User:Robertinventor/Unblock appeal supplemental: Difference between revisions
User:Robertinventor/Unblock appeal supplemental (edit)
Revision as of 17:34, 21 April 2019
, 5 years ago→Planetary protection
No edit summary |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1:
__NOINDEX__
Supplementary material to my unblock appeal. It was not possible to answer all the charges made within the word limit for an unblock appeal
I have added skip links to make it easier to skip rapidly through the sections for an overview. I have also provided short summaries and collapsed the details. If you think any of these charges needs to be answered, please look at the details before making your decision about it. Thanks!
===Modern Mars Habitability article===
Line 130 ⟶ 132:
skip to [[#Wikipedia content in a kindle booklet|Wikipedia content in a kindle booklet]]
'''CHARGE''': I disrupt this topic significantly[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=855610686]
'''TRUE SITUATION''': Other editors are satisfied with the edits I made to the mainspace Planetary Protection article and have made only small changes to this article since my indef block [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planetary_protection&type=revision&diff=880916715&oldid=855602798 diff]]. Most of its current content was written by me[https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Robertinventor/0/Planetary_protection].
Line 136 ⟶ 138:
Click on '''Details''' to find out more.
{{cot|Details}}
This was given as an example of "Some topics he disrupts significantly"
Until I was indef blocked I was the [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Robertinventor/0/Planetary_protection main editor of the main space Planetary Protection article]. Added 56,440 bytes and deleted 11,761 in an article that is now 69,886 bytes.
Line 347 ⟶ 349:
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive280#Topic_ban_requested 2016] "You are banned for six months from the topic of the Four Noble Truths on all pages of Wikipedia including talk" [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobertinventor&diff=prev&oldid=724350336 diff]]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive953#Editing_behavior_of_Robert_Walker 2017 again] "Per consensus, Robertinventor is indefinitely topic-banned from articles or edits associated with Buddhism, broadly construed and subject to the standard exceptions."
Line 360 ⟶ 362:
skip to [[#Contributed material that other Wikipedia editors corrected|Contributed material that other Wikipedia editors corrected]]
'''CHARGE''': I was accused[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=prev&oldid=855532245] of disruptive behaviour for adding an article on the topic of the possible association of Morgellons with the spirochetes that cause chronic Lyme disease and of problems of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories WP:FRINGE] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)WP:MEDRS]
'''TRUE SITUATION''': The merged away article[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moregellons_Lyme_hypothesis&oldid=661359802
I was never sanctioned or taken to WP:ANI over it, and it has nothing to do with the dispute that lead to my indef block. My last comment on the main Morgellons talk page was in [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Robertinventor/1/Morgellons September 2016].
Line 368 ⟶ 370:
Click on '''Details''' to find out more.
{{cot|Details}}
This is another reason given for sanctioning me
The history is that I contributed this article in 2015, after discussion on the talk page of the main article when one of the editors there [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Morgellons&diff=655358056&oldid=655261597 said]
Line 393 ⟶ 395:
skip to [[#Off wiki discussion of possible use of lunar platinum in the construction industry (like copper)|Off wiki discussion of possible use of lunar platinum in the construction industry (like copper)]]
'''CHARGE''': I was accused of adding material to Wikipedia that was mistaken, and of including a quote in a footnote[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=prev&oldid=855691579]
'''TRUE SITUATION''': I did make one mistake, but Wikipedia editors are advised in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold WP:BOLD]: ''"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
Click on '''Details''' to find out more.
Line 404 ⟶ 406:
I agree that my edit of the Perigean spring tide article was mistaken. If I'd noticed the revert and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Perigean_spring_tide#Confusing_first_paragraph the reason given] I'd have commented on the talk page agreeing with the editor who fixed it and thanking them for their edit.
On the black holes evaporation timescale, then the material I contributed in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawking_radiation&diff=prev&oldid=852418447 diff] mentioned in the sanction debate is still in the Hawking Radiation article. Similar material in this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_hole&type=revision&diff=852418871&oldid=852173684 diff] is also still included in the Black Holes article. The editor who claimed I
Nearly all Wikipedia editors have made mistakes. Indeed in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold WP:BOLD] it says
Line 415 ⟶ 417:
skip to [[#All one extended incident, resulting from the topic ban appeal|All one extended incident, resulting from the topic ban appeal]]
'''CHARGE''': I was accused of an off wiki conversation about possible future use of platinum in the construction industry that disqualifies me as an editor of Wikipedia
'''TRUE SITUATION''': It was nothing to do with Wikipedia. I barely remember this discussion, some years back. Potential lunar platinum ores of exceptional purity are a central theme of Dennis Wingo's [http://www.thespacereview.com/article/205/1 Moonrush], also covered in Crawford's [https://theconversation.com/why-we-should-mine-the-moon-34285 lunar resources review article]. I combined that with ideas for low cost export from the Moon to speculate about what would happen if was similar in price to copper, which is used in the construction industry.
| |||