User:Robertinventor/Unblock appeal5

From Astrobiology Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Unblock request[edit | hide all | hide | edit source]

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Robertinventor (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (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.

As per WP:OTHERWIKIS the deleted content is now in other wikis or blogs[1][2][3][4][5] and that is where I plan to continue to work on it.

I accept the consensus decision to delete this material from Wikipedia. I am also committed to reducing my word count.

I have a ten year history of Wikignoming with no issues. Only a couple of points discussed relate to wikignoming:

  • Made a minor mistake in Perigean tides.[6]. However WP:BOLD says "Think about it this way: if you don't find one of your edits being reverted now and then, perhaps you're not being bold enough".

The other minor edit discussed in the debate originated in Black hole [7](1,859 watchers[8] and a Good article[9]) where it was immediately reviewed by WolfmanSF[10]. It is still there[11] as are the other two minor edits I mentioned [12][13][14][15] and many others I have contributed over the years.

I ask to be unblocked to return to error fixing which I did most weeks as volunteer editor for Wikipedia. Here are some that I have noticed since I was indef blocked: [16].

I may eventually return to content creation, perhaps microtonal[17]. If so, my plan is to seek collaborators from the start, for encyclopedic tone, WP:RS, WP:NPOV etc. However for now that's for other wikis including my own. Also for Wikinews, where I collaborate with other editors with occasional articles[18] and contributed one major article, an original reporting "scoop"[19]I. What I learn there is likely to help if I do return to content creation here.

There seems to have been a fair bit of confusion in the discussion, so I would like to respond to some of the main points for clarity, but it is collapsed as you may not need to assess them.

Other points
  • I have never used Wikipedia for WP:PROMO. The main cite for Tune Smithy[20], Sound on Sound, is often used for notability in this topic area[21][22][23][24]. I added COI statement[25] once I found guidelines[26].
  • I included a few sentences from a deleted section[27], in a kindle booklet[28] under CC by SA[29]
  • The deleted article on Modern Mars Habitability summarized the cites in good faith and did not present my views. Its title came from an astrobiology sub-session title[1] and I summarized cites such as NASA[2], who I personally evaluate as the pre-eminent WP:RS on Mars astrobiology. .I accept consensus to delete it. Just to clarify intent.
  • The article on fringe medicine[30] followed guidelines from WP:FRINGE like the other fringe medicine articles[31]
  • Wikipedia's content license permits dual licensing[32][3], the same material in Wikipedia under CC by SA and in my online book[33] under "all rights reserved"

Note, previously I was the main editor of Planetary protection (69.3% mine, check with WhoColor[34]). However, if unblocked, I will not return because of connection with deleted material[35][36] but edit my copy[37].

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. 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."

  2. 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: ...[past life].
    • Objective B: determine if environments with high potential for current habitability and expression of biosignatures contain evidence of extant life."

    Please note - I give this and the other cites solely to show that I was presenting views expressed by others and not myself. I am not trying to use these cites to try to say that Wikipedia has to present these views in Life on Mars, or indeed anywhere else. I accept that the consensus community decision has been made to delete this material, 14:1, with me as the only one voting against it.

  3. "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