Astrobiology Wiki

User:Robertinventor/Unblock appeal3

< User:Robertinventor
Revision as of 11:25, 30 April 2019 by Robertinventor (talk | contribs) (→‎Unblock request)

Unblock request

 
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, and 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].

If unblocked I aim to focus mainly on fixing errors.

I will

  • do most substantial editing in my own wikis.

In Wikipedia, if I do this at all, 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 the material is suitable for Wikipedia before I start, and at every stage along the way.

I am also committed to reducing my word count.

It is not easy to know what to answer by way of the other points, 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 let me know if I need to answer more.

  • I have never used Wikipedia for WP:PROMO. My Tune Smithy article in 2008 was cited to Sound on Sound similarly to other material in the topic area[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].
  • None of the material was my own WP:POV or intentionally WP:OR. The title of the deleted article came from an astrobiology conference sub session[2]. The views I tried to express mostly came from NASA, as in this short (less than two minutes) official NASA video, third on the main overview page for the NASA Office of Planetary Protection[10]. It had many cites I assessed to be of highest reliability such as review articles. I accept the community decision to delete it.
  • I did contribute an article on fringe medicine in 201 . However it followed all the guidelines for such articles. It said that the topic is WP:FRINGE in the first sentence, linked to the main article on the topic, and I didn't edit the main article to link back. I wasn't sanctioned, left the topic in 2016 and never returned.
  • I did make 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[11]. Some of the 1859 watchers[12] 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[13], and including three[14] 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[15], and my work on microtonal music including the Microtonal Music project proposal "to do" list[16]

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.

Retrieved from "https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Unblock_appeal3?oldid=9833"