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 a good faith 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].
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.
About half the articles I made were deleted, which is clearly an issue. However these are articles when I worked on material By myself for a long time, with only help from wikignomes.
How can I show that at least some of my major content was okay? As an indef blocked editor I can't work on any of them and submit them for "Good article" status.
The Planetary protection article is 68.8% mine (checked with WhoColor[4]). More than half the cites were added by me. 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, she would have removed them by now.
I use this just to show that I can do some good content. If unblocked, I will not even do minor edits because of connection with deleted material[5][6], but edit my copy[7].
I am the main editor of Hexany[8], and the result of its AfD was Keep[9] showing there is something of value there. I contributed minor edits to another article[10] which was later passed as a Good article[11] which retains all the cites I added.
My minor edit of Black Hole[12] was of an article with (1,859 watchers[13] and it is a Good article[14]) where it was immediately reviewed by WolfmanSF[15]. It is still there[16]
In the year before the block, I fixed over 90 articles[17], with only 2 reverts[18]. 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[19][20][21][22]. After completing it together we'd submit it for review as a Good Article, similarly to WikiNews.
If you think I should 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, citing a never peer reviewed non published preprint. Reliable sources say a range from 10 -15 km (81 may be a typo for 18). I wish to fix errors like that[23].
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 a good faith 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].
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.
About half the articles I made were deleted, which is clearly an issue. However these are articles when I worked on material '''''By myself''''' for a long time, with only help from wikignomes.
How can I show that at least some of my major content was okay? As an indef blocked editor I can't work on any of them and submit them for "Good article" status.
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. 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, she would have removed them by now.
I use this just to show that I can do some good content. 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 am the main editor of Hexany[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hexany], and the result of its AfD was Keep[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hexany] showing there is something of value there. I contributed minor 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.
If you think I should 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, citing a never peer reviewed non published preprint. Reliable sources say a range from 10 -15 km (81 may be a typo for 18). 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 a good faith 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].
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.
About half the articles I made were deleted, which is clearly an issue. However these are articles when I worked on material '''''By myself''''' for a long time, with only help from wikignomes.
How can I show that at least some of my major content was okay? As an indef blocked editor I can't work on any of them and submit them for "Good article" status.
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. 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, she would have removed them by now.
I use this just to show that I can do some good content. 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 am the main editor of Hexany[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hexany], and the result of its AfD was Keep[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hexany] showing there is something of value there. I contributed minor 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.
If you think I should 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, citing a never peer reviewed non published preprint. Reliable sources say a range from 10 -15 km (81 may be a typo for 18). 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 a good faith 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].
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.
About half the articles I made were deleted, which is clearly an issue. However these are articles when I worked on material '''''By myself''''' for a long time, with only help from wikignomes.
How can I show that at least some of my major content was okay? As an indef blocked editor I can't work on any of them and submit them for "Good article" status.
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. 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, she would have removed them by now.
I use this just to show that I can do some good content. 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 am the main editor of Hexany[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hexany], and the result of its AfD was Keep[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hexany] showing there is something of value there. I contributed minor 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.
If you think I should 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, citing a never peer reviewed non published preprint. Reliable sources say a range from 10 -15 km (81 may be a typo for 18). 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 ~~~~}}
