|
Thank you for uploading Image:Hexany.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI ( talk) 15:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
fixed Robertinventor ( talk) 00:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that you recently created the article titled hexany and then someone put an "orphan" tag on it. That means that very few other articles link to it. Generally it's a good idea when creating a new article to figure out which existing articles ought to link to it and to put the links there. In this case, I notice you've named three composers about whom there are Wikipedia articles. It may be a good idea to figure out where in those articles one could put links to hexany, and similarly in musical tuning and musical scale. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I've done as you advised, thanks, Robertinventor ( talk) 23:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Hexany, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hexany. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've edited it to remove the hexany phrase transformations section, hope this helps, it's the only part that I think perhaps could count as original research, not by me, but possibly by Gene Ward Smith.
For me (using Firefox), at least, the links at the top of your home page go nowhere, because they have a backslash where a slash belongs. It would be simpler to replace "..\cubeetc/index.htm" with "/cubetc/" anyway: beginning the address with a slash takes it back to the site's top level, which is better for a template because that way it can be used at deeper levels of the tree without changes; and omitting "index.htm" protects you against the possibility that you might someday have "index.php" instead. — Tamfang ( talk) 19:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me to this! Hopefully it is fixed now. Robert Walker ( talk) 02:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 11:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The Modest Barnstar | ||
Thanks for your recent contributions! 129.49.72.78 ( talk) 22:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC) |
Hi Robert, I see that you've been working a bit on the Geological carbon cycle section of Carbon cycle. First of all thanks a bunch - I've been doing some major revision over the course of the last month and am thankful for the contributions. I've been working over the page from top to bottom and am about to arrive at the geological section, so I wanted to give a heads up that I'll be doing some copyediting. I'll try to leave all previous goodies in there and add some additional ones as well :)
In this first pass I'll basically be doing style edits, then I'll be working on the ocean sub-site for a week or two, maybe more. In the end though I should be coming back with some more sources, etc. My problem, though, is that I'm a geographer, not a geologist, and although I do have some good articles on the geological carbon cycle I wouldn't call myself an expert. That's also the reason I won't be making a subpage for that section like I have for the other sections. Any suggestions/sources/etc.? Otherwise feel free to be bold like you have been thus far and continue editing it on your own - I just didn't want to step on your toes by modifying fresh edits.
Daniel Lee ( talk) 15:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Hyacinth ( talk) 03:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Please note that the article second order logic uses parenthetical citations. So if you add a new reference, you should put it in the references section and then add a parenthetical comment to any specific sentence. But the ref you tried to add is already in the references section, and the sentence you added it to already has an inline citation to it! The footnotes in the article are just for side comments, not for bibliographic details. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 01:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
FYI, the documentation is at Template:Harv. Tijfo098 ( talk) 02:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gudi (instrument), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gudi ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm just dropping you a quick note about a new Wikipedian in Residence job that's opened up at the National Library of Scotland. There're more details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland. Richard Symonds (WMUK) ( talk) 15:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Robertinventor. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, International Committee Against Mars Sample Return, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Robert. Per our discussion on the Talk page of the Talk:Mars sample return mission a few days back, I have provided two examples of what I think is a better citation format for cleaning all those up. See what you think, and give it a try yourself. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 17:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC) N2e ( talk) 17:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Concerns for an early Mars sample return. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Based on this diff, you may not realize that the three-revert rule is a limit, not an entitlement. Sanctions including blocks can be levied even if you are in technical compliance of the 3RR. VQuakr ( talk) 20:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Concerns for an early Mars sample return may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 20:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Concerns for an early Mars sample return may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 20:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Concerns for an early Mars sample return may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you please consider using edit summaries for both your talk page and article space edits? They help others follow along in conversations, particularly when seeing the edits in a history window or watchlist. Thanks! VQuakr ( talk) 07:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Robertinventor. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Concerns for an early Mars sample return. Thank you. VQuakr ( talk) 03:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ARTICLE NAME is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerns for an early Mars sample return until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Warren Platts ( talk) 21:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
As I noted twice earlier on the talk page, forking an article into your user space and then later copying over "your version" into an article is not permissible. Your edit in article space that did this has been reverted; please do not do it again. Thanks! VQuakr ( talk) 02:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
In response to your question here - don't worry about it. The closing admin is not going to be confused by a bolded word; AfD closures are more complex than a simple vote tally. VQuakr ( talk) 08:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
So... there is this. And the talk page - half a meg of plain text, much of it written by you. I know I have mentioned to you before that you need to make more effort to be concise, to write a better article as described in the essay WP:TERSE and to communicate effectively as described at the essay WP:BECONCISE. At this point, I am seriously concerned that brevity is simply something that is outside of your skill set -- and unfortunately, it is a skill that is critical both to encyclopedic writing and to collaborative writing. At some point, WP:COMPETENCE becomes relevant.
Please consider ways you can dramatically improve the brevity of your writing and discussion. Thanks for your consideration, and I hope I do not come off too harsh (survival of the messenger and all that). VQuakr ( talk) 03:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Just to say I have naturally mentioned this article and my frustrations to my friends on facebook who include astronomers, astrobiologists and scientists. But I have asked those who are wikipedians not to intervene on the debate as per WP:CANVAS - is just to talk about my frustrations with them and for sympathy. Robert Walker ( talk) 08:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
If anyone wants to talk to me about it any more please notify me here, as I have removed them from my watch list.
I feel I have nothing to contribute to the topic, since the AfD decision to ignore everything except Zubrin's views, including even the official NASA / ESA / PPO views on the matter.
It is time to get on with my life. I feel I have loads I can contribute on this topic, but can't contribute anything about it to wikipedia, not for as long as this current policy on MSR and contamination issues prevails.
I don't want be drawn into more debates with the opposing editor. I feel is hopeless for a single editor to contest his passionate editing in support of a "mainstream view" which closely aligns with Robert Zubrin's minority single author POV.
Instead I will find other outlets for my work.
However if another editor feels strongly about this too, and has got involved in a similar edit war, and wants a bit of moral support - do let me know!
I would come back right away with the support of other editors knowledgeable about the NASA / ESA / PPO studies who wish for more accurate treatment e.g. of the NRC and ESF studies.
I would be really keen to return to help an editor keen to cover it more fully with minority views as well (on all sides of the debate) in an accurate way. AfDs can be overturned if a new article is submitted which is substantially different from the one deleted.
It would only need two editors interested in presenting a more diverse picture to turn that all around.
A 2:1 or 2:2 edit war I think would be enough to force dispute resolution of the issues. But a 1:1 edit war with an editor who continues to do bold edits and won't stop to discuss and who hurls insults at you all the time and just keeps at it until he wins the war is impossible to do anything about, I would say from my experience of one here. Robert Walker ( talk) 23:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
By neglecting mention of all other views on the matter, except the ICAMSR which is portrayed as putting forward an eccentric view of their own not held by anyone else, and misrepresenting the official reports, then the current article amounts to advocacy of something close to Zubrin's view. So who is it who is the advocate here?
For the wikipedia NPOV about writing for different POVs see the wikipedia article on "writing for the enemy". I did quite a bit of this in my version of the article, now deleted, see Concerns for an early Mars sample return.
For wikipedia, my wish is just to have the official POV of the PPO accurately represented along with adequate treatment of the many interesting minority views.
In my article on concerns about an early Mars sample return, I went to a lot of work to find out about Zubrin's views to add a section on him (hard to find but eventually I tracked down a transcript of an interview with him where he stated his views, also tracked down an article he wrote but sadly it is not available online and wanted to buy a copy but haven't managed that either). My section on Zubrin's view about back contamination risks of a MSR and his view Robert Zubrin's view that there is no need for a MSR before human colonization of Mars I would say more but found hardly any published material by him or about his views on these matters, and nothing at all by any other authors with his view that the environmental risks of BC have no scientific validity.
The way this section is now written it is no more than an advocacy argument for an unsourced POV that the risk of back contamination can be safely ignored if you take a few simple precautions. Of all the papers and other material I researched for the article, it is closest to Zubrin's attitude though Zubrin goes a bit further and says that the back contamination risk is scientifically invalid. I didn't come across anyone that published the stated view as given in the current version of the MSR page.
That's why I have given up. I can of course present Zubrin's POV and did so in my article. But there is no way can I contribute to the topic when the entire section is written within such a framework. Robert Walker ( talk) 12:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I am willing to try again if anyone else wants to join in - e.g. anyone who works for the PPO or perhaps a COSPAR representative - there are more than a thousand of them world wide, so perhaps some of you edit wikipedia? Must also be many who took part in the official NRC and ESF studies. Perhaps some of you who helped with these studies or contributed to them indirectly, may also be wikipedians?
Also in my experience many microbiologists and astrobiologists consider that it is wise to proceed with great caution in a situation that might bring unstudied and not yet directly observed alien micro-organisms from Mars back to Earth.
With even 2 editors working on the topic then it would be a different situation from a single editor. One editor with a single passionate opponent I have discovered is helpless in wikipedia. But two editors would not face the same problem and could force dispute resolution and prevent an AfD from immediately deleting your work. An article deleted in an AfD can be normally be recreated if it is substantially changed, enough to challenge the AfD decision on the grounds that it was a decision about a different article.
Also, whether or not some extensive article on this topic can be created, for sure the current section in the MSR article can definitely be challenged and changed - it just needs one other editor to join in the challenge. I will return if someone else wants to give this a go and needs some support from another editor. Robert Walker ( talk) 12:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
My views differ from those of the ICAMSR and also from the official mainstream view. It actually shares some elements with Zubrin's approach to MSR as well (though of course with different end goals).
None of my views were presented in my version of the wikipedia article which got deleted.
I wouldn't dream of using wikipedia for advocacy.
Actually I am not a member of ICAMSR and haven't signed their petition or encouraged anyone else to do so. Just saying that because the opposing editor has repeatedly implied that I am and can't seem to take a No as an answer to this. It is really frustrating to be told repeatedly that you are a member of an organization when you don't belong to it and have said frequently that you don't belong to it. There is nothing at all wrong with someone choosing to belong to it, but it so happens that I do not.
But that is beside the point. You can be an advocate of a POV and still write for wikipedia, either to make sure your own POV is represented or indeed for all POVs if you master the art of "writing for the opponent". I wrote many sections in that way presenting POVs such as Zubrin's without comment written as he would write it, using quotes or his own words, "writing for the opponent".
I have been completely professional throughout in my editing of wikipedia and of this article.
In the article that was deleted, I declared my POV at the start as you can see on the discussion that still remains on the MSR talk page. I asked other editors to help me with dealing with any bias that might creep into the article such as favouring one POV over another.
The article gave extensive treatment of the official view indeed by word count this was by far the main part of the article (unusually for a criticism type page) and it gave full treatment to all the POVs on the debate.
It all goes to show you can do everything right and yet have your work destroyed within a few weeks by a single vocal wikipedian who shouts loudly and ignores most of the wikipedia guidelines on etiquette.
The one thing I have learnt from this is that if you want to write an article for wikipedia that you think might get opposed in this way, be sure to find someone else to collaborate with first and not try to face it on your own. If you do, you simply don't stand a chance against someone sufficiently determined to destroy what you did. Robert Walker ( talk) 21:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I highly recommend that Wikipedia should have an article on this subject.
This is the conference on the subject "The Present-Day Habitability of Mars 2013".
There are many papers on it every year by researchers in the US, UK, and Germany, and including scientists from JPL, DLR in Germany, and the NASA Ames Research Center. It has been a major subject in the literature since 2008 and undoubtedly passes WP:NOTABLE.
Paige is planning to create a new journal solely devoted to this subject. See UCLA holds Mars habitability conference:
At the end of the conference, Paige said he intends to publish a special journal focusing on the present-day habitability of Mars and hopes to reconvene the conference within the next five years
If another editor feels as strongly as I do that creation of this new page is a good idea, please let me know here.
I am certain that it would be immediately subject to edit warring and probably an immdediate AfD. But it is clearly notable and with two editors in support of its creation then can't imagine that this opposition could stand up for long. On my own I don't think I have a chance.
The material here could be a basis for the new article: User:Robertinventor/possibility of Mars having enough water to support life Robert Walker ( talk) 13:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I have also posted about it to Talk:Water on Mars
You can see what we would be up against by the reply to the suggestion there. BTW this is not an attempt to recruit "meat puppets". "Meat puppets" are people outside of wikipedia which you ask to help you win a debate in wikipedia, such as an AfD.
What I am asking here is for collaborators to help with creation of an article. That is permitted. Robert Walker ( talk) 22:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Note, in view of Warren's actions today, and with him also weighing in against me on the proposal to create this article, I am sure that the article would be immediately subject to an all out edit war with him and BatteryIncluded together. Though you can't delete an article without an AfD he would probably rewrite the whole thing to his liking, making sure that it is stated clearly that present day life on the surface of Mars is impossible and revert any edits that suggest that it is possible, no matter how well cited. Whether that can be dealt with even with two editors collaborating on the project I'm not entirely sure, especially with two editors opposing it. Robert Walker ( talk) 02:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Backup of a section on the Manned mission to Mars talk page
I first came across this section in the Manned mission to Mars article as a short stub "Concerns" section with a request for a knowledgeable editor to expand it to help eliminate a perceived bias of the page in favour of human missions to the surface of Mars. See Criticism.
In response, I expended it and eventually created the Manned mission to Mars Contamination Concerns, and Telerobotics with a link to the Concerns section of the Colonization of Mars page which I also slightly expanded with a couple of paragraphs. This edit was welcomed by all other editors at the time, and other editors of this page such as Fatherred and others contributed to it with discussion and minor edits.
There was a bit more discussion here Neutral POV.
Then later This article is more of an essay has a discussion of a suggestion to trim down this article.
As you see I planned to do that after first moving some of the content to other relevant sections of wikipedia.
I started on this process, but have had to stop as all the material I wrote is now deleted (most of it with no discussion first) including this original section.
This other content has for the most part now been deleted by Warren Platts and BatteryIncluded, and they will re-delete it if I attempt to recreate it. My original contribution on contamination concerns to Manned mission to Mars has been deleted in its entirety too. So there is nothing left of my work on this topic except for the backups of all this material in my user space.
For a list of all my material from the Wikipedia Mars Project deleted by Warren Platts and BatteryIncluded deleted see Other sections deleted by the opposing editor
Details follow of what remains in wikipedia and of the bias in what remains - expand if you want to see more
Extended content
|
---|
All that remains of forward contamination risks for Mars in wikipedia, to my knowledge, is the mention of the Mars specific sub categories of category IV in the Planetary protection article. Since I was the editor who contributed that section, I wouldn't be totally surprised if he removes it too, but whether or not, obviously that doesn't count as adequate coverage for Project Mars. Outside of this brief mention in the Planetary protection article, there is now no mention of forward contamination concerns for Mars in wikipedia, as far as I know.
Backward contamination concerns are now only covered in the description of Category V in the Planetary protection article, a short biased section in the Mars sample return mission page, and a short page on the ICAMSR. The ICAMSR is a small advocacy group of scientists at the far end of the spectrum on back contamination issues. They were inspired by Carl Sagan, who was deeply concerned about Mars contamination issues. It is opposed to any Mars sample return which is carried out before in situ studies and biohazard testing outside of Earth. For the bias in the Back Contamination section of the Mars sample return mission page, see The flaws with the current MSR section on BC. |
The result now is an imbalance not just of this page but of all the material in the Wikipedia Project Mars. But after spending probably a full working week of my time attempting to save the material on back contamination issues of Mars I know how impossible it is for me to do anything about it in response to the determined opposition of these other editors, and so have given up on any attempt to edit the Wikipedia project on Mars to give it balance on concerns with issues of human missions to Mars.
For more about this see: Other sections deleted by the opposing editor.
For the reasons mentioned there I will not attempt to contest these edits. Just registering my protest to this final bold edit removing just about all that remains of content in Mars Project about Mars contamination issues. All the deleted content is the subject of much publication and it was all well cited with numerous inline citations to notable sources.
For the other sections of the Wikipedia Mars Project he deleted see #Other sections deleted by the opposing editor
In my view these actions amount to censorship. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored
See also: Educate those who want to censor Wikipedia Robert Walker ( talk) 11:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The project to trim the Manned mission to Mars contamination section by moving and merging relevant content to other parts of wikipedia went well at first, with new material updating the Water on Mars section on possibility of surface habitats to support life, and the new back contamination section of the Mars sample return mission. But then it all went wrong with the opposition of these editors. I will collapse this, expand it if you want to read the details:
Extended content
|
---|
I then was told that my section of the Mars sample return mission was too long and the result of the discussion on that page was that I should have a short summary there and a separate article. That also went well with the other editors saying they liked the new article. But then BatteryIncluded disputed a brief mention of habitability of surface of Mars in the Life on Mars page, and that ended with deletion of the section there and Battery included also deleted the material in the Water on Mars section (which I only contributed a couple of sections to) and replaced it with a new section saying that the Mars surface is uninhabitable based on pre 2008 research when it was believed that any life on the surface of Mars would be dormant and destroyed by cosmic radiation. About the same time, Warren Platts did a series of bold edits to remove most of the content of the new Concerns for an early Mars sample return page, and then finally did an AfD on what was left. I restored my original edit for the AfD, and worked really hard on the article to eliminate the slightest trace of bias, this took ages, also checking all the refs. But the result of the AfD (with Warren Platts and BatteryIncluded as two strong voices opposing me and just one keep in my favour, then some other votes against) was to delete it and to replace the section on Mars sample return with his very biased section which omits almost all concerns even of the offficial policy documents and studies. Then finally came this last wholesale deletion of all the material so now there is nothing left of any of this material on wikipedia. |
In view of what happened to date I have no hope of restoring it. My energies are better spent on other projects where I am a welcome participant.
I would return to Wikipedia Project Mars as part of a collaboration with another editor. It was trying to face all this almost on my own with no major collaborator that made it so impossible for me. Robert Walker ( talk) 12:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
This editor is on a personal campaign to remove all my contributions from the Mars section of wikipedia - including removing whole sections I contributed to. I have backed them up to my user space.
He said on the Mars sample return talk page that this is his plan:
"Your days of spamming Wikipedia with your contamination hysteria are over. I see you've spammed your propaganda in practically every article on Mars in the Wikipedia. Those "contributions" will be redacted."
So far he has deleted:
Warren Platts and BatteryIncluded share a personal grudge against me which started about a month ago (for both of them) and involves repeated extremely OTT insults in almost every single post they make when they talk to me or talk about me on the talk pages.
It was probably some off wiki encounter with them both that sparked all this hostility. I know of one possible explanation of this nature, that Warren was involved in (though no-one by name of BatteryIncluded). It was a forum debate with about half a dozen opponents with the same propensity to insult me frequently and all opposed to my views.
I have never insulted either of them, and there is no reason at all for this behaviour to my knowledge except for my differing views on contamination issues, and my preference for telerobotic exploration of Mars by humans in orbit, rather than human landings on the surface of Mars.
The result of all this hostility is that clearly I am no longer permitted by these two editors to edit the Mars sections of wikipedia and I totally don't have the energy to try to fight against them, after the AfD which in total probably took up an entire working week of my time. I have much more productive ways to use my time than this :). Robert Walker ( talk) 23:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I have just reverted Warren Platts's bold removal of my material on the Manned mission to Mars section. I know what will happen, he will undo my revert as soon as he notices it. So this is by way of a token protest against his behaviour - permitted under BRD, so not yet edit warring. Robert Walker ( talk) 00:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
It was immediately undone again as expected. No point in attempting discussion or dispute resolution. Historically this is the first section I wrote on this material in response to a request to restore a balanced POV on this page. The other deleted material came about in response to a discussion on the Manned mission to Mars talk page where the outcome of the discussion was that I should look into options to move some of that material to other sections of wikipedia on Mars. See next section here for more about that. Robert Walker ( talk) 03:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
You pointed out a problem at the Help Desk, which is that Warren Platts does indeed appear to be asserting ownership of the Mars Project. However, the quotes of personal attacks were not backed up with diffs, and I can't locate them. If I can locate the personal attacks, we can act on them, whether you continue taking part in Mars or not. There are other editors who are also concerned about his efforts to own the Mars Project. Please provide diffs of the attacks. Otherwise I will have to assume that you wasted the time of the Help Desk tediously. Please provide the diffs. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
First just repeating the ones from the help desk: You need to expand the section - he collapsed my first comment in this section - and then they did another collapse on top of that But you should find this quote there:
This is the other one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mars_sample_return_mission#Bias_of_section_on_back_contamination
These are all from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return#Okay_I_see_the_decision_was_delete_and_merge Too many edits to do via diffs, but if you do a search of the page text for the text you should find them easily. "Unbelievable. You must be out of your mind. " "Every single study that was not extruded by ICAMSR! Who do you really think you're kidding?!?" "What a bunch of baloney. You just cannot help but twist things. The prevailing view is that MSR is safe. OK, you are on record as refusing to compromise. Fine with me. Let the chips fall where they may" "And nice cherrypicking of quotes taken out of context! As usual.... You are good at that." "All you're doing is proving that you are recalcitrant and will actively resist any efforts by other editors to render this article into NPOV" "Wow. Just wow. You just proved that you never took a geology class in your life, not even "Rocks for Jocks". Maybe you should stick to your areas of expertise--like microtonal music.... That's a very important subject Robert. You're time would be more productively spent on something you something about IMHO" (never explained what it was he thought I didn't understand) "This seems to be a general editorial strategy of yours: sneak in biased info under the radar, as it were, while leaving out the material that doesn't support your editorial slant. And then only include the contradictory info when other people call you on it. You can read Robert. You know exactly what parts I'm talking about, but you won't include them unless and until someone until someone explicitly points them out." - I've no idea what that was about, and even after several requests to clarify, he never said "I do not agree because you are literally leaving out figures that do not support your editorial slant/rant." "See, I knew you would do that. This is your modus operandi. You cannot stand other people editing your WP:OWN articles. All you want from other editors is to do fact checking for you so you can go in and eliminate your stupid mistakes." "The point is you are twisting Zubrin's words to support your editorial position t" "But of course you KNOW that kuru disease is caused by prions. This is your way of sneaking in the implication that we also have to worry about Martian prions. A crazy idea that no one, not even ICAMSR mentions. More editorial slanting." "More outright lies. No one recommends at least 12 years. Also you are inventing official views that do not exist. There are no official views about "a too early" MSR. That is your invention. You are good at that. So I think that handle of yours "Robert the Inventor" is quite appropriate." "Shall we call it intentional misrepresentation instead? Your word twistage is intentional." "You need help Robert" "HAHAHA!! You crack me up Robert. You really cannot control yourself when it comes to cherrypicking." "OMG... The truth is finally coming out. It's clear you truly don't have a clue about what you are talking about;" "Well, at least you admit to cherrypicking quotes to support your editorial opinion. I guess that's progress.." " It is a word you coined for the purpose of your editorial rant" "EVERYTHING you just said is word twistage and a gross mischaracterization of the literature." "ou merely cherry pick items you think support your cause, embellish the hell out of them to make them scary, leading the unsuspecting reader by the nose to your smelly corner step by step to your conclusion that MSR will cause doomsday! It's a bunch of unredeemable editorial crap is what it is." ". I insist that you add a section on Doomsday phobias in "your" article that explores the POV that these so-called concerns are psychological in origin since they have no basis in real science." "Yep, removing all of a page and replacing it w/ nonsense. That pretty much describes it" "You said it was "unsourced". This is so blatantly false--as I am sure you must be aware if you are not crazy--it is absolutely ridiculous. Intentionally hurling false accusations (lies) is a form of ad hominem argumentation. It's a personal attack. An insult, in other words...." "Um, yes, you have insulted me, numerous times, in your back-handed, passive-aggressive, condescending, ever so WP:civil POV pushing manner" " On the 3rd party discussion page you misspelled my name so many times, it's very hard to believe that it was a coincidence; I'm sure a statistical analysis would show it was not a coincidence." ""I do not try to get other people to join any organisation or to hold any kind of a view." I call BF on this: bad faith. It's either that or you need professional help to deal with a split personality in addition to your OCD, dyslexia, and doomsday phobia. It is obvious to everyone that you are on a mission to change hearts and minds. Now you want to use the Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote your fringe theory that we are all in potentially great danger because of MSR. Sorry, but your days of running amok here are over. I suggest you stick to music and leave the science to the experts." Many more but that gives the idea. |
See WikiProject Mars.
For the material I wrote which has now been deleted see #Other sections deleted by the opposing editor
Clearly WikiProject Mars is not a place for an editor who wants to write about forward or backward contamination issues, or about the present day habitability of the surface of Mars.
The relevance there of course is that if the surface of Mars has microhabitats potentially habitable by micro-organisms then the forward contamination issues for human colonization are more severe. Indeed on current understanding, if these habitats are widespread, as some of the recent research suggests, I don't know how it can be possible at all unless or until you give up on your wish to study a pristine Mars.
It is not me that's being censored here. It is NASA, the ESA, the PPO, all those researching into the Present Day Habitability of Mars, and those who inspired the present day policies: Carl Sagan, Ledeberg, etc in the sense that any accurate statements of their views on this matter are now banned from wikipedia.
This censorship and ban is being carried out by a single user who is not an admin. There has been no banning notice or anything of that sort. It is simply a unilateral personal decision on his part.
Robert Walker ( talk) 08:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Can I offer some friendly advice? My thought is that you get too excited by dwelling on the injustice done to you by other Wikipedians. This sort of mental excitement can prevent someone from making logical decisions and clearly considering what things are important and ought to be addressed. A first step in achieving a calm mind could be recognizing personal limits. One cannot always make things like Wikipedia articles conform to one's ideas of how they ought to be. If one does not calm one's mind and take a detached nonchalant attitude, and in a fury attempts to do important work, then the likely result is one harming one's own interest. Remember that on Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Take a day or two to decide what is important. Edit less. Edit better. If one can make a convincing case for one's position, changing an article after a couple of days will be sufficient, and one wins the support of other editors. Read what other editors write. If there is a way to accommodate there concerns, try to do that. If they insist on being completely unreasonable, someone else will handle the situation eventually. Unreasonable editors do not last long on Wikipedia. It is better to have an article suffer from some other editor's unreasonable editing than to edit in anger and have one's own anger damage the article. Accept that although some other editors have done very good things that make Wikipedia interesting and helpful, some other editors write misleading articles and advocacy. Sometimes there is nothing one can do about it. Wikipedia is not perfect and never will be. I hope this helps. - Fartherred ( talk) 22:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Wow Robert, WP:AGF much? I suggest you blank this section because I really do not see how speculating about these two accounts is productive. For the record, though, I just had a look at the two accounts. One was created six years ago; the other seven years ago. They have had no significant interactions except this family of Mars biology articles in the last couple of months. I find it implausible that a person created an extra account six years ago just to votestack an AfD. VQuakr ( talk) 05:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
This is the page that was deleted: Concerns for an early Mars sample return Many references to notable sources. I don't see how anyone uninvolved can doubt its notability
This was the discussion AfD discussion No discussion of the sources at all. No questions about any particular part of the article to check if what I wrote there is true. Just a decision to delete the whole thing based apparently on Warren's assessment of it, rather than reading any of the sources or checking anything in the article against the sources.
The only ones in the debate who write regularly about Project Mars, if you look at their contributions, were BatteryIncluded and WarrenPlatts both of whom have been insulting me regularly in all their interactions with me for the last month and obviously have a personal grudge against me and great personal distaste for the subject of the article because of its implications for human colonization of the surface of Mars, that taking the precautions discussed will delay the Mars exploration program (in their view).
I know it went through due process. But still it doesn't seem fair that such a well cited carefully researched article was deleted without any discussion of the sources in the AfD, and without any attempt to check if any particular statement in the article was correctly cited and reported.
The decision to delete was done apparently solely on the basis of the subject of the article. Basically, a decision was made that an article with that subject shouldn't be included in Wikipedia
Really the only substantial argument against it was that it discusses the possibility of disruption of the environment of the Earth which Warren Platts portrayed as an obsession of the ICAMSR only. Just a glance at the sources cited in this section to find the quotes and read them in context in the original pages, and it is clear that it is something accepted in all the NASA / ESA / PPO sources as a matter of concern and that what Warren Platts and BatteryIncluded said about it is simply incorrect.
View presented in the NRC and ESF study group reports and Planetary Protection Office summaries
A secondary argument was that because I am personally concerned about a MSR and have written an opinion piece in my science20 column about that that therefore I can't write a balanced article. But again you just need to read the article and check the sources to see that most of it describes the official POV accurately, and that I did a lot of writing for the opponent, and nowhere do I express my own POV.
And no single instance of misrepresentation of anything in the article was given in the AfD. Just a general claim that the article as a whole was biased. No attempt to help me to correct the perceived bias or explain what it is.
All there was to explain the percecption of bias was this general remark that apparently, although environmental disruption of the Earth is extensively discussed in the source documents from the NRC, ESF, Planetary Proteciton Office etc, the general agreement in the AfD was that it should not be attributed to any of them, and should only be attributed as a fringe view of the ICAMSR.
Follow up the quotes and check for yourself if these sources discuss it as a seriously accpeted possibility or not:
View presented in the NRC and ESF study group reports and Planetary Protection Office summaries
I know that others here have problems with my behaviour, others complain that I said too much in my talk page comments I wrote to attempt to save the article. But though that is reason to censor me for saying too much, that is not a valid reason to delete the article.
Just writing this as an expression of my frustration with the whole process of AfD in this case. It went through due process and was closed by an admin who was uninvolved with the subject.
There were some irregularities in the process, particularly, that the article that was nominated for AfD originally was written by Warren Platts who for the start of the AfD did not permit me to revert to my version of the article, so for a while, it was the situation of an opposing editor who nominated his version of the article for deletion and merge, and didn't permit his opponent to edit it to make a more substantial article.
But that it seems is not enough to be of concern. Apart from that, it went through due process. I have no expectation of any change in the decision.
Robert Walker ( talk) 06:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
When posting to user talk pages, if adding a new section, please add it at the bottom. You posted sections to my talk page that were not at the bottom. This is confusing because I don't normally look in the middle of my talk page. Also, the fact that two users share the same viewpoint is not in itself reason to suggest that they are sockpuppets. Also, please try to find the two extremely inflammatory posts and provide me with diffs, because whoever posted them needs to be warned strongly. I don't have the time to wade through your voluminous complaints to find the quotes that you posted. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I am asking for another diff, the one to the post where he said that he wanted you topic-banned from Mars. On the one hand, he has a right to request that you be topic-banned. He can do that via a user conduct Request for Comments, with resolution by consensus of administrators or arbitration by the ArbCom. On the other hand, he has no right in a project or article talk space to request that you be topic-banned. An attempt to request a formal topic-ban would be likely to boomerang, because the community of administrators or the ArbCom will consider the conduct of the requester as well as the person against whom the remedies are requested. His efforts to have you topic-banned, without invoking formal dispute resolution, appear to me (after having reviewed the policies), to be Wikipedia bullying. Please provide the diff to that statement on his part. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AMars_sample_return_mission&diff=561730149&oldid=561689953
Your days of spamming Wikipedia with your contamination hysteria are over. I see you've spammed your propaganda in practically every article on Mars in the Wikipedia. Those "contributions" will be redacted
Once you have calmed down and gotten over the hurt, can you please consider expanding the article on Interplanetary contamination and merging it with Back-contamination? I know that you can do the research to find good sources. Please don't rely primarily on ICAMSR, which is fringe. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
For anyone interested - I have totally given up mentioning this on the article talk page itself:
It looks fine if you aren't familiar with the material but in fact is deeply flawed.
It totally misrepresents the official position. The bias of this page, and almost throughout the Mars Project now, is strongly towards advocacy of colonization of the Mars surface and playing down contamination issues.
I added CN and WP:OPINON tags to it but the opposing editor removed them immediately a few minutes after I added them. So the reader of the article can't even be notified that there may be questions about its accuracy and POV.
Also he has attacked me personally so often in a totally OTT way, that I have given up in despair.
You asked what you did wrong. First, you used talk pages as a soapbox. Maybe you didn't mean to do that, but Warren Platts seems to be mostly right that you seemed to think that justifying your edits at great length made them right. They were partly right and partly wrong. Your talk page posts were too long, and were hard to read because of their length. Second, although you got over this, initially you wasted the time of the Help Desk. If you had felt at the time that you were too tired and frustrated to continue, you shouldn't have gone to the Help Desk until you had calmed down. Third, you seemed not to recognize that you were promoting fringe content as NPOV content. Maybe you didn't intend that, but it did come across that way. Fourth, your allegation of sock puppetry was patent nonsense. Any research would have indicated that Warren Platts and BatteryIncluded could not possibly be the same person. If you still really believe that, go to WP:SPI, and see whether they categorize you as a vexatious litigant. Is that an answer? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Your conduct didn't justify personal attacks, some of them blatant, let alone bullying on Wikipedia, but it was tendentious. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
At this point I can understand some of WP's annoyance with you. I don't see why we need a new article on the Mars sample return facility. It can be covered in the Mars sample return mission article. The article is not so big that it needs to be split. Creating a separate article gives me the feeling that it is a POV WP:Fork. Do we really need more articles, rather than to expand the articles that we have? Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AMars_sample_return_mission&diff=561730149&oldid=561689953
Your days of spamming Wikipedia with your contamination hysteria are over. I see you've spammed your propaganda in practically every article on Mars in the Wikipedia. Those "contributions" will be redacted
IMHO, you should be banned from WP:MARS because of lack of WP:COMPETENCE, especially bias-based incompetence. You simply cannot write without injecting your POV. Your content does not improve the encyclopedia.
It has already been resolved that your propaganda must not be allowed to stand. I am merely going with the community consensus. When the consensus turns against me redacting your propaganda against a non-existent space mission, I will gladly walk away from this morass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AMars_sample_return_mission&diff=563191015&oldid=563190404
As a final test I added the very short section I proposed for the MSR article to the back contamination page.
I fully expect him to delete it or replace it with his version, and have alerted him about all this on the MSR talk page (he will find out anyway soon enough, so best to know the situation, anyway he can find out here too). Contribution to Back Contamination article
If he does this I will do a R and request discussion as in BRD and if he then does a BRR that will fully confirm his topic ban is still in place.
If he leaves it in place then I can think about contributing more to those articles. Robert Walker ( talk) 09:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Robert McLenon, I know you are a busy man, so you will prob. appreciate a summary as a lot has happened since we last talked.
In short, Warren Platts now proposes deletion of the page on back contamination (not merge, but just delete it so removing the content on back contamination from wikipedia).
He did that after I made a first attempt at a substantial contribution to the page.
Talk:Back-contamination#Proposal_to_delete_this_page
I feel that it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that I won't be permitted to edit wikipedia on topics of Planetary contamination. Robert Walker ( talk) 17:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried adding POV-section tags to the MSR mission section on BC. WP removed them as expected, although the POV-section pointed to an open discussion on the talk page that was not resolved.
In the talk page section which the POV-section linked to, I showed by example what the objections were with a rewrite of his section to remove the pro-Mars surface colonization bias and add in missing information.
When it was clear that my suggestion would never be accepted there (as expected of course), I had the idea, that it was a good beginning for the article on BC, and a test of whether I would be permitted to edit that article.
So, I added it as a test edit to the back-contamination article.
WP proposed to delete it, as expected of course, but did not delete it right away. I then spent some time adding sentence by sentence citations to everything in the short section, including "quotes to assist readers in verification".
Then (when I was mid edit on the last section to add citations to) VQuakr stepped in and did the reversion without discussion or mentioning it to me first.
His comment was "Reverted to revision 562274233 by Beefman: rv mars addition, this was major overcoverage that dominated the article"
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Back-contamination&diff=563270969&oldid=563269804
VQuakr is an admin who advised me on proper conduct during the AfD. This though is surely not acceptable conduct from an admin, to treat an AfD as a topic ban especially since you had already asked me to write on back contamination on those pages. He doesn't write on spaceflight or astronomy topics as far as I can tell.
Mars is of course the only planet likely to be a risk for BC in the near future and on the talk page I had already said that I planned to have material on other possible sources of BC covered in the COSPAR restricted Category V.
I feel that there is no way I will be permitted to write on Planetary contamination issues at all in wikipedia by VQuakr and WP.
The whole thing played out mainly in the talk pages for back contamination and the MSR mission.
My edits were:
These have all been removed. Due to the way they were removed I did not attempt the R stage of BRD as it was totally clear they would simply be removed again.
Any questions be sure to say. Robert Walker ( talk) 15:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Stop whining about having been topic-banned. It is getting tiresome. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Your edits were too long, and that may be one reason why they were reverted rather than changed or cut. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't always monitor your talk page. If you want to get my attention, post to my talk page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It would be a good idea to read some of the Wikipedia policies before you start posting as if you know what they are. You wrote: "For sock puppetry, seems there are many legitimate reasons for having sock puppets, and though usually you have to disclose that you are sock puppets, there are quite a few situations where you don't need to or even shouldn't disclose that you are sock puppets." Name one legitimate reason for sock puppets. There are a few uses for legitimate alternate accounts that should normally be disclosed, but contributing to the same discussion using two user accounts is not legitimate and is sock-puppetry. Either your comments about sock-puppetry are some sort of trolling, designed to confuse, or, to assume good faith, after seven or eight years, you don't know that sock-puppetry is forbidden. Don't make unsubstantiated accusations about sock-puppetry, for which you have already been warned. Also, don't post summaries of Wikipedia policy that are blatant distortions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
@RW: Robert Walker replied: "Robert, it's here:" No, it's not. The first bullet is an exact quote, but you summarized it by changing a word and thus reversing its meaning, therefore indicating that you misunderstood the policy fundamentally. It says that there are legitimate uses of alternate accounts. Legitimate alternate accounts are not sockpuppets. Sockpuppets are illegitimate alternate accounts. Read the policy again. Since sockpuppets are (by definition) not permitted, the allegation that two long-time registered users are sockpuppets was a serious allegation, rising to the nature of a personal attack, unless you had reason to think that they were sockpuppets. Looking at their histories and behaviors, I found the allegation to be absurd. Do not make serious allegations with no evidence other than that you disagree with both of them. I will take your word that you had no intention to deceive, but in that case, you deceived yourself by reading Wikipedia policy and twisting its meaning to indicate that sometimes sockpuppets are permitted. They never are. Legitimate alternate accounts are not sockpuppets, because sockpuppets are used to deceive. You don't owe them an apology, because you answered personal attacks with personal attacks, but you do owe Wikipedia an apology, as do they. I have more confidence that you will realize that you were wrong than that they will, because you apparently hadn't re-read and reviewed the policy after paraphrasing it in a way that changes its meaning. Alternate accounts have legitimate uses. Sockpuppets are illegitimate alternate accounts. That's the policy. You read it, but you mis-paraphrased it. Please read it again until you are sure what it says. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy has been blatantly violated by completing the merger when an RFC was pending. For now, I suggest that you go ahead and make any additions to Planetary protection that you think are needed to present a balanced view. If your additions are deleted, it will provide more evidence for any further dispute resolution. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
I think that it is time to file a Request for Arbitration and will appreciate your help. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AMars_sample_return_mission&diff=561730149&oldid=561689953
4. There is a shortage of volunteers at ICAMSR. Go collaborate with DiGregorio and write a book together. Your days of spamming Wikipedia with your contamination hysteria are over. I see you've spammed your propaganda in practically every article on Mars in the Wikipedia. Those "contributions" will be redacted.
Please be aware that a Request for Arbitration has been opened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Mars
Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
This is my earlier draft: " The things that most got in the way of contributions to wikipedia are:
"
This is my draft reply to BI's allegation of WP:CHEESE:
"I don't want to get into details of my dispute with BatteryIncluded but it seems necessary to say enough to show that it is not obviously WP:CHEESE and that it deserves dispute resolution.
See: User:Robertinventor/Present_day_habitability_of_Mars_dispute "
What do you both think? Should I reply to WP:CHEESE? Should we attempt some kind of a summary and is what I wrote above useful? Robert Walker ( talk) 16:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The statements that my opponents find alarmist are actually quotes from the official studies by the NRC and the ESF plus quotations from Carl Sagan. Most of the material that has been removed presents the official POV to the very best of my ability. Any POV slant that remains in them is totally unintentional.
I have not engaged in POV pushing. As I see it what I have tried to do is to get material included in the encyclopedia most of which is to do with the official studies. Several times, I have offered to write this material in collaboration with a wikipedian friend who takes the diametrically opposite POV to me on contamination issues, to help with balance. He is keen to do this collaboration if it were approved. This offer has not been taken up or commented on by my opponents.
I've drafted out a possible response with a calmer state of mind but will sleep on it
|
Thank you for uploading Image:Hexany.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI ( talk) 15:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
fixed Robertinventor ( talk) 00:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that you recently created the article titled hexany and then someone put an "orphan" tag on it. That means that very few other articles link to it. Generally it's a good idea when creating a new article to figure out which existing articles ought to link to it and to put the links there. In this case, I notice you've named three composers about whom there are Wikipedia articles. It may be a good idea to figure out where in those articles one could put links to hexany, and similarly in musical tuning and musical scale. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I've done as you advised, thanks, Robertinventor ( talk) 23:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Hexany, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hexany. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've edited it to remove the hexany phrase transformations section, hope this helps, it's the only part that I think perhaps could count as original research, not by me, but possibly by Gene Ward Smith.
For me (using Firefox), at least, the links at the top of your home page go nowhere, because they have a backslash where a slash belongs. It would be simpler to replace "..\cubeetc/index.htm" with "/cubetc/" anyway: beginning the address with a slash takes it back to the site's top level, which is better for a template because that way it can be used at deeper levels of the tree without changes; and omitting "index.htm" protects you against the possibility that you might someday have "index.php" instead. — Tamfang ( talk) 19:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me to this! Hopefully it is fixed now. Robert Walker ( talk) 02:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 11:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The Modest Barnstar | ||
Thanks for your recent contributions! 129.49.72.78 ( talk) 22:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC) |
Hi Robert, I see that you've been working a bit on the Geological carbon cycle section of Carbon cycle. First of all thanks a bunch - I've been doing some major revision over the course of the last month and am thankful for the contributions. I've been working over the page from top to bottom and am about to arrive at the geological section, so I wanted to give a heads up that I'll be doing some copyediting. I'll try to leave all previous goodies in there and add some additional ones as well :)
In this first pass I'll basically be doing style edits, then I'll be working on the ocean sub-site for a week or two, maybe more. In the end though I should be coming back with some more sources, etc. My problem, though, is that I'm a geographer, not a geologist, and although I do have some good articles on the geological carbon cycle I wouldn't call myself an expert. That's also the reason I won't be making a subpage for that section like I have for the other sections. Any suggestions/sources/etc.? Otherwise feel free to be bold like you have been thus far and continue editing it on your own - I just didn't want to step on your toes by modifying fresh edits.
Daniel Lee ( talk) 15:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Hyacinth ( talk) 03:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Please note that the article second order logic uses parenthetical citations. So if you add a new reference, you should put it in the references section and then add a parenthetical comment to any specific sentence. But the ref you tried to add is already in the references section, and the sentence you added it to already has an inline citation to it! The footnotes in the article are just for side comments, not for bibliographic details. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 01:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
FYI, the documentation is at Template:Harv. Tijfo098 ( talk) 02:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gudi (instrument), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gudi ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm just dropping you a quick note about a new Wikipedian in Residence job that's opened up at the National Library of Scotland. There're more details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland. Richard Symonds (WMUK) ( talk) 15:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Robertinventor. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, International Committee Against Mars Sample Return, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Robert. Per our discussion on the Talk page of the Talk:Mars sample return mission a few days back, I have provided two examples of what I think is a better citation format for cleaning all those up. See what you think, and give it a try yourself. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 17:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC) N2e ( talk) 17:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Concerns for an early Mars sample return. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Based on this diff, you may not realize that the three-revert rule is a limit, not an entitlement. Sanctions including blocks can be levied even if you are in technical compliance of the 3RR. VQuakr ( talk) 20:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Concerns for an early Mars sample return may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 20:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Concerns for an early Mars sample return may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 20:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Concerns for an early Mars sample return may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you please consider using edit summaries for both your talk page and article space edits? They help others follow along in conversations, particularly when seeing the edits in a history window or watchlist. Thanks! VQuakr ( talk) 07:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Robertinventor. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Concerns for an early Mars sample return. Thank you. VQuakr ( talk) 03:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ARTICLE NAME is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerns for an early Mars sample return until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Warren Platts ( talk) 21:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
As I noted twice earlier on the talk page, forking an article into your user space and then later copying over "your version" into an article is not permissible. Your edit in article space that did this has been reverted; please do not do it again. Thanks! VQuakr ( talk) 02:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
In response to your question here - don't worry about it. The closing admin is not going to be confused by a bolded word; AfD closures are more complex than a simple vote tally. VQuakr ( talk) 08:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
So... there is this. And the talk page - half a meg of plain text, much of it written by you. I know I have mentioned to you before that you need to make more effort to be concise, to write a better article as described in the essay WP:TERSE and to communicate effectively as described at the essay WP:BECONCISE. At this point, I am seriously concerned that brevity is simply something that is outside of your skill set -- and unfortunately, it is a skill that is critical both to encyclopedic writing and to collaborative writing. At some point, WP:COMPETENCE becomes relevant.
Please consider ways you can dramatically improve the brevity of your writing and discussion. Thanks for your consideration, and I hope I do not come off too harsh (survival of the messenger and all that). VQuakr ( talk) 03:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Just to say I have naturally mentioned this article and my frustrations to my friends on facebook who include astronomers, astrobiologists and scientists. But I have asked those who are wikipedians not to intervene on the debate as per WP:CANVAS - is just to talk about my frustrations with them and for sympathy. Robert Walker ( talk) 08:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
If anyone wants to talk to me about it any more please notify me here, as I have removed them from my watch list.
I feel I have nothing to contribute to the topic, since the AfD decision to ignore everything except Zubrin's views, including even the official NASA / ESA / PPO views on the matter.
It is time to get on with my life. I feel I have loads I can contribute on this topic, but can't contribute anything about it to wikipedia, not for as long as this current policy on MSR and contamination issues prevails.
I don't want be drawn into more debates with the opposing editor. I feel is hopeless for a single editor to contest his passionate editing in support of a "mainstream view" which closely aligns with Robert Zubrin's minority single author POV.
Instead I will find other outlets for my work.
However if another editor feels strongly about this too, and has got involved in a similar edit war, and wants a bit of moral support - do let me know!
I would come back right away with the support of other editors knowledgeable about the NASA / ESA / PPO studies who wish for more accurate treatment e.g. of the NRC and ESF studies.
I would be really keen to return to help an editor keen to cover it more fully with minority views as well (on all sides of the debate) in an accurate way. AfDs can be overturned if a new article is submitted which is substantially different from the one deleted.
It would only need two editors interested in presenting a more diverse picture to turn that all around.
A 2:1 or 2:2 edit war I think would be enough to force dispute resolution of the issues. But a 1:1 edit war with an editor who continues to do bold edits and won't stop to discuss and who hurls insults at you all the time and just keeps at it until he wins the war is impossible to do anything about, I would say from my experience of one here. Robert Walker ( talk) 23:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
By neglecting mention of all other views on the matter, except the ICAMSR which is portrayed as putting forward an eccentric view of their own not held by anyone else, and misrepresenting the official reports, then the current article amounts to advocacy of something close to Zubrin's view. So who is it who is the advocate here?
For the wikipedia NPOV about writing for different POVs see the wikipedia article on "writing for the enemy". I did quite a bit of this in my version of the article, now deleted, see Concerns for an early Mars sample return.
For wikipedia, my wish is just to have the official POV of the PPO accurately represented along with adequate treatment of the many interesting minority views.
In my article on concerns about an early Mars sample return, I went to a lot of work to find out about Zubrin's views to add a section on him (hard to find but eventually I tracked down a transcript of an interview with him where he stated his views, also tracked down an article he wrote but sadly it is not available online and wanted to buy a copy but haven't managed that either). My section on Zubrin's view about back contamination risks of a MSR and his view Robert Zubrin's view that there is no need for a MSR before human colonization of Mars I would say more but found hardly any published material by him or about his views on these matters, and nothing at all by any other authors with his view that the environmental risks of BC have no scientific validity.
The way this section is now written it is no more than an advocacy argument for an unsourced POV that the risk of back contamination can be safely ignored if you take a few simple precautions. Of all the papers and other material I researched for the article, it is closest to Zubrin's attitude though Zubrin goes a bit further and says that the back contamination risk is scientifically invalid. I didn't come across anyone that published the stated view as given in the current version of the MSR page.
That's why I have given up. I can of course present Zubrin's POV and did so in my article. But there is no way can I contribute to the topic when the entire section is written within such a framework. Robert Walker ( talk) 12:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I am willing to try again if anyone else wants to join in - e.g. anyone who works for the PPO or perhaps a COSPAR representative - there are more than a thousand of them world wide, so perhaps some of you edit wikipedia? Must also be many who took part in the official NRC and ESF studies. Perhaps some of you who helped with these studies or contributed to them indirectly, may also be wikipedians?
Also in my experience many microbiologists and astrobiologists consider that it is wise to proceed with great caution in a situation that might bring unstudied and not yet directly observed alien micro-organisms from Mars back to Earth.
With even 2 editors working on the topic then it would be a different situation from a single editor. One editor with a single passionate opponent I have discovered is helpless in wikipedia. But two editors would not face the same problem and could force dispute resolution and prevent an AfD from immediately deleting your work. An article deleted in an AfD can be normally be recreated if it is substantially changed, enough to challenge the AfD decision on the grounds that it was a decision about a different article.
Also, whether or not some extensive article on this topic can be created, for sure the current section in the MSR article can definitely be challenged and changed - it just needs one other editor to join in the challenge. I will return if someone else wants to give this a go and needs some support from another editor. Robert Walker ( talk) 12:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
My views differ from those of the ICAMSR and also from the official mainstream view. It actually shares some elements with Zubrin's approach to MSR as well (though of course with different end goals).
None of my views were presented in my version of the wikipedia article which got deleted.
I wouldn't dream of using wikipedia for advocacy.
Actually I am not a member of ICAMSR and haven't signed their petition or encouraged anyone else to do so. Just saying that because the opposing editor has repeatedly implied that I am and can't seem to take a No as an answer to this. It is really frustrating to be told repeatedly that you are a member of an organization when you don't belong to it and have said frequently that you don't belong to it. There is nothing at all wrong with someone choosing to belong to it, but it so happens that I do not.
But that is beside the point. You can be an advocate of a POV and still write for wikipedia, either to make sure your own POV is represented or indeed for all POVs if you master the art of "writing for the opponent". I wrote many sections in that way presenting POVs such as Zubrin's without comment written as he would write it, using quotes or his own words, "writing for the opponent".
I have been completely professional throughout in my editing of wikipedia and of this article.
In the article that was deleted, I declared my POV at the start as you can see on the discussion that still remains on the MSR talk page. I asked other editors to help me with dealing with any bias that might creep into the article such as favouring one POV over another.
The article gave extensive treatment of the official view indeed by word count this was by far the main part of the article (unusually for a criticism type page) and it gave full treatment to all the POVs on the debate.
It all goes to show you can do everything right and yet have your work destroyed within a few weeks by a single vocal wikipedian who shouts loudly and ignores most of the wikipedia guidelines on etiquette.
The one thing I have learnt from this is that if you want to write an article for wikipedia that you think might get opposed in this way, be sure to find someone else to collaborate with first and not try to face it on your own. If you do, you simply don't stand a chance against someone sufficiently determined to destroy what you did. Robert Walker ( talk) 21:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I highly recommend that Wikipedia should have an article on this subject.
This is the conference on the subject "The Present-Day Habitability of Mars 2013".
There are many papers on it every year by researchers in the US, UK, and Germany, and including scientists from JPL, DLR in Germany, and the NASA Ames Research Center. It has been a major subject in the literature since 2008 and undoubtedly passes WP:NOTABLE.
Paige is planning to create a new journal solely devoted to this subject. See UCLA holds Mars habitability conference:
At the end of the conference, Paige said he intends to publish a special journal focusing on the present-day habitability of Mars and hopes to reconvene the conference within the next five years
If another editor feels as strongly as I do that creation of this new page is a good idea, please let me know here.
I am certain that it would be immediately subject to edit warring and probably an immdediate AfD. But it is clearly notable and with two editors in support of its creation then can't imagine that this opposition could stand up for long. On my own I don't think I have a chance.
The material here could be a basis for the new article: User:Robertinventor/possibility of Mars having enough water to support life Robert Walker ( talk) 13:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I have also posted about it to Talk:Water on Mars
You can see what we would be up against by the reply to the suggestion there. BTW this is not an attempt to recruit "meat puppets". "Meat puppets" are people outside of wikipedia which you ask to help you win a debate in wikipedia, such as an AfD.
What I am asking here is for collaborators to help with creation of an article. That is permitted. Robert Walker ( talk) 22:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Note, in view of Warren's actions today, and with him also weighing in against me on the proposal to create this article, I am sure that the article would be immediately subject to an all out edit war with him and BatteryIncluded together. Though you can't delete an article without an AfD he would probably rewrite the whole thing to his liking, making sure that it is stated clearly that present day life on the surface of Mars is impossible and revert any edits that suggest that it is possible, no matter how well cited. Whether that can be dealt with even with two editors collaborating on the project I'm not entirely sure, especially with two editors opposing it. Robert Walker ( talk) 02:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Backup of a section on the Manned mission to Mars talk page
I first came across this section in the Manned mission to Mars article as a short stub "Concerns" section with a request for a knowledgeable editor to expand it to help eliminate a perceived bias of the page in favour of human missions to the surface of Mars. See Criticism.
In response, I expended it and eventually created the Manned mission to Mars Contamination Concerns, and Telerobotics with a link to the Concerns section of the Colonization of Mars page which I also slightly expanded with a couple of paragraphs. This edit was welcomed by all other editors at the time, and other editors of this page such as Fatherred and others contributed to it with discussion and minor edits.
There was a bit more discussion here Neutral POV.
Then later This article is more of an essay has a discussion of a suggestion to trim down this article.
As you see I planned to do that after first moving some of the content to other relevant sections of wikipedia.
I started on this process, but have had to stop as all the material I wrote is now deleted (most of it with no discussion first) including this original section.
This other content has for the most part now been deleted by Warren Platts and BatteryIncluded, and they will re-delete it if I attempt to recreate it. My original contribution on contamination concerns to Manned mission to Mars has been deleted in its entirety too. So there is nothing left of my work on this topic except for the backups of all this material in my user space.
For a list of all my material from the Wikipedia Mars Project deleted by Warren Platts and BatteryIncluded deleted see Other sections deleted by the opposing editor
Details follow of what remains in wikipedia and of the bias in what remains - expand if you want to see more
Extended content
|
---|
All that remains of forward contamination risks for Mars in wikipedia, to my knowledge, is the mention of the Mars specific sub categories of category IV in the Planetary protection article. Since I was the editor who contributed that section, I wouldn't be totally surprised if he removes it too, but whether or not, obviously that doesn't count as adequate coverage for Project Mars. Outside of this brief mention in the Planetary protection article, there is now no mention of forward contamination concerns for Mars in wikipedia, as far as I know.
Backward contamination concerns are now only covered in the description of Category V in the Planetary protection article, a short biased section in the Mars sample return mission page, and a short page on the ICAMSR. The ICAMSR is a small advocacy group of scientists at the far end of the spectrum on back contamination issues. They were inspired by Carl Sagan, who was deeply concerned about Mars contamination issues. It is opposed to any Mars sample return which is carried out before in situ studies and biohazard testing outside of Earth. For the bias in the Back Contamination section of the Mars sample return mission page, see The flaws with the current MSR section on BC. |
The result now is an imbalance not just of this page but of all the material in the Wikipedia Project Mars. But after spending probably a full working week of my time attempting to save the material on back contamination issues of Mars I know how impossible it is for me to do anything about it in response to the determined opposition of these other editors, and so have given up on any attempt to edit the Wikipedia project on Mars to give it balance on concerns with issues of human missions to Mars.
For more about this see: Other sections deleted by the opposing editor.
For the reasons mentioned there I will not attempt to contest these edits. Just registering my protest to this final bold edit removing just about all that remains of content in Mars Project about Mars contamination issues. All the deleted content is the subject of much publication and it was all well cited with numerous inline citations to notable sources.
For the other sections of the Wikipedia Mars Project he deleted see #Other sections deleted by the opposing editor
In my view these actions amount to censorship. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored
See also: Educate those who want to censor Wikipedia Robert Walker ( talk) 11:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The project to trim the Manned mission to Mars contamination section by moving and merging relevant content to other parts of wikipedia went well at first, with new material updating the Water on Mars section on possibility of surface habitats to support life, and the new back contamination section of the Mars sample return mission. But then it all went wrong with the opposition of these editors. I will collapse this, expand it if you want to read the details:
Extended content
|
---|
I then was told that my section of the Mars sample return mission was too long and the result of the discussion on that page was that I should have a short summary there and a separate article. That also went well with the other editors saying they liked the new article. But then BatteryIncluded disputed a brief mention of habitability of surface of Mars in the Life on Mars page, and that ended with deletion of the section there and Battery included also deleted the material in the Water on Mars section (which I only contributed a couple of sections to) and replaced it with a new section saying that the Mars surface is uninhabitable based on pre 2008 research when it was believed that any life on the surface of Mars would be dormant and destroyed by cosmic radiation. About the same time, Warren Platts did a series of bold edits to remove most of the content of the new Concerns for an early Mars sample return page, and then finally did an AfD on what was left. I restored my original edit for the AfD, and worked really hard on the article to eliminate the slightest trace of bias, this took ages, also checking all the refs. But the result of the AfD (with Warren Platts and BatteryIncluded as two strong voices opposing me and just one keep in my favour, then some other votes against) was to delete it and to replace the section on Mars sample return with his very biased section which omits almost all concerns even of the offficial policy documents and studies. Then finally came this last wholesale deletion of all the material so now there is nothing left of any of this material on wikipedia. |
In view of what happened to date I have no hope of restoring it. My energies are better spent on other projects where I am a welcome participant.
I would return to Wikipedia Project Mars as part of a collaboration with another editor. It was trying to face all this almost on my own with no major collaborator that made it so impossible for me. Robert Walker ( talk) 12:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
This editor is on a personal campaign to remove all my contributions from the Mars section of wikipedia - including removing whole sections I contributed to. I have backed them up to my user space.
He said on the Mars sample return talk page that this is his plan:
"Your days of spamming Wikipedia with your contamination hysteria are over. I see you've spammed your propaganda in practically every article on Mars in the Wikipedia. Those "contributions" will be redacted."
So far he has deleted:
Warren Platts and BatteryIncluded share a personal grudge against me which started about a month ago (for both of them) and involves repeated extremely OTT insults in almost every single post they make when they talk to me or talk about me on the talk pages.
It was probably some off wiki encounter with them both that sparked all this hostility. I know of one possible explanation of this nature, that Warren was involved in (though no-one by name of BatteryIncluded). It was a forum debate with about half a dozen opponents with the same propensity to insult me frequently and all opposed to my views.
I have never insulted either of them, and there is no reason at all for this behaviour to my knowledge except for my differing views on contamination issues, and my preference for telerobotic exploration of Mars by humans in orbit, rather than human landings on the surface of Mars.
The result of all this hostility is that clearly I am no longer permitted by these two editors to edit the Mars sections of wikipedia and I totally don't have the energy to try to fight against them, after the AfD which in total probably took up an entire working week of my time. I have much more productive ways to use my time than this :). Robert Walker ( talk) 23:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I have just reverted Warren Platts's bold removal of my material on the Manned mission to Mars section. I know what will happen, he will undo my revert as soon as he notices it. So this is by way of a token protest against his behaviour - permitted under BRD, so not yet edit warring. Robert Walker ( talk) 00:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
It was immediately undone again as expected. No point in attempting discussion or dispute resolution. Historically this is the first section I wrote on this material in response to a request to restore a balanced POV on this page. The other deleted material came about in response to a discussion on the Manned mission to Mars talk page where the outcome of the discussion was that I should look into options to move some of that material to other sections of wikipedia on Mars. See next section here for more about that. Robert Walker ( talk) 03:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
You pointed out a problem at the Help Desk, which is that Warren Platts does indeed appear to be asserting ownership of the Mars Project. However, the quotes of personal attacks were not backed up with diffs, and I can't locate them. If I can locate the personal attacks, we can act on them, whether you continue taking part in Mars or not. There are other editors who are also concerned about his efforts to own the Mars Project. Please provide diffs of the attacks. Otherwise I will have to assume that you wasted the time of the Help Desk tediously. Please provide the diffs. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
First just repeating the ones from the help desk: You need to expand the section - he collapsed my first comment in this section - and then they did another collapse on top of that But you should find this quote there:
This is the other one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mars_sample_return_mission#Bias_of_section_on_back_contamination
These are all from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return#Okay_I_see_the_decision_was_delete_and_merge Too many edits to do via diffs, but if you do a search of the page text for the text you should find them easily. "Unbelievable. You must be out of your mind. " "Every single study that was not extruded by ICAMSR! Who do you really think you're kidding?!?" "What a bunch of baloney. You just cannot help but twist things. The prevailing view is that MSR is safe. OK, you are on record as refusing to compromise. Fine with me. Let the chips fall where they may" "And nice cherrypicking of quotes taken out of context! As usual.... You are good at that." "All you're doing is proving that you are recalcitrant and will actively resist any efforts by other editors to render this article into NPOV" "Wow. Just wow. You just proved that you never took a geology class in your life, not even "Rocks for Jocks". Maybe you should stick to your areas of expertise--like microtonal music.... That's a very important subject Robert. You're time would be more productively spent on something you something about IMHO" (never explained what it was he thought I didn't understand) "This seems to be a general editorial strategy of yours: sneak in biased info under the radar, as it were, while leaving out the material that doesn't support your editorial slant. And then only include the contradictory info when other people call you on it. You can read Robert. You know exactly what parts I'm talking about, but you won't include them unless and until someone until someone explicitly points them out." - I've no idea what that was about, and even after several requests to clarify, he never said "I do not agree because you are literally leaving out figures that do not support your editorial slant/rant." "See, I knew you would do that. This is your modus operandi. You cannot stand other people editing your WP:OWN articles. All you want from other editors is to do fact checking for you so you can go in and eliminate your stupid mistakes." "The point is you are twisting Zubrin's words to support your editorial position t" "But of course you KNOW that kuru disease is caused by prions. This is your way of sneaking in the implication that we also have to worry about Martian prions. A crazy idea that no one, not even ICAMSR mentions. More editorial slanting." "More outright lies. No one recommends at least 12 years. Also you are inventing official views that do not exist. There are no official views about "a too early" MSR. That is your invention. You are good at that. So I think that handle of yours "Robert the Inventor" is quite appropriate." "Shall we call it intentional misrepresentation instead? Your word twistage is intentional." "You need help Robert" "HAHAHA!! You crack me up Robert. You really cannot control yourself when it comes to cherrypicking." "OMG... The truth is finally coming out. It's clear you truly don't have a clue about what you are talking about;" "Well, at least you admit to cherrypicking quotes to support your editorial opinion. I guess that's progress.." " It is a word you coined for the purpose of your editorial rant" "EVERYTHING you just said is word twistage and a gross mischaracterization of the literature." "ou merely cherry pick items you think support your cause, embellish the hell out of them to make them scary, leading the unsuspecting reader by the nose to your smelly corner step by step to your conclusion that MSR will cause doomsday! It's a bunch of unredeemable editorial crap is what it is." ". I insist that you add a section on Doomsday phobias in "your" article that explores the POV that these so-called concerns are psychological in origin since they have no basis in real science." "Yep, removing all of a page and replacing it w/ nonsense. That pretty much describes it" "You said it was "unsourced". This is so blatantly false--as I am sure you must be aware if you are not crazy--it is absolutely ridiculous. Intentionally hurling false accusations (lies) is a form of ad hominem argumentation. It's a personal attack. An insult, in other words...." "Um, yes, you have insulted me, numerous times, in your back-handed, passive-aggressive, condescending, ever so WP:civil POV pushing manner" " On the 3rd party discussion page you misspelled my name so many times, it's very hard to believe that it was a coincidence; I'm sure a statistical analysis would show it was not a coincidence." ""I do not try to get other people to join any organisation or to hold any kind of a view." I call BF on this: bad faith. It's either that or you need professional help to deal with a split personality in addition to your OCD, dyslexia, and doomsday phobia. It is obvious to everyone that you are on a mission to change hearts and minds. Now you want to use the Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote your fringe theory that we are all in potentially great danger because of MSR. Sorry, but your days of running amok here are over. I suggest you stick to music and leave the science to the experts." Many more but that gives the idea. |
See WikiProject Mars.
For the material I wrote which has now been deleted see #Other sections deleted by the opposing editor
Clearly WikiProject Mars is not a place for an editor who wants to write about forward or backward contamination issues, or about the present day habitability of the surface of Mars.
The relevance there of course is that if the surface of Mars has microhabitats potentially habitable by micro-organisms then the forward contamination issues for human colonization are more severe. Indeed on current understanding, if these habitats are widespread, as some of the recent research suggests, I don't know how it can be possible at all unless or until you give up on your wish to study a pristine Mars.
It is not me that's being censored here. It is NASA, the ESA, the PPO, all those researching into the Present Day Habitability of Mars, and those who inspired the present day policies: Carl Sagan, Ledeberg, etc in the sense that any accurate statements of their views on this matter are now banned from wikipedia.
This censorship and ban is being carried out by a single user who is not an admin. There has been no banning notice or anything of that sort. It is simply a unilateral personal decision on his part.
Robert Walker ( talk) 08:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Can I offer some friendly advice? My thought is that you get too excited by dwelling on the injustice done to you by other Wikipedians. This sort of mental excitement can prevent someone from making logical decisions and clearly considering what things are important and ought to be addressed. A first step in achieving a calm mind could be recognizing personal limits. One cannot always make things like Wikipedia articles conform to one's ideas of how they ought to be. If one does not calm one's mind and take a detached nonchalant attitude, and in a fury attempts to do important work, then the likely result is one harming one's own interest. Remember that on Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Take a day or two to decide what is important. Edit less. Edit better. If one can make a convincing case for one's position, changing an article after a couple of days will be sufficient, and one wins the support of other editors. Read what other editors write. If there is a way to accommodate there concerns, try to do that. If they insist on being completely unreasonable, someone else will handle the situation eventually. Unreasonable editors do not last long on Wikipedia. It is better to have an article suffer from some other editor's unreasonable editing than to edit in anger and have one's own anger damage the article. Accept that although some other editors have done very good things that make Wikipedia interesting and helpful, some other editors write misleading articles and advocacy. Sometimes there is nothing one can do about it. Wikipedia is not perfect and never will be. I hope this helps. - Fartherred ( talk) 22:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Wow Robert, WP:AGF much? I suggest you blank this section because I really do not see how speculating about these two accounts is productive. For the record, though, I just had a look at the two accounts. One was created six years ago; the other seven years ago. They have had no significant interactions except this family of Mars biology articles in the last couple of months. I find it implausible that a person created an extra account six years ago just to votestack an AfD. VQuakr ( talk) 05:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
This is the page that was deleted: Concerns for an early Mars sample return Many references to notable sources. I don't see how anyone uninvolved can doubt its notability
This was the discussion AfD discussion No discussion of the sources at all. No questions about any particular part of the article to check if what I wrote there is true. Just a decision to delete the whole thing based apparently on Warren's assessment of it, rather than reading any of the sources or checking anything in the article against the sources.
The only ones in the debate who write regularly about Project Mars, if you look at their contributions, were BatteryIncluded and WarrenPlatts both of whom have been insulting me regularly in all their interactions with me for the last month and obviously have a personal grudge against me and great personal distaste for the subject of the article because of its implications for human colonization of the surface of Mars, that taking the precautions discussed will delay the Mars exploration program (in their view).
I know it went through due process. But still it doesn't seem fair that such a well cited carefully researched article was deleted without any discussion of the sources in the AfD, and without any attempt to check if any particular statement in the article was correctly cited and reported.
The decision to delete was done apparently solely on the basis of the subject of the article. Basically, a decision was made that an article with that subject shouldn't be included in Wikipedia
Really the only substantial argument against it was that it discusses the possibility of disruption of the environment of the Earth which Warren Platts portrayed as an obsession of the ICAMSR only. Just a glance at the sources cited in this section to find the quotes and read them in context in the original pages, and it is clear that it is something accepted in all the NASA / ESA / PPO sources as a matter of concern and that what Warren Platts and BatteryIncluded said about it is simply incorrect.
View presented in the NRC and ESF study group reports and Planetary Protection Office summaries
A secondary argument was that because I am personally concerned about a MSR and have written an opinion piece in my science20 column about that that therefore I can't write a balanced article. But again you just need to read the article and check the sources to see that most of it describes the official POV accurately, and that I did a lot of writing for the opponent, and nowhere do I express my own POV.
And no single instance of misrepresentation of anything in the article was given in the AfD. Just a general claim that the article as a whole was biased. No attempt to help me to correct the perceived bias or explain what it is.
All there was to explain the percecption of bias was this general remark that apparently, although environmental disruption of the Earth is extensively discussed in the source documents from the NRC, ESF, Planetary Proteciton Office etc, the general agreement in the AfD was that it should not be attributed to any of them, and should only be attributed as a fringe view of the ICAMSR.
Follow up the quotes and check for yourself if these sources discuss it as a seriously accpeted possibility or not:
View presented in the NRC and ESF study group reports and Planetary Protection Office summaries
I know that others here have problems with my behaviour, others complain that I said too much in my talk page comments I wrote to attempt to save the article. But though that is reason to censor me for saying too much, that is not a valid reason to delete the article.
Just writing this as an expression of my frustration with the whole process of AfD in this case. It went through due process and was closed by an admin who was uninvolved with the subject.
There were some irregularities in the process, particularly, that the article that was nominated for AfD originally was written by Warren Platts who for the start of the AfD did not permit me to revert to my version of the article, so for a while, it was the situation of an opposing editor who nominated his version of the article for deletion and merge, and didn't permit his opponent to edit it to make a more substantial article.
But that it seems is not enough to be of concern. Apart from that, it went through due process. I have no expectation of any change in the decision.
Robert Walker ( talk) 06:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
When posting to user talk pages, if adding a new section, please add it at the bottom. You posted sections to my talk page that were not at the bottom. This is confusing because I don't normally look in the middle of my talk page. Also, the fact that two users share the same viewpoint is not in itself reason to suggest that they are sockpuppets. Also, please try to find the two extremely inflammatory posts and provide me with diffs, because whoever posted them needs to be warned strongly. I don't have the time to wade through your voluminous complaints to find the quotes that you posted. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I am asking for another diff, the one to the post where he said that he wanted you topic-banned from Mars. On the one hand, he has a right to request that you be topic-banned. He can do that via a user conduct Request for Comments, with resolution by consensus of administrators or arbitration by the ArbCom. On the other hand, he has no right in a project or article talk space to request that you be topic-banned. An attempt to request a formal topic-ban would be likely to boomerang, because the community of administrators or the ArbCom will consider the conduct of the requester as well as the person against whom the remedies are requested. His efforts to have you topic-banned, without invoking formal dispute resolution, appear to me (after having reviewed the policies), to be Wikipedia bullying. Please provide the diff to that statement on his part. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AMars_sample_return_mission&diff=561730149&oldid=561689953
Your days of spamming Wikipedia with your contamination hysteria are over. I see you've spammed your propaganda in practically every article on Mars in the Wikipedia. Those "contributions" will be redacted
Once you have calmed down and gotten over the hurt, can you please consider expanding the article on Interplanetary contamination and merging it with Back-contamination? I know that you can do the research to find good sources. Please don't rely primarily on ICAMSR, which is fringe. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
For anyone interested - I have totally given up mentioning this on the article talk page itself:
It looks fine if you aren't familiar with the material but in fact is deeply flawed.
It totally misrepresents the official position. The bias of this page, and almost throughout the Mars Project now, is strongly towards advocacy of colonization of the Mars surface and playing down contamination issues.
I added CN and WP:OPINON tags to it but the opposing editor removed them immediately a few minutes after I added them. So the reader of the article can't even be notified that there may be questions about its accuracy and POV.
Also he has attacked me personally so often in a totally OTT way, that I have given up in despair.
You asked what you did wrong. First, you used talk pages as a soapbox. Maybe you didn't mean to do that, but Warren Platts seems to be mostly right that you seemed to think that justifying your edits at great length made them right. They were partly right and partly wrong. Your talk page posts were too long, and were hard to read because of their length. Second, although you got over this, initially you wasted the time of the Help Desk. If you had felt at the time that you were too tired and frustrated to continue, you shouldn't have gone to the Help Desk until you had calmed down. Third, you seemed not to recognize that you were promoting fringe content as NPOV content. Maybe you didn't intend that, but it did come across that way. Fourth, your allegation of sock puppetry was patent nonsense. Any research would have indicated that Warren Platts and BatteryIncluded could not possibly be the same person. If you still really believe that, go to WP:SPI, and see whether they categorize you as a vexatious litigant. Is that an answer? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Your conduct didn't justify personal attacks, some of them blatant, let alone bullying on Wikipedia, but it was tendentious. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
At this point I can understand some of WP's annoyance with you. I don't see why we need a new article on the Mars sample return facility. It can be covered in the Mars sample return mission article. The article is not so big that it needs to be split. Creating a separate article gives me the feeling that it is a POV WP:Fork. Do we really need more articles, rather than to expand the articles that we have? Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AMars_sample_return_mission&diff=561730149&oldid=561689953
Your days of spamming Wikipedia with your contamination hysteria are over. I see you've spammed your propaganda in practically every article on Mars in the Wikipedia. Those "contributions" will be redacted
IMHO, you should be banned from WP:MARS because of lack of WP:COMPETENCE, especially bias-based incompetence. You simply cannot write without injecting your POV. Your content does not improve the encyclopedia.
It has already been resolved that your propaganda must not be allowed to stand. I am merely going with the community consensus. When the consensus turns against me redacting your propaganda against a non-existent space mission, I will gladly walk away from this morass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AMars_sample_return_mission&diff=563191015&oldid=563190404
As a final test I added the very short section I proposed for the MSR article to the back contamination page.
I fully expect him to delete it or replace it with his version, and have alerted him about all this on the MSR talk page (he will find out anyway soon enough, so best to know the situation, anyway he can find out here too). Contribution to Back Contamination article
If he does this I will do a R and request discussion as in BRD and if he then does a BRR that will fully confirm his topic ban is still in place.
If he leaves it in place then I can think about contributing more to those articles. Robert Walker ( talk) 09:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Robert McLenon, I know you are a busy man, so you will prob. appreciate a summary as a lot has happened since we last talked.
In short, Warren Platts now proposes deletion of the page on back contamination (not merge, but just delete it so removing the content on back contamination from wikipedia).
He did that after I made a first attempt at a substantial contribution to the page.
Talk:Back-contamination#Proposal_to_delete_this_page
I feel that it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that I won't be permitted to edit wikipedia on topics of Planetary contamination. Robert Walker ( talk) 17:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried adding POV-section tags to the MSR mission section on BC. WP removed them as expected, although the POV-section pointed to an open discussion on the talk page that was not resolved.
In the talk page section which the POV-section linked to, I showed by example what the objections were with a rewrite of his section to remove the pro-Mars surface colonization bias and add in missing information.
When it was clear that my suggestion would never be accepted there (as expected of course), I had the idea, that it was a good beginning for the article on BC, and a test of whether I would be permitted to edit that article.
So, I added it as a test edit to the back-contamination article.
WP proposed to delete it, as expected of course, but did not delete it right away. I then spent some time adding sentence by sentence citations to everything in the short section, including "quotes to assist readers in verification".
Then (when I was mid edit on the last section to add citations to) VQuakr stepped in and did the reversion without discussion or mentioning it to me first.
His comment was "Reverted to revision 562274233 by Beefman: rv mars addition, this was major overcoverage that dominated the article"
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Back-contamination&diff=563270969&oldid=563269804
VQuakr is an admin who advised me on proper conduct during the AfD. This though is surely not acceptable conduct from an admin, to treat an AfD as a topic ban especially since you had already asked me to write on back contamination on those pages. He doesn't write on spaceflight or astronomy topics as far as I can tell.
Mars is of course the only planet likely to be a risk for BC in the near future and on the talk page I had already said that I planned to have material on other possible sources of BC covered in the COSPAR restricted Category V.
I feel that there is no way I will be permitted to write on Planetary contamination issues at all in wikipedia by VQuakr and WP.
The whole thing played out mainly in the talk pages for back contamination and the MSR mission.
My edits were:
These have all been removed. Due to the way they were removed I did not attempt the R stage of BRD as it was totally clear they would simply be removed again.
Any questions be sure to say. Robert Walker ( talk) 15:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Stop whining about having been topic-banned. It is getting tiresome. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Your edits were too long, and that may be one reason why they were reverted rather than changed or cut. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't always monitor your talk page. If you want to get my attention, post to my talk page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It would be a good idea to read some of the Wikipedia policies before you start posting as if you know what they are. You wrote: "For sock puppetry, seems there are many legitimate reasons for having sock puppets, and though usually you have to disclose that you are sock puppets, there are quite a few situations where you don't need to or even shouldn't disclose that you are sock puppets." Name one legitimate reason for sock puppets. There are a few uses for legitimate alternate accounts that should normally be disclosed, but contributing to the same discussion using two user accounts is not legitimate and is sock-puppetry. Either your comments about sock-puppetry are some sort of trolling, designed to confuse, or, to assume good faith, after seven or eight years, you don't know that sock-puppetry is forbidden. Don't make unsubstantiated accusations about sock-puppetry, for which you have already been warned. Also, don't post summaries of Wikipedia policy that are blatant distortions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
@RW: Robert Walker replied: "Robert, it's here:" No, it's not. The first bullet is an exact quote, but you summarized it by changing a word and thus reversing its meaning, therefore indicating that you misunderstood the policy fundamentally. It says that there are legitimate uses of alternate accounts. Legitimate alternate accounts are not sockpuppets. Sockpuppets are illegitimate alternate accounts. Read the policy again. Since sockpuppets are (by definition) not permitted, the allegation that two long-time registered users are sockpuppets was a serious allegation, rising to the nature of a personal attack, unless you had reason to think that they were sockpuppets. Looking at their histories and behaviors, I found the allegation to be absurd. Do not make serious allegations with no evidence other than that you disagree with both of them. I will take your word that you had no intention to deceive, but in that case, you deceived yourself by reading Wikipedia policy and twisting its meaning to indicate that sometimes sockpuppets are permitted. They never are. Legitimate alternate accounts are not sockpuppets, because sockpuppets are used to deceive. You don't owe them an apology, because you answered personal attacks with personal attacks, but you do owe Wikipedia an apology, as do they. I have more confidence that you will realize that you were wrong than that they will, because you apparently hadn't re-read and reviewed the policy after paraphrasing it in a way that changes its meaning. Alternate accounts have legitimate uses. Sockpuppets are illegitimate alternate accounts. That's the policy. You read it, but you mis-paraphrased it. Please read it again until you are sure what it says. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy has been blatantly violated by completing the merger when an RFC was pending. For now, I suggest that you go ahead and make any additions to Planetary protection that you think are needed to present a balanced view. If your additions are deleted, it will provide more evidence for any further dispute resolution. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
I think that it is time to file a Request for Arbitration and will appreciate your help. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AMars_sample_return_mission&diff=561730149&oldid=561689953
4. There is a shortage of volunteers at ICAMSR. Go collaborate with DiGregorio and write a book together. Your days of spamming Wikipedia with your contamination hysteria are over. I see you've spammed your propaganda in practically every article on Mars in the Wikipedia. Those "contributions" will be redacted.
Please be aware that a Request for Arbitration has been opened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Mars
Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
This is my earlier draft: " The things that most got in the way of contributions to wikipedia are:
"
This is my draft reply to BI's allegation of WP:CHEESE:
"I don't want to get into details of my dispute with BatteryIncluded but it seems necessary to say enough to show that it is not obviously WP:CHEESE and that it deserves dispute resolution.
See: User:Robertinventor/Present_day_habitability_of_Mars_dispute "
What do you both think? Should I reply to WP:CHEESE? Should we attempt some kind of a summary and is what I wrote above useful? Robert Walker ( talk) 16:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The statements that my opponents find alarmist are actually quotes from the official studies by the NRC and the ESF plus quotations from Carl Sagan. Most of the material that has been removed presents the official POV to the very best of my ability. Any POV slant that remains in them is totally unintentional.
I have not engaged in POV pushing. As I see it what I have tried to do is to get material included in the encyclopedia most of which is to do with the official studies. Several times, I have offered to write this material in collaboration with a wikipedian friend who takes the diametrically opposite POV to me on contamination issues, to help with balance. He is keen to do this collaboration if it were approved. This offer has not been taken up or commented on by my opponents.
I've drafted out a possible response with a calmer state of mind but will sleep on it