User:Robertinventor/Unblock appeal2
This is a draft for an appeal for my indef block in Wikipedia
Unblock request
Robertinventor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Most of the issues arose when I or another author added substantial new content, spent a long time over it, and another editor suddenly deleted it. I become verbose when I try to defend it from deletion.
All this deleted material is now in other Wikis, such as Dorje108's Encyclopedia of Buddhism[1], and my new Encyclopedia of Astrobiology[2].
My plan if unblocked is to do most of my substantial editing in my own wikis. If I do anything like that here, I will endeavour to find support of co-editors with diverse views first. I also recommend this to friends. Co-editors will also help with gray area issues of encyclopedic tone, notability, reliable sources and WP:NPOV. This will help ensure that everyone is in agreement that the material is suitable for Wikipedia as the article progresses.
I will also continue to work on reducing my word count in talk page conversations, but if I avoid the situation where I defend material from deletion it's not likely to be an issue.
It is not easy to know what to answer by way of the other points, because there was no consensus and the closing admin just said "Closing with a consensus towards an indef block, plus my own admin judgment in that direction"[3]. I will answer a few, please ask if there are more I need to reply to.
I have never used Wikipedia for WP:PROMO. I added the Tune Smithy article in 2008, because it was cited to Sound on Sound similarly to other material in the topic area, before I discovered guidelines on Conflict of Interest. When I discovered those guidelines in 2011, I did a CoI statement.
For the issue of commercial use, other editors were not aware that the Wikipedia license permits me to use its content in a kindle booklet, which I published in 2015, and only a couple of sentences were by other editors anyway.
For the non free content, editors were not aware that CC by SA permits dual licensing, so that as author, I can release the same content here under CC by SA and in my 2017 book under a non free license.
I have never put my own views into Wikipedia. I was endeavouring to express NASA's views in the deleted article, such as the views expressed in this short (less than two minutes) official NASA video, third on the main overview page for the NASA Office of Planetary Protection[4]. If unblocked I will keep well away from the topic of Mars astrobiology. I have no intention of appealing the Buddhism appeal either. Everything else mentioned is from years ago.
If you unblock me then I will be editing in my own wikis most of the time but I can usefully help Wikipedia fixing errors in the articles and in some other areas.Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
- {{Unblock on hold | 1=blocking administrator | 2=Apologies for taking up so much time before, have learned my lesson and would love to get back to contributing, no hard feelings. Most of the issues arose when I or another author added substantial new content, spent a long time over it, and another editor suddenly deleted it. I become verbose when I try to defend it from deletion. All this deleted material is now in other Wikis, such as Dorje108's Encyclopedia of Buddhism[https://encyclopediaofbuddhism.org], and my new Encyclopedia of Astrobiology[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org]. My plan if unblocked is to do most of my substantial editing in my own wikis. If I do anything like that here, I will endeavour to find support of co-editors with diverse views first. I also recommend this to friends. Co-editors will also help with gray area issues of encyclopedic tone, notability, reliable sources and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view WP:NPOV]. This will help ensure that everyone is in agreement that the material is suitable for Wikipedia as the article progresses. I will also continue to work on reducing my word count in talk page conversations, but if I avoid the situation where I defend material from deletion it's not likely to be an issue. It is not easy to know what to answer by way of the other points, because there was no consensus and the closing admin just said ''"Closing with a consensus towards an indef block, plus my own admin judgment in that direction"''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=855723651#User:Robertinventor,_again]. I will answer a few, please ask if there are more I need to reply to. I have never used Wikipedia for WP:PROMO. I added the Tune Smithy article in 2008, because it was cited to Sound on Sound similarly to other material in the topic area, before I discovered guidelines on Conflict of Interest. When I discovered those guidelines in 2011, I did a CoI statement. For the issue of commercial use, other editors were not aware that the Wikipedia license permits me to use its content in a kindle booklet, which I published in 2015, and only a couple of sentences were by other editors anyway. For the non free content, editors were not aware that CC by SA permits dual licensing, so that as author, I can release the same content here under CC by SA and in my 2017 book under a non free license. I have never put my own views into Wikipedia. I was endeavouring to express NASA's views in the deleted article, such as the views expressed in this short (less than two minutes) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk-Ycp5llEI official NASA video], third on the main overview page for the NASA Office of Planetary Protection[https://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/overview]. If unblocked I will keep well away from the topic of Mars astrobiology. I have no intention of appealing the Buddhism appeal either. Everything else mentioned is from years ago. If you unblock me then I will be editing in my own wikis most of the time but I can usefully help Wikipedia fixing errors in the articles and in some other areas. | 3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
- {{unblock reviewed | 1=Apologies for taking up so much time before, have learned my lesson and would love to get back to contributing, no hard feelings. Most of the issues arose when I or another author added substantial new content, spent a long time over it, and another editor suddenly deleted it. I become verbose when I try to defend it from deletion. All this deleted material is now in other Wikis, such as Dorje108's Encyclopedia of Buddhism[https://encyclopediaofbuddhism.org], and my new Encyclopedia of Astrobiology[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org]. My plan if unblocked is to do most of my substantial editing in my own wikis. If I do anything like that here, I will endeavour to find support of co-editors with diverse views first. I also recommend this to friends. Co-editors will also help with gray area issues of encyclopedic tone, notability, reliable sources and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view WP:NPOV]. This will help ensure that everyone is in agreement that the material is suitable for Wikipedia as the article progresses. I will also continue to work on reducing my word count in talk page conversations, but if I avoid the situation where I defend material from deletion it's not likely to be an issue. It is not easy to know what to answer by way of the other points, because there was no consensus and the closing admin just said ''"Closing with a consensus towards an indef block, plus my own admin judgment in that direction"''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=855723651#User:Robertinventor,_again]. I will answer a few, please ask if there are more I need to reply to. I have never used Wikipedia for WP:PROMO. I added the Tune Smithy article in 2008, because it was cited to Sound on Sound similarly to other material in the topic area, before I discovered guidelines on Conflict of Interest. When I discovered those guidelines in 2011, I did a CoI statement. For the issue of commercial use, other editors were not aware that the Wikipedia license permits me to use its content in a kindle booklet, which I published in 2015, and only a couple of sentences were by other editors anyway. For the non free content, editors were not aware that CC by SA permits dual licensing, so that as author, I can release the same content here under CC by SA and in my 2017 book under a non free license. I have never put my own views into Wikipedia. I was endeavouring to express NASA's views in the deleted article, such as the views expressed in this short (less than two minutes) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk-Ycp5llEI official NASA video], third on the main overview page for the NASA Office of Planetary Protection[https://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/overview]. If unblocked I will keep well away from the topic of Mars astrobiology. I have no intention of appealing the Buddhism appeal either. Everything else mentioned is from years ago. If you unblock me then I will be editing in my own wikis most of the time but I can usefully help Wikipedia fixing errors in the articles and in some other areas. | decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting accept reason here with your rationale:
- {{unblock reviewed | 1=Apologies for taking up so much time before, have learned my lesson and would love to get back to contributing, no hard feelings. Most of the issues arose when I or another author added substantial new content, spent a long time over it, and another editor suddenly deleted it. I become verbose when I try to defend it from deletion. All this deleted material is now in other Wikis, such as Dorje108's Encyclopedia of Buddhism[https://encyclopediaofbuddhism.org], and my new Encyclopedia of Astrobiology[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org]. My plan if unblocked is to do most of my substantial editing in my own wikis. If I do anything like that here, I will endeavour to find support of co-editors with diverse views first. I also recommend this to friends. Co-editors will also help with gray area issues of encyclopedic tone, notability, reliable sources and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view WP:NPOV]. This will help ensure that everyone is in agreement that the material is suitable for Wikipedia as the article progresses. I will also continue to work on reducing my word count in talk page conversations, but if I avoid the situation where I defend material from deletion it's not likely to be an issue. It is not easy to know what to answer by way of the other points, because there was no consensus and the closing admin just said ''"Closing with a consensus towards an indef block, plus my own admin judgment in that direction"''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=855723651#User:Robertinventor,_again]. I will answer a few, please ask if there are more I need to reply to. I have never used Wikipedia for WP:PROMO. I added the Tune Smithy article in 2008, because it was cited to Sound on Sound similarly to other material in the topic area, before I discovered guidelines on Conflict of Interest. When I discovered those guidelines in 2011, I did a CoI statement. For the issue of commercial use, other editors were not aware that the Wikipedia license permits me to use its content in a kindle booklet, which I published in 2015, and only a couple of sentences were by other editors anyway. For the non free content, editors were not aware that CC by SA permits dual licensing, so that as author, I can release the same content here under CC by SA and in my 2017 book under a non free license. I have never put my own views into Wikipedia. I was endeavouring to express NASA's views in the deleted article, such as the views expressed in this short (less than two minutes) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk-Ycp5llEI official NASA video], third on the main overview page for the NASA Office of Planetary Protection[https://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/overview]. If unblocked I will keep well away from the topic of Mars astrobiology. I have no intention of appealing the Buddhism appeal either. Everything else mentioned is from years ago. If you unblock me then I will be editing in my own wikis most of the time but I can usefully help Wikipedia fixing errors in the articles and in some other areas. | accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
