(Created page with "==Unblock request== <nowiki></nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Firstly, apologies for taking up so much of everyone’s time in the past. With guidance from friends, I have been able...")
<nowiki></nowiki>{{unblock|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.
<nowiki></nowiki>{{unblock|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.
I am a good faith editor, always have been, and want to find a way to return to Wikipedia editing.
The deleted article was my best attempt to present views of others, not myself, e.g. ''"one giant dinner plate for Earth organisms"'' quotes NASA's planetary protection officer[http://deletionpedia.org/en/Modern_Mars_habitability#cite_ref-32], and the eutectics section describes work of Toner et al[http://deletionpedia.org/en/Modern_Mars_habitability#cite_ref-TonerCatling2014_29-1], which I forgot to cite in the previous sections. Rather than cite myself here, I remove cites[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=820822757].
I accept the community decision to delete this material. This is just to affirm good faith. All the other matters raised in the debate were good faith edits, as a result of reading the guidelines and following them to the best of my ability. I could go through them all but was advised I shouldn't issue "corrections".
* I authored substantial new content by myself
* another editor (not a collaborator) suddenly deleted it or nominated it.
* and I posted to talk pages to try to get it restored or kept. Note, I never edit war. Just talk.
About half the articles I made were deleted, which is clearly an issue. So how do I show that I can do editing that is okay?
My plan is to avoid that situation for the future. I am also committed to reducing my word count. I will do minor edits and corrections for six months. After that, to do any major content with collaborators from the start. I already do this on Wikinews[https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:NASA%27s_InSight_Lander_makes_it_to_Mars][https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Mysterious_dimming_of_Tabby%27s_star_likely_due_to_space_dust,_not_alien_superstructures,_say_scientists][https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Simple_animals_could_live_in_Martian_brines:_Wikinews_interviews_planetary_scientist_Vlada_Stamenkovi%C4%87#Review_of_revision_4457552_%5BPassed%5D][https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Sun%27s_mood_swings_not_so_strange_after_all,_say_scientists]. After completing it together we'd submit it for review as a Good Article, similarly to WikiNews. Also similarly to this article where I contributed mionr edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Meade_(author)] and it was eventually passed as a Good article[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Meade_(author)&diff=prev&oldid=830640681] which retains all the cites I added.
As per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_was_the_page_I_created_deleted%3F#If_all_else_fails,_try_another_wiki WP:OTHERWIKIS] the deleted content is in other wikis or blogs. I accept the consensus decision to delete it here.
So I need to find a way to avoid that situation in the future. I do write good content here. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection Planetary protection] article is 68.8% mine (checked with WhoColor[https://f-squared.org/whovisual/]). More than half the cites were added by me. I think that is good evidence that I can write good content given that the editor who was most strongly in favour of deleting my article is one of its editors, contributing 5.7% of its content under the names of BatteryIncluded and Rowan Forest. If there were any major issues with the cites I added, for instance, she would have removed them, and she didn't.
The closing admin didn't pick out any particular points[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=855723651#User:Robertinventor,_again].
If unblocked, I will not even do minor edits because of connection with deleted material[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection#Mars_special_regions][https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/Planetary_protection#Mars_special_regions], but edit my copy[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/Planetary_protection#Mars_special_regions]. However, that my content was retained surely shows that I can write good material here.
Only one contributoer to the discussion mentioned wikignoming.
I am also the main editor of Hexany[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hexany, and there was an AfD on this early on and the article was retained which is proof that there is at least something there other editors thought worth including. I contributed mionr edits to another article[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Meade_(author)] which was later passed as a Good article[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Meade_(author)&diff=prev&oldid=830640681] which retains all the cites I added.
* '''''Yes, I made a minor mistake in Perigean tides'''''.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Perigean_spring_tide#Confusing_first_paragraph]. However [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold 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"''.
My minor edit of Black Hole[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_hole&diff=prev&oldid=852417737] was of an article with (1,859 watchers[https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Black_hole] and it is a Good article[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_hole&oldid=382081986]) where it was immediately reviewed by WolfmanSF[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_hole&type=revision&diff=852426575&oldid=852418871]. It is still there[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#cite_ref-Frautschi1982_139-0]
In the year before the block, I fixed over 90 articles[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20180731235959&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Robertinventor&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=&end=2018-07-31], with only 2 reverts[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Wikipedia_minor_fixes_examples#Articles_to_fix]. I have a ten year history of Wikignoming with no issues raised before the indef block.
In the year before the block, I fixed over 90 articles[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20180731235959&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Robertinventor&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=&end=2018-07-31], with only 2 reverts[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Wikipedia_minor_fixes_examples#Articles_to_fix]. I have a ten year history of Wikignoming with no issues raised before the indef block.
The other minor edit discussed originated in Black hole and has not been reverted. Black hole has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_hole&diff=prev&oldid=852417737](1,859 watchers[https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Black_hole] and a Good article[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_hole&oldid=382081986]) where it was immediately reviewed by WolfmanSF[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_hole&type=revision&diff=852426575&oldid=852418871]. It is still there[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#cite_ref-Frautschi1982_139-0] as are the other two I mentioned [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stellar_population&type=revision&diff=844844779&oldid=844322513][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Megatsunami&type=revision&diff=848088930&oldid=843120593][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatsunami#cite_ref-MegatsunamiStudyFlawed_23-0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_population#cite_ref-21].
I hope this is enough evidence to see that I am an editor who is an asset to Wikipedia.
I have always been a good faith editor. The deleted article was my best attempt to present views of others, not myself, e.g. ''"one giant dinner plate for Earth organisms"'' quotes NASA's planetary protection officer[http://deletionpedia.org/en/Modern_Mars_habitability#cite_ref-32], and the eutectics section describes work of Toner et al[http://deletionpedia.org/en/Modern_Mars_habitability#cite_ref-TonerCatling2014_29-1], which I forgot to cite in the previous sections.
My plan is to do minor edits and corrections for six months. After that, to do any major content with collaborators from the start. I already do this on Wikinews[https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:NASA%27s_InSight_Lander_makes_it_to_Mars][https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Mysterious_dimming_of_Tabby%27s_star_likely_due_to_space_dust,_not_alien_superstructures,_say_scientists][https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Simple_animals_could_live_in_Martian_brines:_Wikinews_interviews_planetary_scientist_Vlada_Stamenkovi%C4%87#Review_of_revision_4457552_%5BPassed%5D][https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Sun%27s_mood_swings_not_so_strange_after_all,_say_scientists]. After completing it together we'd submit it for review as a Good Article, similarly to WikiNews.
I accept the community decision to delete this material. I just want to affirm good faith. I have always done the very best I can to improve Wikipedia. Rather than cite myself here, I remove cites[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=820822757].
As per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_was_the_page_I_created_deleted%3F#If_all_else_fails,_try_another_wiki WP:OTHERWIKIS] the deleted content is in other wikis or blogs. I accept the consensus decision to delete it here. I will be avoiding all the topic areas in which may content was previously deleted.
Note, I was main editor of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection Planetary protection] (68.8% mine, check with WhoColor[https://f-squared.org/whovisual/]). However, if unblocked, I will not even do minor edits because of connection with deleted material[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection#Mars_special_regions][https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/Planetary_protection#Mars_special_regions], but edit my copy[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/Planetary_protection#Mars_special_regions].
I ask to be unblocked to return to minor edits[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Wikipedia_minor_fixes_examples] which is what I worked on most weeks as volunteer editor for Wikipedia.
I ask to be unblocked to return to minor edits[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Wikipedia_minor_fixes_examples] which is what I worked on most weeks as volunteer editor for Wikipedia. And if the community consider this is appropriate I may eventually also return to major content. Most weeks I did minor edits and corrections and if you think I shoudl only do wikignoming, that is actually the main reason I wish to be unblocked. For instance the Chicxulub article says that the impactor could have been up to 81 km in diameter. It cites a never published preprint for this figure which is clearly a typo for 18 km, the usual range given is 10 - 15 km. I wish to fix errors like that[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Wikipedia_minor_fixes_examples].
Thank you for your time in considering this appeal.
Thank you for your time in considering this appeal.
Revision as of 11:57, 31 May 2019
Unblock request
This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed:
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.
I am a good faith editor, always have been, and want to find a way to return to Wikipedia editing.
The deleted article was my best attempt to present views of others, not myself, e.g. "one giant dinner plate for Earth organisms" quotes NASA's planetary protection officer[1], and the eutectics section describes work of Toner et al[2], which I forgot to cite in the previous sections. Rather than cite myself here, I remove cites[3].
I accept the community decision to delete this material. This is just to affirm good faith. All the other matters raised in the debate were good faith edits, as a result of reading the guidelines and following them to the best of my ability. I could go through them all but was advised I shouldn't issue "corrections".
About half the articles I made were deleted, which is clearly an issue. So how do I show that I can do editing that is okay?
Well, most of the issues arose when I worked on material By myself for a long time and then it was suddenly deleted.
Note, I never edit war. Just talk. I am aware I tend to become more verbose when this happens, it’s my academic background kicking in!
So I need to find a way to avoid that situation in the future. I do write good content here. The Planetary protection article is 68.8% mine (checked with WhoColor[4]). More than half the cites were added by me. I think that is good evidence that I can write good content given that the editor who was most strongly in favour of deleting my article is one of its editors, contributing 5.7% of its content under the names of BatteryIncluded and Rowan Forest. If there were any major issues with the cites I added, for instance, she would have removed them, and she didn't.
If unblocked, I will not even do minor edits because of connection with deleted material[5][6], but edit my copy[7]. However, that my content was retained surely shows that I can write good material here.
My minor edit of Black Hole[9] was of an article with (1,859 watchers[10] and it is a Good article[11]) where it was immediately reviewed by WolfmanSF[12]. It is still there[13]
In the year before the block, I fixed over 90 articles[14], with only 2 reverts[15]. I have a ten year history of Wikignoming with no issues raised before the indef block.
I hope this is enough evidence to see that I am an editor who is an asset to Wikipedia.
My plan is to do minor edits and corrections for six months. After that, to do any major content with collaborators from the start. I already do this on Wikinews[16][17][18][19]. After completing it together we'd submit it for review as a Good Article, similarly to WikiNews.
As per WP:OTHERWIKIS the deleted content is in other wikis or blogs. I accept the consensus decision to delete it here. I will be avoiding all the topic areas in which may content was previously deleted.
I ask to be unblocked to return to minor edits[20] which is what I worked on most weeks as volunteer editor for Wikipedia. And if the community consider this is appropriate I may eventually also return to major content. Most weeks I did minor edits and corrections and if you think I shoudl only do wikignoming, that is actually the main reason I wish to be unblocked. For instance the Chicxulub article says that the impactor could have been up to 81 km in diameter. It cites a never published preprint for this figure which is clearly a typo for 18 km, the usual range given is 10 - 15 km. I wish to fix errors like that[21].
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.
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=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.
I am a good faith editor, always have been, and want to find a way to return to Wikipedia editing.
The deleted article was my best attempt to present views of others, not myself, e.g. ''"one giant dinner plate for Earth organisms"'' quotes NASA's planetary protection officer[http://deletionpedia.org/en/Modern_Mars_habitability#cite_ref-32], and the eutectics section describes work of Toner et al[http://deletionpedia.org/en/Modern_Mars_habitability#cite_ref-TonerCatling2014_29-1], which I forgot to cite in the previous sections. Rather than cite myself here, I remove cites[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=820822757].
I accept the community decision to delete this material. This is just to affirm good faith. All the other matters raised in the debate were good faith edits, as a result of reading the guidelines and following them to the best of my ability. I could go through them all but was advised I shouldn't issue "corrections".
About half the articles I made were deleted, which is clearly an issue. So how do I show that I can do editing that is okay?
Well, most of the issues arose when I worked on material '''''By myself''''' for a long time and then it was suddenly deleted.
Note, I never edit war. Just talk. I am aware I tend to become more verbose when this happens, it’s my academic background kicking in!
So I need to find a way to avoid that situation in the future. I do write good content here. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection Planetary protection] article is 68.8% mine (checked with WhoColor[https://f-squared.org/whovisual/]). More than half the cites were added by me. I think that is good evidence that I can write good content given that the editor who was most strongly in favour of deleting my article is one of its editors, contributing 5.7% of its content under the names of BatteryIncluded and Rowan Forest. If there were any major issues with the cites I added, for instance, she would have removed them, and she didn't.
If unblocked, I will not even do minor edits because of connection with deleted material[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection#Mars_special_regions][https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/Planetary_protection#Mars_special_regions], but edit my copy[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/Planetary_protection#Mars_special_regions]. However, that my content was retained surely shows that I can write good material here.
I am also the main editor of Hexany[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hexany, and there was an AfD on this early on and the article was retained which is proof that there is at least something there other editors thought worth including. I contributed mionr edits to another article[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Meade_(author)] which was later passed as a Good article[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Meade_(author)&diff=prev&oldid=830640681] which retains all the cites I added.
My minor edit of Black Hole[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_hole&diff=prev&oldid=852417737] was of an article with (1,859 watchers[https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Black_hole] and it is a Good article[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_hole&oldid=382081986]) where it was immediately reviewed by WolfmanSF[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_hole&type=revision&diff=852426575&oldid=852418871]. It is still there[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#cite_ref-Frautschi1982_139-0]
In the year before the block, I fixed over 90 articles[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20180731235959&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Robertinventor&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=&end=2018-07-31], with only 2 reverts[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Wikipedia_minor_fixes_examples#Articles_to_fix]. I have a ten year history of Wikignoming with no issues raised before the indef block.
I hope this is enough evidence to see that I am an editor who is an asset to Wikipedia.
My plan is to do minor edits and corrections for six months. After that, to do any major content with collaborators from the start. I already do this on Wikinews[https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:NASA%27s_InSight_Lander_makes_it_to_Mars][https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Mysterious_dimming_of_Tabby%27s_star_likely_due_to_space_dust,_not_alien_superstructures,_say_scientists][https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Simple_animals_could_live_in_Martian_brines:_Wikinews_interviews_planetary_scientist_Vlada_Stamenkovi%C4%87#Review_of_revision_4457552_%5BPassed%5D][https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Sun%27s_mood_swings_not_so_strange_after_all,_say_scientists]. After completing it together we'd submit it for review as a Good Article, similarly to WikiNews.
As per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_was_the_page_I_created_deleted%3F#If_all_else_fails,_try_another_wiki WP:OTHERWIKIS] the deleted content is in other wikis or blogs. I accept the consensus decision to delete it here. I will be avoiding all the topic areas in which may content was previously deleted.
I ask to be unblocked to return to minor edits[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Wikipedia_minor_fixes_examples] which is what I worked on most weeks as volunteer editor for Wikipedia. And if the community consider this is appropriate I may eventually also return to major content. Most weeks I did minor edits and corrections and if you think I shoudl only do wikignoming, that is actually the main reason I wish to be unblocked. For instance the Chicxulub article says that the impactor could have been up to 81 km in diameter. It cites a never published preprint for this figure which is clearly a typo for 18 km, the usual range given is 10 - 15 km. I wish to fix errors like that[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Wikipedia_minor_fixes_examples].
Thank you for your time in considering this appeal. | 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=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.
I am a good faith editor, always have been, and want to find a way to return to Wikipedia editing.
The deleted article was my best attempt to present views of others, not myself, e.g. ''"one giant dinner plate for Earth organisms"'' quotes NASA's planetary protection officer[http://deletionpedia.org/en/Modern_Mars_habitability#cite_ref-32], and the eutectics section describes work of Toner et al[http://deletionpedia.org/en/Modern_Mars_habitability#cite_ref-TonerCatling2014_29-1], which I forgot to cite in the previous sections. Rather than cite myself here, I remove cites[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=820822757].
I accept the community decision to delete this material. This is just to affirm good faith. All the other matters raised in the debate were good faith edits, as a result of reading the guidelines and following them to the best of my ability. I could go through them all but was advised I shouldn't issue "corrections".
About half the articles I made were deleted, which is clearly an issue. So how do I show that I can do editing that is okay?
Well, most of the issues arose when I worked on material '''''By myself''''' for a long time and then it was suddenly deleted.
Note, I never edit war. Just talk. I am aware I tend to become more verbose when this happens, it’s my academic background kicking in!
So I need to find a way to avoid that situation in the future. I do write good content here. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection Planetary protection] article is 68.8% mine (checked with WhoColor[https://f-squared.org/whovisual/]). More than half the cites were added by me. I think that is good evidence that I can write good content given that the editor who was most strongly in favour of deleting my article is one of its editors, contributing 5.7% of its content under the names of BatteryIncluded and Rowan Forest. If there were any major issues with the cites I added, for instance, she would have removed them, and she didn't.
If unblocked, I will not even do minor edits because of connection with deleted material[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection#Mars_special_regions][https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/Planetary_protection#Mars_special_regions], but edit my copy[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/Planetary_protection#Mars_special_regions]. However, that my content was retained surely shows that I can write good material here.
I am also the main editor of Hexany[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hexany, and there was an AfD on this early on and the article was retained which is proof that there is at least something there other editors thought worth including. I contributed mionr edits to another article[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Meade_(author)] which was later passed as a Good article[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Meade_(author)&diff=prev&oldid=830640681] which retains all the cites I added.
My minor edit of Black Hole[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_hole&diff=prev&oldid=852417737] was of an article with (1,859 watchers[https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Black_hole] and it is a Good article[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_hole&oldid=382081986]) where it was immediately reviewed by WolfmanSF[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_hole&type=revision&diff=852426575&oldid=852418871]. It is still there[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#cite_ref-Frautschi1982_139-0]
In the year before the block, I fixed over 90 articles[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20180731235959&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Robertinventor&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=&end=2018-07-31], with only 2 reverts[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Wikipedia_minor_fixes_examples#Articles_to_fix]. I have a ten year history of Wikignoming with no issues raised before the indef block.
I hope this is enough evidence to see that I am an editor who is an asset to Wikipedia.
My plan is to do minor edits and corrections for six months. After that, to do any major content with collaborators from the start. I already do this on Wikinews[https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:NASA%27s_InSight_Lander_makes_it_to_Mars][https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Mysterious_dimming_of_Tabby%27s_star_likely_due_to_space_dust,_not_alien_superstructures,_say_scientists][https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Simple_animals_could_live_in_Martian_brines:_Wikinews_interviews_planetary_scientist_Vlada_Stamenkovi%C4%87#Review_of_revision_4457552_%5BPassed%5D][https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Sun%27s_mood_swings_not_so_strange_after_all,_say_scientists]. After completing it together we'd submit it for review as a Good Article, similarly to WikiNews.
As per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_was_the_page_I_created_deleted%3F#If_all_else_fails,_try_another_wiki WP:OTHERWIKIS] the deleted content is in other wikis or blogs. I accept the consensus decision to delete it here. I will be avoiding all the topic areas in which may content was previously deleted.
I ask to be unblocked to return to minor edits[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Wikipedia_minor_fixes_examples] which is what I worked on most weeks as volunteer editor for Wikipedia. And if the community consider this is appropriate I may eventually also return to major content. Most weeks I did minor edits and corrections and if you think I shoudl only do wikignoming, that is actually the main reason I wish to be unblocked. For instance the Chicxulub article says that the impactor could have been up to 81 km in diameter. It cites a never published preprint for this figure which is clearly a typo for 18 km, the usual range given is 10 - 15 km. I wish to fix errors like that[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Wikipedia_minor_fixes_examples].
Thank you for your time in considering this appeal. | 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=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.
I am a good faith editor, always have been, and want to find a way to return to Wikipedia editing.
The deleted article was my best attempt to present views of others, not myself, e.g. ''"one giant dinner plate for Earth organisms"'' quotes NASA's planetary protection officer[http://deletionpedia.org/en/Modern_Mars_habitability#cite_ref-32], and the eutectics section describes work of Toner et al[http://deletionpedia.org/en/Modern_Mars_habitability#cite_ref-TonerCatling2014_29-1], which I forgot to cite in the previous sections. Rather than cite myself here, I remove cites[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=820822757].
I accept the community decision to delete this material. This is just to affirm good faith. All the other matters raised in the debate were good faith edits, as a result of reading the guidelines and following them to the best of my ability. I could go through them all but was advised I shouldn't issue "corrections".
About half the articles I made were deleted, which is clearly an issue. So how do I show that I can do editing that is okay?
Well, most of the issues arose when I worked on material '''''By myself''''' for a long time and then it was suddenly deleted.
Note, I never edit war. Just talk. I am aware I tend to become more verbose when this happens, it’s my academic background kicking in!
So I need to find a way to avoid that situation in the future. I do write good content here. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection Planetary protection] article is 68.8% mine (checked with WhoColor[https://f-squared.org/whovisual/]). More than half the cites were added by me. I think that is good evidence that I can write good content given that the editor who was most strongly in favour of deleting my article is one of its editors, contributing 5.7% of its content under the names of BatteryIncluded and Rowan Forest. If there were any major issues with the cites I added, for instance, she would have removed them, and she didn't.
If unblocked, I will not even do minor edits because of connection with deleted material[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection#Mars_special_regions][https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/Planetary_protection#Mars_special_regions], but edit my copy[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/Planetary_protection#Mars_special_regions]. However, that my content was retained surely shows that I can write good material here.
I am also the main editor of Hexany[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hexany, and there was an AfD on this early on and the article was retained which is proof that there is at least something there other editors thought worth including. I contributed mionr edits to another article[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Meade_(author)] which was later passed as a Good article[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Meade_(author)&diff=prev&oldid=830640681] which retains all the cites I added.
My minor edit of Black Hole[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_hole&diff=prev&oldid=852417737] was of an article with (1,859 watchers[https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Black_hole] and it is a Good article[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_hole&oldid=382081986]) where it was immediately reviewed by WolfmanSF[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_hole&type=revision&diff=852426575&oldid=852418871]. It is still there[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#cite_ref-Frautschi1982_139-0]
In the year before the block, I fixed over 90 articles[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20180731235959&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Robertinventor&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=&end=2018-07-31], with only 2 reverts[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Wikipedia_minor_fixes_examples#Articles_to_fix]. I have a ten year history of Wikignoming with no issues raised before the indef block.
I hope this is enough evidence to see that I am an editor who is an asset to Wikipedia.
My plan is to do minor edits and corrections for six months. After that, to do any major content with collaborators from the start. I already do this on Wikinews[https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:NASA%27s_InSight_Lander_makes_it_to_Mars][https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Mysterious_dimming_of_Tabby%27s_star_likely_due_to_space_dust,_not_alien_superstructures,_say_scientists][https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Simple_animals_could_live_in_Martian_brines:_Wikinews_interviews_planetary_scientist_Vlada_Stamenkovi%C4%87#Review_of_revision_4457552_%5BPassed%5D][https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Sun%27s_mood_swings_not_so_strange_after_all,_say_scientists]. After completing it together we'd submit it for review as a Good Article, similarly to WikiNews.
As per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_was_the_page_I_created_deleted%3F#If_all_else_fails,_try_another_wiki WP:OTHERWIKIS] the deleted content is in other wikis or blogs. I accept the consensus decision to delete it here. I will be avoiding all the topic areas in which may content was previously deleted.
I ask to be unblocked to return to minor edits[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Wikipedia_minor_fixes_examples] which is what I worked on most weeks as volunteer editor for Wikipedia. And if the community consider this is appropriate I may eventually also return to major content. Most weeks I did minor edits and corrections and if you think I shoudl only do wikignoming, that is actually the main reason I wish to be unblocked. For instance the Chicxulub article says that the impactor could have been up to 81 km in diameter. It cites a never published preprint for this figure which is clearly a typo for 18 km, the usual range given is 10 - 15 km. I wish to fix errors like that[https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Wikipedia_minor_fixes_examples].
Thank you for your time in considering this appeal. | accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
