REMINDER TO SELF - YOU ARE NOW ON WIKIPEDIA - USE SANDBOX TO COMPOSE YOUR COMMENTS IF THEY ARE LIKELY TO NEED EDITING AFTER POSTING User:Robertinventor/subpages
MfD nomination of User:Robertinventor/Mars Surface LifeEdit
User:Robertinventor/Mars Surface Life, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Robertinventor/Mars Surface Life and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Robertinventor/Mars Surface Life during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The background is that I only did one or two major articles a year, usually without collaborators. About a third were deleted suddenly, by editors who hadn't taken part in content creation. It was similar for the Buddhism topic ban but someone else's content not mine. My talk page comments to defend the content lead to all the sanctions for verbosity (for bad faith charges see collapsed section below).
As per WP:OTHERWIKIS I've put all this deleted material into other wikis or blogs. This is where I do any new content on these topics now, with a considerable backlog. Most new articles are under Wikipedia compatibe licenses if anyone wants to reuse them here.
I also write for Wikinews occasionally, where I collaborate with other editors. Wikinews articles are reviewed before publication with criteria similar to Good Articles. By collaborating similarly in Wikipedia, and submitting major content for Good article status once finished, any matters of Wikipedia:COMPETENCY such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV, ecyclopedic tone etc would be sorted out during content creation. My most likely topic area for a new article would be microtonal music as for my proposed project with 11 other voters that may include potential collaborators.
However, most articles I edited in Wikipedia involved minor edits. As an example, my Black hole edit is for a Good article with 1,871 watchers. It was immediately reviewed by WolfmanSF who retained the sources and conclusions and made small changes, and in similar form it's also retained in two other articles. Two of the other three minor edits I mentioned in the debate are also still there. So are nearly all my other minor edits for the year before the indef block, e.g.  etc.
My minor edits never cause problems to anyone and help reduce errors in Wikipedia. In the year before the block, I fixed over 90 articles, with only 2 reverts. I also collaborated with discussion and minor edits on David Meade (author) which got rated as a "Good article". (Note the cites I removed to myself were added by another editor.)
I have always been a good faith editor and would like to issue some corrections relating to claims of bad faith editing
(expand references section below for the cites)
Previously I was the majority editor of Planetary protection, with 68.8% of it my content (checked with WhoColor). However, there is an overlap with the material the community decided to delete. As a good faith editor, accepting that this is the community decision here, I do not think I'm the one to resolve this.
The relevant section is short and uncited. In my wiki it is expanded and cited. I think it is best if I continue to edit my own version in my wiki. It is of course released under CC by SA if anyone here wishes to use any of the content.
If I have left anything out please ask me about it, thanks!
Can I kindly ask you to give me time to respond to any similar reasons given for rejecting the appeal before you vote.Thank you for your time in considering this appeal.
As your block was made by the community, it would need a further community discussion to reverse. I see no chance of that succeeding based on this unblock request, and so I must decline.
If you wish to make an unblock request that could be presented for discussion, you need to make it brief and to the point, and without extensive "corrections" and dozens of references. And you need to address, seriously, the problems you have exhibited for a significant time with your style of research and writing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
"My talk page comments to defend the content lead to all the sanctions for verbosity." False! You were blocked for a very extensive list of violations on multiple articles, a consistent pattern you maintained to the end. I hope the administrators reviewing this take look into your history, and at your well established lack of Wikipedia:COMPETENCY. Rowan Forest (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Present day habitability of Mars, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Your draft article, Draft:Present day habitability of MarsEdit
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.