_try_another_wiki WP:OTHERWIKIS] the deleted content is in other wikis or blogs. I accept the consensus decision to delete it here.▼
So I need to find a way to avoid that situation in the future. I do write good content here. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection Planetary protection] article is 68.8% mine (checked with WhoColor[https://f-squared.org/whovisual/]). More than half the cites were added by me. I think that is good evidence that I can write good content given that the editor who was most strongly in favour of deleting my article is one of its editors, contributing 5.7% of its content under the names of BatteryIncluded and Rowan Forest. If there were any major issues with the cites I added, for instance, she would have removed them, and she didn't.
I am also the main editor of Hexany[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hexany, and there was an AfD on this early on and the article was retained which is proof that there is at least something there other editors thought worth including. I contributed mionr edits to another article[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Meade_(author)] which was later passed as a Good article[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Meade_(author)&diff=prev&oldid=830640681] which retains all the cites I added.
In the year before the block, I fixed over 90 articles[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20180731235959&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Robertinventor&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=&end=2018-07-31], with only 2 reverts[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Wikipedia_minor_fixes_examples#Articles_to_fix]. I have a ten year history of Wikignoming with no issues raised before the indef block. ▼
▲In the year before the block, I fixed over 90 articles[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20180731235959&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Robertinventor&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=&end=2018-07-31], with only 2 reverts[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Wikipedia_minor_fixes_examples#Articles_to_fix]. I have a ten year history of Wikignoming with no issues raised before the indef block.
▲The other minor edit discussed originated in Black hole and has not been reverted. Black hole has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_hole&diff=prev&oldid=852417737](1,859 watchers[https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Black_hole] and a Good article[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_hole&oldid=382081986]) where it was immediately reviewed by WolfmanSF[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_hole&type=revision&diff=852426575&oldid=852418871]. It is still there[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#cite_ref-Frautschi1982_139-0] as are the other two I mentioned [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stellar_population&type=revision&diff=844844779&oldid=844322513][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Megatsunami&type=revision&diff=848088930&oldid=843120593][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatsunami#cite_ref-MegatsunamiStudyFlawed_23-0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_population#cite_ref-21].
I hope this is enough evidence to see that I am an editor who is an asset to Wikipedia.
▲I have always been a good faith editor. The deleted article was my best attempt to present views of others, not myself, e.g. ''"one giant dinner plate for Earth organisms"'' quotes NASA's planetary protection officer[http://deletionpedia.org/en/Modern_Mars_habitability#cite_ref-32], and the eutectics section describes work of Toner et al[http://deletionpedia.org/en/Modern_Mars_habitability#cite_ref-TonerCatling2014_29-1], which I forgot to cite in the previous sections.
▲My plan is to
▲As per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_was_the_page_I_created_deleted%3F#If_all_else_fails,_try_another_wiki WP:OTHERWIKIS] the deleted content is in other wikis or blogs. I accept the consensus decision to delete it here. I will be avoiding all the topic areas in which may content was previously deleted.
▲Note, I was main editor of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection Planetary protection] (68.8% mine, check with WhoColor[https://f-squared.org/whovisual/]). However, if unblocked, I will not even do minor edits because of connection with deleted material[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection#Mars_special_regions][https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/Planetary_protection#Mars_special_regions], but edit my copy[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/Planetary_protection#Mars_special_regions].
I ask to be unblocked to return to minor edits[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Wikipedia_minor_fixes_examples] which is what I worked on most weeks as volunteer editor for Wikipedia. And if the community consider this is appropriate I may eventually also return to major content. Most weeks I did minor edits and corrections and if you think I shoudl only do wikignoming, that is actually the main reason I wish to be unblocked. For instance the Chicxulub article says that the impactor could have been up to 81 km in diameter. It cites a never published preprint for this figure which is clearly a typo for 18 km, the usual range given is 10 - 15 km. I wish to fix errors like that[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Wikipedia_minor_fixes_examples].
Thank you for your time in considering this appeal.
|