User:Robertinventor/Unblock appeal3

From Astrobiology Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Unblock request[edit | hide | hide all]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Robertinventor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request 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.

The main issues arose when

  • I (or someone else) added substantial new content
  • spent a long time over it
  • another editor suddenly deleted it.
  • and I try to defend it

I am aware I tend to become more verbose when this happens, it’s my academic background kicking in!

As per WP:OTHERWIKIS we have made new wikis to host the deleted content[1][2].

I will

  • do most substantial editing in my own wikis.

If I wish to do a substantial edit in Wikipedia, I will

  • Seek co-editors also keen on the project, with diverse views. .
  • They will help with encyclopedic tone, notability, reliable sources and WP:NPOV.

This will ensure it is suitable at every stage of the process.

I am also committed to reducing my word count.

The closing admin didn't pick out any particular points[[3]]. Please let me know if I need to answer more.

  • Never used Wikipedia for WP:PROMO.Tune Smithy, added in 2008 was cited to Sound on Sound often used as a cite for this topic[4]. When I discovered WP:COI guidelines in 2011, I added a COI statement[5].
  • Commercial use - Wikipedia's license[6] permits this. Only a couple of sentences in my 2015 booklet were by other editors anyway[7].
  • 'Non free content - Wikipedia's license permits dual licensing[8][1]: CC by SA here, all rights reserved in my 2017 book[9].
  • Never contributed my own WP:POV or intentional WP:OR. The title of the deleted article came from an astrobiology conference sub session[2]. I sourced the mainstream view to NASA, such as NASA'S MEPAG Goals for Mars Exploration[3], and as expressed in this short (less than two minutes) official NASA video, third on the main overview page for NASA's Office of Planetary Protection[10].. The dinner plate analogy is a quote from the speaker in that video. I accept the community decision to delete my article.
  • I did contribute a WP:FRINGE science article in medicine in 2015[11]. However it states that it is fringe science as the first sentence, links to the main article on the topic, which didn't link back, and such articles do not follow MEDRS. My model wasChronic Lyme disease. I never edited the main article[12], wasn't sanctioned, left the topic in 2016[13] and never returned.
  • Made a minor mistake in Perigean tides. However [WP:BOLD] says "". The other minor edit criticized is identical to the paragraph in Black Holes added in [][] which is a Good article since 2010[14]. Some of the 1,859 watchers[15] would have checked the cites were reliable and summarized accurately. It is true that when I copied it to Hawking Radiation I did not notice that one of the sentences didn't match the title of the section.

I only occasinally added substantial content to Wikipedia, and our other wikis take up a lot of my time now.

My main work was wikignoming, error fixing, and this is what I want to return to do. For instance the Chicxulub article says the impactor diameter ranges from 11 to 81 km. The usual range is 10 - 15 km. Their cite is to a preprint in arxiv.org which only gets moderation to categorize articles. It was never published. The 81 is likely a typo for 18. Here are other examples I've noticed since the block[16], and including three[17] that I offered to do and was told to go ahead, but sadly I didn't notice this until after I was blocked.

When I have time I may also return to my work on patrolling proposals for deletion[18], and my work on microtonal music including the Microtonal Music project proposal "to do" list[19]

Thank you for your time in considering this appeal.

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.
  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 - 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: [about past life]
    • Objective B: determine if environments with high potential for current habitability and expression of biosignatures contain evidence of extant life."
Retrieved from "https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Unblock_appeal3?oldid=9846"
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
More information