User:Robertinventor/Unblock appeal: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 30:
I will answer the top five charges briefly
 
* '''''Contributing an article that contradicts statements in Life on Mars[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars#Cumulative_effects] that the Mars surface is known to be sterile [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FModern_Mars_habitability&diff=prev&oldid=855472459 diff], and vigorously attempting to defend the material from deletion.''''' Please don't use Wikipedia as your only source here. For another perspective please watch this short (less than two minutes) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk-Ycp5llEI NASA video by Cassie Conley] and listen to what she says about Mars organisms. That's the third video on the main overview page for the NASA Office of Planetary Protection[https://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/overview]. I defended the deleted article because it presented NASA's views, not mine.
{{cot|Details}}NASA's planetary protection officer is also the author of the quote in that diff about Mars being a giant dinner plate for Earth organisms<ref name=Conley>{{cite news|last1=Chang|first1=Kenneth|title=Mars Is Pretty Clean. Her Job at NASA Is to Keep It That Way.|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/science/mars-catharine-conley-nasa-planetary-protection-officer.html|agency=New York Times|date=October 5, 2015}}
 
Line 48:
* '''''Selling Wikipedia content on kindle''''' It was only a few sentences from a deleted section[https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Water+on+Mars&oldid=556727781&use_engine=0&use_links=0&turnitin=0&action=compare&url=http%3A%2F%2Frobertinventor.com%2Fbooklets%2Fpresentdaymarshabitats.html]. Some editors in the debate were unaware that Wikipedia's license permits commercial use[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_LicenseCreative]. I released the booklet in 2015 under the correct license and attributed Wikipedia with a link back following their guidelines[http://robertinventor.com/booklets/presentdaymarshabitats.html]
* '''''Adding non free content to Wikipeda''''' Some editors were unaware that Wikipedia's license specifically permits dual licensing[https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-enter-into-separate-or-supplemental-agreements-with-users-of-my-work]. As author, I can release my content under CC by SA for Wikipedia, as an act of generosity on my part, and use the same content under a non free license elsewhere. This is what I did with some sections of my book released in 2017[http://robertinventor.com/booklets/If_humans_touch_Mars.htm]
* '''''Using Wikipedia to promote my blog'''''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=prev&oldid=855490367] It was the other way around. I started my blog in 2013 with material deleted from Wikipedia. I explain this to readers of my blog[https://www.science20.com/robert_inventor/blog/mars_sample_receiving_facility_and_sample_containment-116050]. Telling my readers that the material was rejected from Wikipedia could hardy be further from using it to give my blog credibility! I never linked to my blog from Wikipedia articles.
 
I can answer all the remaining charges too. They also are mistaken. However this would take this well over the recommended 500 word limit, and it is already slightly over. I have provided responses in my astrobiology wiki[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Unblock_appeal_supplemental].
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.

Navigation menu