User talk:Robertinventor/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Responses to Request for Arbitration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Mars

Drafting out a possible response here, want to think carefully before I do anything because of a tendency to panic. Should I reply? Is this a good reply?

Will sleep on it myself, won't respond today. Thanks!

I have a tendency towards loquaciousness and tend to write too much when I panic. For this I apologise. The volume of text was a response to sudden deletion over a period of weeks of all the material I contributed on these topics, and repeated extreme personal verbal attacks which lead to anxiety and panic.

The material deleted is notable. Sources include the European Space Foundation, the Office of Planetary Protection, and the American National Research Council.

For many exobiologists, environmental disruption seems a possible though low probability consequence of a Mars sample return. This concern was first raised by Carl Sagan in the 1970s, and confirmed by official studies. It is easy to confuse the official POV with the POV of the ICAMSR since both talk about environmental disruption of the Earth. It is natural to assume that such an idea must be WP:FRINGE.

However the difference is that the official POV is that the risk can be contained, while the ICAMSR is skeptical, mainly due to possibilities of human error, and contend that more in situ research on Mars is needed. AFIK, Zubrin is the only notable published author to state that it has no scientific validity.

I feel that this material should be included somewhere. It is impossible to discuss this rationally due to the disruptive behaviour of my opponents.

Note the citations, to notable sources:
User:Robertinventor/Mars_Sample_Receiving_Faclity
User:Robertinventor/Mars_Sample_Return_Legal_Issues_and_International_Public_Debate

In my view the matter hasn't been resolved. No reason has been given for excluding it.

I do have a bias, and declared it early on. My opponents have sympathies for Zubrin's opposing minority view.

I offered to rewrite it with the help of a friend of opposite POV (a friend of Zubrin) keen to collaborate. Dan Hobley thought this was a way forward but my main opponent rejected the idea with the comment that [he should be my collaborator instead]. That is not practically possible, as you can judge from the notes.

In my view, Project Mars is now slanted towards the POV of Mars surface colonization advocacy. There has been no response to my comment on this bias.

On socking allegations, all I did was ask more experienced editors for their advice.

I was under the mistaken impression that "sock puppet" meant the same thing as "alternative account" which added to confusion, as I talked about "legitimate use of sock puppets". Also, I didn't understand complexities of meat puppets, and acceptable off wiki communication between collaborators with shared goals.

Now that it has been cleared up, I do not wish to press allegations. I apologise to Robert McClenon for misundestandings, and thank him and Fartherred for helping to clear it up.

(460 words)

It's a bit long but fits within the 500 word limit just. Maybe it can be trimmed some more. Anyway do you think it is a good response? I'll sleep on it myself and see what I think tomorrow too. Robert Walker (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You got good advice to stop posting so much so nervously to your talk page. It could be trimmed some more. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone Not Using His Real Name is not an arbitrator, and does not indicate (WMF) after his user name. He is a prolific editor who has posted on Mars topics and mostly posts about weapons. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've trimmed it a bit more. I will take another break, and look at it again later and see if more trimming is possible. Do you have any thoughts on timescale, is it good to reply within the next day or so, or can I take a more leisurely approach and e.g. reply at the end of the week or whatever? Also do you think it would help to add a short one or two sentences summary to the head of each of my sections in your notes?

Thanks for explaining about "Someone Not Using His Real Name", so perhaps I don't need to be over concerned about his conclusions, e.g. suggestion of topic banning me, at this stage, will see what happens. Robert Walker (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Have trimmed it a bit more, though also felt some bits needed slight expansion for clarity. Is down to 460 words. Not sure if I can reduce it much further and still say everything that needs to be said, but will revisit and see. Any particular thoughts about particular things that could be trimmed or best left out or such like? Robert Walker (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Had a thought, another way to look at it is to state goals. User:Robertinventor/Goals_for_Arbitration

Though - don't know how I could combine that with my 460 word summary :). Maybe as a link like that, if it is worth including at all?? I could also shorten the 460 word summary by putting some if it into my user space and link to it for those who want the information., Robert Walker (talk) 11:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

This is my best attempt so far. I see that someone has already replied with a decline, and feel, I should say something what do you think?

I have a tendency to write a fair amount anyway, and then tend to write too much when I panic. I had all my contributions on this topic removed in a period of a few weeks plus many rather extreme insults from my opponents which lead to anxiety and panic. That's the reason for the volume of text and I apologise to those inconvenienced by them.

The material deleted is notable, with sources such as ESF, NRC, Office of Planetary Protection. It would be natural to assume that "environmental disruption of Earth" is WP:FRINGE. But in fact that is not the point of difference here.

The concern of possible environmental disruption was raised by Carl Sagan in 1970s and the need to take precautions against it was confirmed by all the later studies. All the sources treat it as an exceedingly low probability worst case scenario, except Zubrin.

The main differences in view are:

• Official POV - safe sample return to the Earth is possible provided suitable precautions are taken
• ICAMSR - Only possible after extensive in situ examination on Mars followed by quarantine in orbit.
• Zubrin - the risk has no scientific validity at all.
  
  

As a result it is not WP:FRINGE or POV pushing or alarmist to talk about the possibility of environmental disruption in the wikipedia article so long as it is also made clear that the official view is that the risk can be contained, and the return carried out safely. Indeed you have to talk about it to cover the topic adequately.

This may also be of interest: Goals for Arbitration

In my view the matter hasn't been resolved. No reason has been given for excluding the material, and I can't go through normal processes to create it. Dispute resolution is also impossible, the opponents are too disruptive to permit this and Battery Included refuses to talk to me at all.

I do have a bias, and declared it early on. My opponents have a bias too, in my opinion, for Zubrin's opposing minority view.

I offered to rewrite it with the help of a friend of opposite POV. My main opponent rejected the idea with the comment that [he should be my collaborator instead]. That is not practically possible, as you can judge from the notes.

To the others on Mars Project it may seem it is all over. But that is just because most of the topic has been removed, on the whole of wikipedia, just two short pages left and one section of another page, and other very short mentions.

On the socking allegations, it was due to some misunderstandings on my part plus inexperience, now cleared up with help of Robert McClenon and Farthered. I do not wish to press any such allegations, and it never got any further than asking more experienced wikipedians for their advice and help.

Is this okay? Any thoughts. Is down to 478 words. With extra material under "Goals for Arbitration". Or do I just give up and not do anything? Robert Walker (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I've replied now. They had started to give their opinions and I thought best to say something. Whether was right or not, is done now. Will see what happens. Robert Walker (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the case will be declined because the arbitrators think that other dispute resolution mechanisms are still available. It also appears that Warren Platts says that he is leaving, which is, in Wikipedia terminology, a case of throwing his toys out of the pram. If so, go ahead and edit, bearing in mind that if you try to shift the content of any articles from promotional through neutral to anti, BatteryIncluded is still there. So go ahead and edit. If the conflict returns, I (not you or we) can resubmit. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay I can give it a go, I'll start perhaps with Planetary Protection as a high profile article and in a real mess after Warren Platt's editing. Can just try to get that in shape, and if that is allowed to be done, then can think about something more ambitious. Does that sound okay? Yes I suppose with WP gone it was prob. pretty inevitable they would decline, what I wonder is if he will just come back again as soon as the case is dropped.

With Planetary protection then I think bias won't be much of a problem. With Interplanetary Contamination, will be - would just try some test edits, if all is okay would involve the collaborator with opposite POV who is keen to join in, but wasn't a good time to invite him to date, a busy professional man. Robert Walker (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Planetary protection

Hi Robert. Comments for you on the talkpage of the above article. Please read. Any replies- put 'em there, though I won't see anything I don't anticipate until next week. DanHobley (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Have replied there. Since you won't see it until next week, probably I'll do some more editing of the article to try to show what I have in mind. I won't be surprised if it does all get reverted, is just to see if it is possible to edit on this topic, starting in the most POV neutral place I can think of.

Robert McClenon - as you can see I got an objection from Dan Hobley. Wouldn't be surprised if Battery Included and others also revert. If so have to give up. But was worth a try. Haven't done anything with a POV slant as far as I know. I can ask my colleague with opposite POV if he sees anything in the article with a POV slant, in case there is something I missed. Robert Walker (talk) 03:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Haven't been reverted yet. Dan Hobley just added back in the section "Resilience of life in Space". I don't see the relevance so have moved it to the end of the article with an "off topic" tag and a talk page section discussing this.

Will now add an Issues section for any who might claim that the article is unbalanced because it suggests that contamination prevention is effective. The view that it is not effective, or that contamination doens't matter, and so the regulations could be relaxed is a minority view but though most relevant to the Interplanetary contamination article could be briefly mentioned here and would help prevent allegations of POV slanting from those with strong sympathies for Zubrin.

(removed some things I wrote here mistakenly thinking Dan Hobley did a full revert) Robert Walker (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Your request for undeletion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is HD 133600. JohnCD (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

Hello, this is a courtesy notice to inform you that the request for arbitration regarding Mars, in which you were named as a party, has been declined to be heard by the Arbitration Committee. The Arbitrators felt that as well as there being content aspects to this dispute that tensions are begining to ease. They suggested that if issues with individual editors can be brought to easlier steps in the dispute resolution process or to ANI. Please see the Arbitrators' comments for further suggestions. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Planetary protection

Hi Robert,

Just a quick note to say your work over at planetary protection is looking really good. I've skimmed it, and while I picked up a couple of minor things style- or wording-wise and a couple of places I might add a little more, I think your new structure looks pretty nice. I'll give you a bit longer to get it settled as you like, then maybe give it a review.

The only thing that jumps out at me clearly from a quick glance is your image in the lead. I like it a lot, but official policy (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Forced image size) says it can't be bigger than 300px across. I'm just about to head over and reduce it to that limit (shame!) but wanted to let you know why beforehand. DanHobley (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Great, glad you like it. Yes I've got a few more days on it, doing a bit at a time, mainly got to do something with the decontamination methods, I think NASA has now approved the hydrogen peroxide method, saw a news story that mentioned it and a sterilization protocol using it, but can't seem to find the actual announcement from them. Anyway need to update that section. Then double check the page and see if I left anything out or any mistakes, & recheck all the refs. Then my work in progress will be done so can remove the {{construction}} tag.

Thanks for making the image smaller to fit the guidelines. Glad you like it, and it looks fine at the smaller size. I copied the size of the image for Mars sample return, I suppose that is one of the exceptions needs to be larger than normal?

Any other minor obvious things do fix them. Will be interested to hear what you make about it when all done. Thanks. Robert Walker (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to MIDI 1.0 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:

• Dr. Sebastian Anthony Birch [http://www.personal.kent.edu/~sbirch/Music_Production/MP-II/MIDI/midi_physical_layer.htm#note2 The
• kent.edu/~sbirch/Music_Production/MP-II/MIDI/midi_physical_layer.htm#note2 The MIDI Physical Layer}</ref>), and the need for [[real-time computing|real-time]] accuracy.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Life on Mars

This will be my only reply to your pseudo-scientific trolling behavior. Physics, and radiation in particular, have NOT changed in THIS universe since your trolling shenanigans last year. Unlike you, I do not express my hopes and desires in Wikipedia pages, and here, to finalize this matter, I now quote data collected in situ by the Curiosity rover and the conclusion of the 400+ Team Members of the MSL mission.

Research published in January 2014 of data collected by the RAD instrument, revealed that the actual absorbed dose measured is 76 mGy/year at the surface, and that "ionizing radiation strongly influences chemical compositions and structures, especially for water, salts, and redox-sensitive components such as organic matter." Regardless of the source of Martian organic matter (meteoritic, geological, or biological), its carbon bonds are susceptible to breaking and reconfiguration with surrounding elements by ionizing charged particle radiation. The report concludes that the in situ "surface measurements —and subsurface estimates— constrain the preservation window for Martian organic matter following exhumation and exposure to ionizing radiation in the top few meters of the Martian surface."

Paper: Hassler, Donald M. (24 January 2014). "Mars' Surface Radiation Environment Measured with the Mars ScienceLaboratory's Curiosity Rover" (PDF). Science. 343 (6169). doi:10.1126/science.1244797. Retrieved 2014-01-27. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I don't care if you shook hands with people who disbelief the rover's in situ measurements that limit extant life (whether rolling on salty brine, silica or pizza) on Mars to a few meters below the surface. And also I don't care if you claim that this article is also outdated because it was published 2 long days ago. It is science, not democracy, so piss off and begin to read WP:Tutorial. Sincerely, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

That's for past life. There is almost no possibility of present day life where Curiosity is because it is the driest part of Mars with not even ice, for hundreds of meters below the surface, as far as we can tell. What they are saying there is that if ancient organics are exhumed by some process (rock removed from above it for instance) then it is only going to be easy to detect for a short time - and they mean, short time in terms of geological timescales in this context. This quote is not about present day life. Robert Walker (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

I closed the ancient merge proposals that should have been closed months ago, and have restarted a new merge proposal. According to protocol, the merge should be discussed either for 30 days or until there is consensus. No attempt at a merge should be conducted while discussion is underway. Merge tags should not be removed. That is a summary for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Diseases from Space

The new article Diseases from Space might interest you.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, just noticed your comment. Yes, it's an interesting idea. If life is common place in the galaxy, I don't see myself why there mightn't be dessicated bacteria in interstellar space. I find Chandra Wickramasinghe's evidence Spectroscopic Evidence of Cosmic Life interesting but not conclusive.

Also it's now a reasonably respected view that life in our solar system could have been seeded by microbes from an earlier star. See for instance, Life Before Earth. Perhaps another star passed through the forming nebula of our solar system, and if so, the meteorite impacts could have transferred life from it to our solar system.

When it comes to that life existing today, in comets, I'm more skeptical myself. Read their book back in the 1970s, and didn't find the links to outbreaks of flu very convincing. But on the other hand we have made many surprising discoveries. When the book came out the idea of panspermia was thought preposterous by most scientists, and now it is generally accepted as possible though not yet proven. And you can also be right about things for the wrong reasons as with Wegener, in the early history of continental drift.

Anyway, if they are right then perhaps Philae will spot life on Comet 67P. It's the only spacecraft we've sent anywhere in the solar system able to detect life since Vikings 1 & 2. They expect to detect pre-biotic chemistry on the comet, and quite probably with a chiral signature, as meteorites on Earth often have organics with a chiral signature. So that's why they have included instruments with life detection capabilities. If they do detect life as well, most scientists would be astonished! Rosetta Now Up Close to Comet 67P – Snapping Mapping Mosaics for Momentous Philae Landing

The problem with life on a comet is that the comet is low density and thought to be porous, so is hard to see how you could have subsurface liquid as they propose. That's definitely possible with the larger Pluto sized icy moons and asteroids and the very largest giant comets, it's now thought that quite possibly many, even all of them have sub surface oceans like Europa. But if a comet is "light and fluffy" and porous right through to the centre, then any liquid water would have boiled away long ago, dehydrated by the vacuum of space. On the other hand, there are organics in comets. I have wondered myself if those could create tar like deposits which could, just possibly, contain layers of ice in water tight layers and prevent it evaporating when the ice warms up. I've searched to see if that has been suggested in any scientific papers but not found anything yet.

With Mercury, with its discovery of ice at its poles, also dark probably from organics delivered by comets - then one of the scientists speculated that there just possibly could be water beneath the surface heated by geothermal heating. http://news.discovery.com/space/organics-found-on-mercury-121129.htm. That wouldn't work in the same way for a medium sized comet as it isn't large enough for geothermal heating. But short period comets do heat up every time they come close to the sun, what is lacking is a way to trap that evaporating ice as water. Normally it will just evaporate straight into space with no intermediate liquid state. And any dessicated bacteria in free space - the most radioresistant can survive perhaps up to 300,000 years of ionizing radiation and still revive, but it seems unlikely that anything could survive millions of years. As for billions of years, then ionizing radiation reduces numbers of amino acids roughly a trillion fold every billion years (roughly a million fold every million years). So after, say, 3 billion years, then even if you started with thousands of tons of amino acids, there wouldn't be a single molecule left if exposed to cosmic radiation without several meters of overlying materials to protect them. So if those observations are of dessicated bacteria, then unless recently ejected, then most of them would be thoroughly sterilized.

So I find the idea in its original form hard to accept myself. But the general idea of Panspermia, yes, could be. And as for life in comets, it would be astonishing but not sure if it is totally ruled out yet, as for larger Pluto and Callisto sized giant comets, then quite possible that they do have life in them below the surface, depending on how easy it is for evolution to get started or for their oceans to be seeded by life from other planets and proto planets in the Late Heavy Bombardment. Robert Walker (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Karma talk page discussion

To expand on what User:Joshua Jonathan has said on the article talk page: Here are some pointers that may help you make the conversation more productive, and more likely to result in actual change to the article:

1. Specify one change at a time that you wish to be made to the article (eg, I want to add a sentence Karma is considered... to the second paragraph of the Karma in Hinduism section of the article.)
2. Specify the exact source (incl. page number, and short quote, if possible) that supports the change. Given the topic, this almost surely needs to be a secondary scholarly work on the subject of Karma.

And some don'ts:

1. Don't cite other wikipedia articles, primary sources, religious preachers, generic/religious websites, primary religious texts etc. (To be clear, these sources are not verboten in general, but need to be used with care, and usually in conjunction with secondary sources that cite them).
2. Don't get into arguments about the supposed biases of Indian vs Western, religious vs academic sources etc. These issues are relevant only if your proposed edit to the Karma article is directly about these biases (in which case you'll need to cite a cite a scholar making these points). Barring that, such arguments only help derail the discussion. And given that Wikipedia aims to be encyclopedia it will inevitably regard scholarly/academic sources as superior to others, irrespective of individual editors' opinion on the biases that such an approach may introduce.
3. Keep your post as to the point as possible, and commentary to the minimum.

Remember that we all are volunteers here and have limited time to devote to subjects that interest us. Given that, we are likely to simply skip past "walls of text" posted on talk pages (as I have done at Talk:Karma), and any valid point that is made will be lost in the process . Hope this helps. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay well there may be not much more I can do.

The problem is - that it is not a point of detail that is easy to address in this way.

I maintain that the whole article is biased, so that's the main thing I'm objecting to. By starting off with a Western discussion before it presents the Eastern ideas that are discussed, by giving such an extensive Western discussion also (as long as the Hindu and Buddhist sections together) - and by starting with a discussion about the problem of evil and all the things that Westerners think are wrong with the idea of Karma - entirely framed using Western ideas - and based on ideas of Karma as it is re-interpreted in Western philosophy in the online conference on "Revisioning Karma" rather than the original idea - then the article has completely misrepresented how the idea is understood in the Eastern religions before the article gets underway.

So - what can you do about that? I'm not a scholar in a relevant topic area - just a practitioner who has heard teachings from many Buddhist teachers (who are themselves scholars) - so can't present numerous citations. But even if I could, that's original research to do that. But - in this whole area - the scholarship can't be relied on. The scholars themselves say contradictory things, as is common in philosophy. So to rely on one of the scholars or one group of scholars as presenting the "true view from nowhere" - that's the main thing that's wrong with the article as I see it. What do you do when secondary sources contradict each other?

Yes, that section is well cited - but it doesn't explain that all those citations are by Westerners and that their views are not universally held, indeed not held at all by those in the Eastern traditions. The article on Karma in Buddhism gives many citations that directly contradict statements made in that discussion section of the Karma article - and good academic secondary sources, both Western and Eastern. I explained that in one of my replies, going through that section point by point how it contradicts the Karma in Buddhism citations - but that didn't seem to help.

Extended content

Also - it is kind of easy to see that the things said there can't apply to Buddhism particularly, with a bit of knowledge about Buddhism. Because - the four noble truths are fundamental to all the branches of Buddhism and date back to the Pali canon which all the traditions of Buddhism accept. And they identify clearly that it is a problem of suffering, and showed a path that leads to freedom of suffering. And it is widely understood I think that Buddhism is a non theistic religion. That is so basic and uncontroversial - if someone knows anything about Buddhist teachings they've probably heard of the four noble truths. Seemed Mark was not familiar with them which is why I referred him to the article on the four noble truths - the wikipedia page has numerous further references, but it is surely not appropriate to present the four noble truths complete with citations to original sources in middle of a talk page discussion of Karma. So what can you do at that point? How do you deal with someone on the talk page questioning something that is fundamental to Buddhism that every Buddhist understands, where do you go after that? I've collapsed a fair bit of my answers now. It's tricky because in the middle of this discussion Mark adds that sentence to the article "The law of karma operates independent of any deity or any process of divine judgment." - which is true of Buddhism but not true of Hinduism. So that rather sidetracks the main discussion and makes it confusing for the reader. Because simultaneously he also challenged me saying that Buddhists think that Karma is result of a process of divine judgement. But both of those are false, it's obvious that some Hindus think Karma is a result of divine judgement, a primary Hindu source saying that is enough to prove an "existence" type statement like that, and it is also reasonably obvious to almost anyone that it can't be a Buddhist belief as Buddhists aren't even theists. So what do you do when someone does something like that on a talk page? It wasn't really me that was being confusing there. And - how can I present something like this article bias issue succintly in a few sentences? I don't think it is possible. Even a Buddhist scholar - which I'm not (have scholarly background in maths and philosophy instead) - with extensive knowledge of the primary and secondary sources, don't see how that's possible either. So if extensive discussions are not possible, I think I just have to give up.

Oh dear - and this is another "wall of text" - just took me a few minutes to type. It's not that I'm obsessed, just type fast :).

Maybe someone else can sort it out. I do want to help if I can. But I don't know what to do. I think my take home message here is that some of my ways of interacting with people, especially when they involve writing a lot of text - which work fine on facebook, via email, quora, in the articles I write for Science20 etc, they just don't work here in Wikipedia.

And sometimes when the issue involved is a complex one, hard to present, there is no alternative that works here for me. Though in simpler situations I am able to manage fine within the wikipedia methods of discussing things.

I don't think I'm that unusual, many people give up on editing sections of wikipedia, so I think it is quite hard for many people, this wikipedia talk pages form of dialaog.

Thanks for your suggestions. I can understand.

Sadly, I just don't see how I can apply them in this case though, at least not right now, don't know what I can do next on this talk page, following your suggestions. But will bear it in mind in the future. If you have any other suggestions or thoughts do say! Robert Walker (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Have done something though. I removed the second mention of the "The law of karma operates independent of any deity or any process of divine judgment." at the end. Because- if I need to focus on one thing at a time, then it's the bias of the article that is the issue, and the ordering. As for that sentence - well it's a bit of a red herring and it actually contradicts what is said in the discussion section of the article. (the article in its current state contradicts itself).

So is a rather blatant error that will be picked up sooner or later. Perhaps it's just confusing to the reader to discuss it at this stage, as if I continue to discuss it on the talk page, means I have to carry out simultaneous discussions on the talk page of two views that contradict each other (which of course they can easily do when they are views by different groups of people, in this case Buddhists, and a minority group of Hindus) - and then it got even more confusing when Mark then claimed that a minority of Buddhists think the same way as these minority Hindus - so all that's bound to confuse a reader who hasn't got much time to follow the intricacies of the talk page debate.

The sentence does need to be fixed, of course, but maybe this is not the time to do that. Maybe that was my main error on the talk page to allow myself to get caught up in a discussion of that sentence. Robert Walker (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALK. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Buddhism and scholarly sources

Hello Robert. I do understand your objections to my edits, but I sincerely would like to point out a few things:

• I do not spend twenty minutes on the fine words of eminent scholars. I've been studying Buddhism for 27 years now, reading scholarly sources which are not available in the popular new age shops, nor in the really good spiritual book shops. See User:Joshua_Jonathan/Sources. I make great efforts to find the best sources available, not just the popular publications and primary sources. And I read those sources.
• There is a lot of scholarly research on Buddhism, more than you or I are able to read. But at last we should try, and give the best we can. Walhola Rapula, in this regard, may have been a highly admired scholar and teacher in some Buddhist circles, but he's not exactly up-to-date, nor the kind of scholar I'd prefer to read. Remember, D.T. Suzuki was also a professor, just like Heinrich Dumoulin. The writings of both are regarded as primary sources nowadays.
• When I'm editing at Wikipedia, I always use those scholarly sources. I'm not satisfied with "just" a reference; they have to be correct. When I doubt, I search further. Take a look at User:Joshua_Jonathan/Roots_of_Hinduism to see the efforts I took to make clear that "Hinduism" is different from the Vedic religion, and is a synthesis of various traditions. This was in response to one dogged editor, who insisted on sources for everything he disapproved of. It took me half a year to work this out, and prove my point.
• The tone of your replies is not helpfull in these discussions. At least for me, you provoke a lot of irritation, no, worse, anger. I'd actually already decided to simply ignore your comments, but the above I really wanted to say, in "defense" of myself.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Well that just makes your actions more mysterious. I assumed you couldn't know much about Buddhism just because of your actions deleting so much content for no apparent reason. Since you obviously have read widely, what was your rationale for just deleting the section on "Karma is not a judgement", just to take one example? I can't imagine that you know of any sources that contradict this, or do you? If you do have sources that contradict it, why not qualify it rather than delete it? Because, if you do have sources that contradict it, which would greatly surprise me, it is clear that at least the majority of scholars say that it is not a judgement, in Buddhism. And why didn't you discuss it on the talk page first? I don't understand.

Also - note that Dorje stopped editing wikipedia after your actions on the Four Noble Truths article. And he has been working on Karma in Buddhism since May 2013. It is just considerate of other editors here on wikipedia to talk to them first before making large scale changes, however sure you are that you are "right". And to listen to their input, not just token talk, but hear what they have to say.

As for making you irritated, well it's not me getting irritated - maybe that is a good thing if it gets you to think a bit about the consequences of your actions. I don't apologise for blunt speaking here, and I'm not angry back at you. Robert Walker (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I've re-inserted that part, without the quotes. Glad that you're not angry  :) Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Why not just roll the whole thing back to Dorje's version and start again? You can back up your new version to your user space so you don't lose your work. And then discuss it point by point? BTW there has been no resolution to the effect that paraphrases are better than quotes. On the 4 noble truths it's 2 for, 2 against so far, with no RfC which leads to more considered responses over a 30 day period. It would need a RfC on its talk page to resolve that for that article, and a far wider debate to resolve it for all the articles on Buddhism. I've posted to the 4 noble truths article talk page about this. Robert Walker (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Time for a meditative break

Stop, breath in, breath out, let it go

Robert, don't forget to take a meditative break! Just one minute may help to take you out of your flow of thoughts-and-typing, and shorten your responses. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion :). Robert Walker (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Back-up

Robert, I read this message of you: "Hi Dorje, thanks, I've backed up your Four Noble Truths article also, and blogged about them both on my Quora blog "Some ideas about Buddhist teachings" here Recently Destroyed Wikipedia Articles on Karma in Buddhism and the Four Noble Truths by Dorje108." I don't know which policy is involved here, but this kind of behaviour is not really appreciated at Wikipedia. @Drmies:, what's your opinion on this? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I had never thought of that possibility. The wikipedia guidelines on user pages are quite long and they permit a wide variety of uses. However on this point, you are right, there is a note here saying that you can't back up old revisions in your user space indefinitely, which I never realised. I think it is reasonable though to back up these pages temporarily as I look for another place to host them.

Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion. Short-term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable (the template {{userspace draft}} can be added to the top of the page to identify these).

So, I'll identify it as userspace draft for now, as both Dorje and I think that this material should be restored to wikipedia and you are the only editor, at least for Karma in Buddhism so far who thinks this content should be deleted.

Probably at some time in the future it should be either used in wikipedia or moved elsewhere. A backup in user space makes it far easier to copy it to an external host so is a reasonable temporary intermediate step to do before doing that. I did that for some articles for Science20 last year. S

There is nothing to stop any editor taking an old version of a wikipedia page and converting it into an article for another website, so long as they explain its origins, as the license permits re-use of any wikipedia content, with the only requirement being correct attribution. And indeed much of wikipedia is echoed elsewhere, you can even find historically interesting copies of some of the earliest articles posted to wikipedia - historical "snapshots" of the whole of wikipedia as it was in the early days.

Wikipedia:User_pages#What_may_I_have_in_my_user_pages.3F

Thanks. Robert Walker (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Have just added a note to the top of the two article copies explaining the situation see User:Robertinventor/Karma_In_Buddhism and User:Robertinventor/Four_Noble_Truths

Hi Robert. Personally I don't mind about making back-up copies; actually I think it's a good idea. What I do mind about is using your blog to expose Wiki-disputes, instead of trying to settle them here at Wikipedia. It may work as a kind of WP:CANVASSING, attracting "participants" with a one-way-mind.

It's also about phrasing: "destroyed", or: "there was a version I really liked, with a lot of quotes which provided more insight. Here's a back-up copy, for anyone interested to learn more. And here's a pretty cool website from a dude who knows what he's talking about. And here's another one, which explains karma in plain language, instead of all the scholarly details. Who cares about the details, when you want to get a bette life?!?" Something like that.

Creating your own webpage/site, to give plenty of quotes, is a good idea of course. As a matter of fact, there is a WikiQuote page on karma! And I've just created WikiQuote "Karma in Buddhism".

By the way, I'm not the only editor who's objected against the abundance of quotes.

Another by the way (the sideways are getting crowded), I've added a few words to the "Karma in Buddhism" article:

"In the Buddhist tradition, karma refers to intentional (cetanā) action,) "a deed done deliberately through body, speech or mind"."

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay - don't worry about canvassing. That's just a blog, and I have of course also talked about this on my facebook page. Any dispute like this is going to have people talking about it off-wiki and you can't avoid that. But haven't had a spate of people coming here to participate in the disputes as a result :). The only guideline there is not to post off wiki with the intention to attract readers to vote in deletion disputes and so forth. My experience of talking to facebook friends and blogging is that they don't do this anyway. If it is a case of a dispute in progress or a deletion debate or such like then I take extra care and say "this is not an invite to join the debate, please don't come and vote just because you like me". And nobody ever has done that. The only facebook friend actually who has ever entered any debate I've been involved in here was someone who was diametrically opposed to me on one of the debates, and he found out about it through wikipedia rather than facebook. Robert Walker (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added a note to that effect to my blog. As for calling it "destroyed" - well you did destroy his content. It's just blunt speaking again. I didn't say that you did something terrible, didn't say you were a terrible person. Just that you destroyed his content. Which is a matter of fact. At least that's how I see it. http://buddhistideas.quora.com/Recently-Destroyed-Wikipedia-Articles-on-Karma-in-Buddhism-and-the-Four-Noble-Truths-by-Dorje108

It's not an absolute prohibition anyway

n general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.

However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.

After reading that, on second thoughts, I don't think I need to say that "they must not join it". I'm not asking people to join the debate or to vote either way. I've added the wikipedia guidelines on canvassing, so they can understand the situation for themselves. If someone wants to join the debate, why not? If you have a good case, they might as easily side with you as with me and Dorje. But from my previous experience of such things, I'd be very surprised if anyone does join the debate as a result of this post. And I've added a note also at the end to say I don't think of you as a terrible person for deleting the content :). I've added a note that it is your sincere opinion that wikipedia is better with your version of the articles. Robert Walker (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh Robert, come on, take a look at WikiQuote "Karma in Buddhism". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've no idea what point you are making, with the wikiquotes link. I said several things, what are you responding to? I'm probably missing the obvious but sorry, I don't get it. Robert Walker (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

All the quotes are there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay got you. I've added the quote about "This famous statement is often misunderstood." by Piya Tan and Bhikkhu Bodhi to the first section. Of course this has no relevance either way to the debate about whether quotes or paraphrasing should be use din the main article. There are many articles here with quotes, and some of their quotes may also be in wikiquotes, but of course that doesn't mean you are prohibited from also using the same quotes here :). Robert Walker (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Time for a break!

Stop, breath in, breath out, let it go

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. It is good to be reminded. You are right that I do have an issue of excessive writing on wikipedia talk pages which I am working on as best I can.

However, - at least I'm not a disruptive editor. I write a lot on the talk page, and then wait for consensus. I write in the article page only when I think my edits will be uncontroversial.

I'd far prefer to be like that, write too much on the talk pages - than to do extensive edits of the articles themselves with no prior discussion on the talk pages at all as you've been doing recently. Just saying.

Thanks for the reminder. Robert Walker (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Clarity on difference between ICAMSR, and the official POV

First, the exobiologists who inform the official view on this topic are simply saying that don't have enough knowledge of potential life forms from Mars to rule it out at current levels of knowledge.

Since it is not possible currently to accurately assess the probability of an environmental disruption of Earth and adverse effects on its human inhabitants from a MSR, their recommendation is that it is wise to proceed with great caution. This is what all the published authors agree on with the exception of Zubrin.

Of course they aren't saying that it will happen or even that it is at all likely to happen. No-one is saying that. It is like - if you go to a country where there is a chance of catching malaria, even if the chance of catching it is low, still you will take your anti-malaria tablets so long as there is a chance of it at all.

The ICAMSR mainly differ in saying that we should proceed with extreme caution (you could put it) rather than great caution. They accept the same facts as everyone else but consider that even tiny probabilities of existential risk, are not acceptable and should not be taken at this stage, not before we know a bit more about the situation on Mars - what type of life there is there if any - and how it behaves, what it does on Mars, what it is like, and what it does if introduced to more typical Earth like enviroments.

Why I regard these recent edits as censorship of wikipedia

Warren Platts has totally misrepresented the official POV. All the official studies recognize the possibility of disruption of the environment of Earth as the worst case scenario. They all conclude that though the probability of this is considered low on the basis of attempts to estimate the probabilities by experts in the field, the risk can't be ruled out on the basis of current understanding of Mars and of life processes.

Don't rely on his or my word for it. It is easy to verify it for yourself. Read any of the official NRC or ESF studies of a MSR. You will also find discussions of the need for international open public debate for ethical reasons and under international treaties, and of legal liabilities, due to the potential impact for nations outside of the one responsible for the mission.

All the studies of forward contamination agree on potential seriousness of forward contamination of Mars too, and the need to sterilize all spacecraft sent to Mars - this doesn't suddenly magically become a non issue when there are humans on board those spaceships.

A good starting point for the back contamination risk of environmental disruption is to follow the links here and go to the sources to verify the quotes: View presented in the NRC and ESF study group reports and Planetary Protection Office summaries - 'this is official policy and is currently mentioned in wikipedia only as a fringe view attributed to the ICAMSR.

That's why I regard this recent wave of edits by Warren Platts as censorship of wikipedia

He is policing a personal ban on me from editing the Mars Project on this topic. He also deleted just about everything I wrote for the project, without discussion, in a single day. Which since it now removes all accurate statements of the POV in the official studies on this topic I regard as censorship of wikipedia as well as a personal ban by one editor of another editor from editing on a particular topic in wikipedia. He has taken on an administrator role in banning me and removing all this topic. He is also policing a total ban on the topic of forward contamination issues for human missions to Mars, and with assistance of BI, also a total ban on the topic of the present day habitability of the surface of Mars, and he is not an administrator but all the admins are simply standing by and letting him do this.

Update on what happened next for the Planetary Protection / Interplanetary Contamination material dispute

Thought I'd add a few words about what happened next, especially as the archive bot has archived all the preceding discussion.

For anyone reading this who wonders what happened next - I took this all the way up to the highest level of arbitration. But - that was rather unsatisfactory - they were thinking of banning me from the Mars project, accepting Warren Platt's arguments that I was filling the encyclopedia with alarmist ideas about contamination. These are people who are not at all expert in the subjects, and don't have time to read the sources, and that is not their role anyway. Their expertise is in moderating user behaviour, not in content, and they are not expected to be content experts.

As a result - I don't recommend taking issues like this to the highest levels of arbitration in Wikipedia from my own experience. I was only saved from a topic ban because Warren Platts stopped editing wikipedia.

So anyway - at the same time a whole bunch of editors were still going through wikipedia removing material on interplanetary contaminaation - after removing everything on the topic from the Mars colonization and manned missions pages - they removed the articles on forward contamination and backward contamination and then finally WP merged Interplanetary contamination with Planetary protection which they edited as well, rewrote it in strange ways, and added new sections to which didn't make much sense to me. They did RfCs for the merges during this process, but didn't bother to take the merge discussions to completion, didn't leave them for 30 days as you normally do, but just went ahead with the merge as soon as a "rough consensus" was reached within a day or two, with me objecting every time.

Anyway finally at that point Robert McClennon stepped in and stopped that last merge. And we got this present state of play where I am accepted as editor for Planetary protection and Interplanetary contamination. But I remain hesitant about any attempt to reintroduce material on planetary protection to the other articles. I suggested here Talk:Colonization_of_Mars#Planetary_Protection that we should have a section on planetary protection in the Colonization of Mars article. But had no reply. As a result of Warren Platt's edits on that day over a year ago now, that article has no mention of planetary protection. As a result of those experiences I am in no hurry to try to reintroduce it.

But am glad that at least we have two articles on planetary protection still in wikipedia. At one point it looked as if the subject might be written out of the encyclopedia almost completely, I don't know what they would have done if Robert McClennon hadn't interfered, would they have kept Planetary protection? Hard to say. They had eventually deleted all the other articles that they edited during that process. Maybe they would have kept that one. At any rate after WP stopped editing Wikipedia I got the chance to get those articles back into shape again. So - for those two articles anyway - I'm happy with them. They are just fine, represent the subject reasonably well. Though some work still to be done, as always.

Those articles are here if anyone is interested: Planetary protection and Interplanetary contamination

Recently WP returned to wikipedia briefly and tried to merge those two articles again. But then he seemed to lose interest in that merge discussion when he got two oppose votes after some discussion to try to persuade us to his point of view. Which was kind of encouraging, that it is okay to continue editing. But after that experience I am now far more cautious about editing wikipedia - preferring to take part in talk page discussions rather than direct edits if there is any likelihood of controversy.

Because - with that material on planetary protection, until WP came along - just about all the feedback I got from other editors was encouraging and positive. Didn't get any indication that they might be likely to want to delete the material I contributed. There were issues - the very first section I wrote, especially - on looking over it later on then it needed to be rewritten, I and other editors on the talk page there agreed it needed a rewrite, but I wasn't sure quite how to do it and so hadn't yet done anything.

And - all this started with a tag on the Manned Missions to Mars concerns section, saying that it was too short and they wanted editors with knowledge of the subject to expand, which I responded to. That concerns section no longer exists after that purge by WP who had the view that the colonization articles should only have "challenges" sections not "concerns" sections which is how they remain to this day.

So that's something to be aware of here on Wikipedia - that - the climate of opinion can be unstable. As recently happened with Dorje108 also with his articles on Buddhism. Working for over a year in his case to improve wikipedia, no indication at all in the Karma in Buddhism article that anyone had any problem with his edits and minor discussion of quotes in Four Noble Truths hardly seems a big issue to a third party reading it. Then suddenly, all this work gets deleted in a few weeks. So, can sometimes be hard to know if your edits here are appreciated and welcome, for a long time they may be, then something changes and your edits are no longer appreciated. Don't know why wikipedia is like this or if anything can be done about it.

Robert Walker (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you are subjecting us to walls of text with your ranting, and complaints that a particular editor is trying to ban you. If discussions on the article talk pages are not productive, or if another editor is edit-warring, read dispute resolution and follow a dispute resolution procedure, rather than ranting about censorship. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert, I didn't mean this to re-open the old dispute. It is all long over now, and nobody is raising this in any of the article pages. As for the Colonization of Mars as you see I simply posted about it to the talk page - I did that long ago, my suggestion to add a section on Planetary protection to that article is dated January 2014, see Talk:Colonization_of_Mars#Planetary_Protection. And I haven't been banned from editing the Mars articles or posting to their talk pages so there is no reason why I can't suggest ideas like that. (NB after looking at it again just now, I have just posted a short update to that talk page, revised suggestion as there is now a section on the topic in Interplanetary_contamination#Human_colonization_challenges).

This is just a summary of what happened as I see it from my perspective for interested readers of this blog. Which I did because the old discussion is now archived by the archive bot. And - it is just a matter of fact, that WP deleted all the content that I'd written on the subject in the Mars section of wikipedia. And that before he deleted all this the material, I'd been encouraged by other editors. So they were all good faith edits. For instance the article on back contamination of Earth which got deleted and which started the whole thing - that article is one I proposed originally on the talk pages in the Mars section and other editors had suggested I go ahead and write it. So all the way through the process I was encouraged by other editors. There were issues raised with the very first section on this topic which I wrote, which I meant to go back to and do something about based on what I'd found out later (but of course never got the opportunity because it was deleted). But no suggestion that the material shouldn't be there, just a suggestion that one of the sections be rewritten.

Then suddenly the climate of opinion changed and all my material was deleted along with material by other editors on the same topic. That's just stating what happened. It is not meant as a judgement on the other editors. Just describing what happened from my perspective. And - main motivation for mentioning it here is to point out what I see as an issue with wikipedia generally - though I don't know how it can be solved, that often good work by editors which they have put a lot of work, good at least in the sense that it is well cited, and they have done the work in good faith following all the criteria and guidelines as they understand them, often gets deleted like this. I don't know what the answer is, but I think there is a major issue with wikipedia here. That's my own personal view. And is natural also for those editors to then be discouraged and stop editing wikipedia, and quite often the editors who work in this careful patient way are better editors than the ones that do the large scale deleting of their content, I believe that is the case for instance in the case of Dorje's work. In my case the material deleted probably represents working weeks of my time in total, wouldn't be surprised if the same was true of Dorje, all done in good faith to try to improve wikipedia. Robert Walker (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

In my experience dispute resolution is of limited value in a situation like this - i.e. where the material is deleted because of differing ideas about what is suitable content, and especially when editors delete a lot of material quickly without discussion. Because if you take it right to the top you get judged by editors who have no knowledge of the topic area and have no time to read the citations - that was my experience and I wouldn't recommend that to other editors in the same situation now based on what happened to me. And at the lower levels, there are no disciplinary measures available, and you get lots of debate, but unless a consensus emerges, there is nobody able to make a final decision that leads to any action, and you just need one editor strongly in support of the deletions to prevent a consensus. And I don't see what one can do about this situation where editors are encouraged for months or years and then get their material deleted after that in a way that nobody could have foreseen. Whether one considers those deletions to be justified or not, either way. As I say, I don't know what the solution is, maybe this is just part of the way wikipedia has to work, or maybe we need some new idea nobody has thought of yet for dealing with it. Robert Walker (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Admonition

First, you write: "This is just a summary of what happened as I see it from my perspective for interested readers of this blog." Do you think that this talk page is a blog? If so, read WP:FORUM. If you are referring to an off-Wiki blog, then do not waste the time of Wikipedia editors with your blog. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Second, if you are not interested in dispute resolution or think that dispute resolution is futile or useless, then it may not be right for you, in which case you may be right in giving up on articles where you don't have the discipline and courage to use dispute resolution, but, if so, stop posting rants. In any case, stop asking for advice about what to do next if you then won't accept the advice to use dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Third, follow talk page guidelines. Maybe you have at the Teahouse long enough that you don't know what is wrong with the Teahouse. It has top-posted queries. It is the only talk page in Wikipedia that is top-posted. That does not justify top-posting elsewhere. You inserted this rant near (not even at) the top of your talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Fourth, if you didn't mean to re-open an old dispute, as you say, why did you re-open an old dispute on 21 December 2014? (I think I know why. It appears that you think that your user talk page is a blog, where you can vent about an ancient disputes without re-opening them. Is there some other reason?) Robert McClenon (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Fifth, because of the length of your rant, I have no idea without research whether this really is a content dispute, or a conduct dispute by other editors. There is a conduct issue about you, which is that you continue to post rants about Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, was unclear again. By blog I should have said "talk page" I was just referring to this page. This is not a content dispute. This is not a dispute about other editors. Nobody else needs to be involved. It is just meta talk about wikipedia, about the way wikipedia policies work, that there doesn't seem to be any way of dealing with these sorts of issues of possibilities of mass deletion of content that other editors have worked on for a long time.

As for dispute resolution, my experience has been that it can boomerang in very surprising ways, as it nearly lead to me getting topic banned in the Mars section - simply for defending my content on talk pages, with no violations at all of the wikipedia content guidelines - while my opponent had at every stage done multiple violations of the basic guidelines such as BRD, proper conduct of a deletion debate (he refused to let me edit the article until some time into the debate so much of the discussion was about an article that had been massively trimmed of much of its useful content by the editor proposing the deletion - and I was still in the process of getting it back into shape when the debate ended), and to wait for resolution of a merge discussion etc etc, combined with frequent use of hateful language and personal attacks of me on the talk pages which I replied to only with respect. But all that didn't seem to matter at all when I raised those issues during the dispute resolution - while my habit of writing large amounts of text on the talk pages to defend my content was considered a potential reason for banning me from the Mars section. I would never have entered the dispute resolution process if I'd realized that writing too much on article talk pages was going to be a a possible reason for considering a ban of me.

Stop repeating patent nonsense. It is not true that you almost got topic-banned for defending your content. Stop repeating that. That is nonsense. It is true that your opponent was bullying you in order to have you topic-banned. However, he didn't have that authority. He was merely bullying you. Stop repeating nonsense. If there have continued to be personal attacks, please document them, and we can eventually take them to WP:ANI or to arbitration. It is not true that you were almost topic-banned, only that another editor tried to have you topic-banned, but he was threatening without authority. However, I am much less sympathetic than I was a year ago. Your lengthy complaints, apparently not related to an attempt to improve articles, are part of the problem. Stop repeating patent nonsense. Stop using your talk page as a blog to complain. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I mis-remembered then. What I remembered happening was that WP dropped out of the dispute, so the process stopped at that point without any resolution - and what I thought happened was that you told me that it was a good thing that he had dropped out because they were considering topic banning me. I.e. not WP - I totally agree that his threat to topic ban me was a threat without teeth. I'd have to search to check what you actually said, also not sure where you said it. It might be that I am conflating in my memory something you said and something some other editor said.

There have been no more personal attacks since then. But - as for not writing about issues with wikipedia on my own personal talk page - surely I have freedom of speech to talk about these issues here? It's one thing to complain about me writing lengthy text about these issues on article talk pages - but on my own personal talk page? Surely I'm the one to complain about too much text on this page? I like people to write as much as they like and warmly welcome anyone to say what they like on my own talk page here (relevant to wikipedia) using as many words as they care to use. I have no issues at all myself with lengthy comments and greatly prefer them to short statements in any situation where you need many words to put across whatever it is you want to say clearly and accurately. Robert Walker (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

At any rate the process of dispute resolution didn't result in restoring the deleted content. And I don't think there was any chance it could achieve that. Probably is nothing I could have done that would have resulted in the deleted content getting restored. In a situation like that it is not lack of courage, but just realism, to give up and turn your attention to more productive activity like my Science20 articles and Quora answers, and my two talks on these issues on the Space Show. Plus editing the two articles here on the topic that don't cause any issues with other editors. I.e. to focus more on activities that are appreciated. Apart from anything else, you get much more done that way., Robert Walker (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

And at any rate one thing I remember very clearly about the dispute process - that it was going against me. Most of them had already made clear statements against me in their votes / statements. So the main question to remain to be settled, at the time that WP left wikipedia was what disciplinary action, if any, they would use against me. That much I do remember pretty clearly. I don't know what would have happened next of course if he had stayed here, and my memory was that you, or possibly another editor, said that the next step was likely to be a topic ban of me, but I can't remember that part so clearly, so it could be I have conflated it with something else. I never got to find out what would happen next for sure, because the whole thing stopped when he left wikipedia. And I never understood why it turned against me like that, when I had done nothing wrong except write too much on the talk pages, and had originally written all the content that was deleted in good faith and in consultation with the other editors. And some other issues to do with things I had said on project talk pages, just through inexperience, referring there to the time when I suggested two other editors were sock puppets of each other, not realizing (a) how serious a thing it is considered to say that (b) that I hadn't understood the term properly as I didn't realise a sock puppet had to be an account created deliberately with intent to deceive, (c) and didn't realize that what looks like sock puppetry can easily be e.g. just two people who know each other well off wiki. I apologised for that and it was only talk page discussion.

While the other editor had done many things that I thought were pretty serious user conduct issues myself. Which is why I expected to win the dispute resolution.

And that is why I would not recommend to other editors in content disputes about deleted content that they try the higher levels of dispute resolution, based on my own experience, unless they understand the situation well - and would recommend they look into it carefully first and consider possible implications if they are thinking of doing this. What they think are user conduct issues, may not seem that way to others, and things that to them seem minor may seem user conduct issues to others - and the whole thing can easily backfire. Of course this is just one person's experience. And others may have very different experience of the Wikipedia dispute process. As for merge discussions and RfCs etc - I think they are good in some situations if properly conducted, but can't solve everything. And again I think they need careful thought, how to word them, what you hope to achieve with the RfC etc, just based on my own experience. Robert Walker (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You say that the votes were going against you before WP dropped out of the process. That isn't true. Stop bringing up the past if you don't remember the details and insist on imposing your own negative view on it in which you see yourself as a persecuted victim with facts that are not either on the real Earth or on the real Mars. It is true that another editor was bullying you, and was making an empty threat to topic-ban you. After some effort to reason with him, and he persisted, I filed a Request for Arbitration. At this point, he dropped out, and the ArbCom declined the case. The votes were only going against you in the sense that the ArbCom decided the case was not ready for arbitration. Since the ArbCom declined the case, there were no votes. Stop imposing your own incorrect memories on what happened, and stop venting, at least if your vents are inaccurate. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay - I just tried to bring up the old page to see what they said but it is no longer available (or is it?). But - it was actually posted to the arbitration page. And I made my statement, and WP made his statement. Then there were lots of individual editors that then made their statements, for or against the matter being discussed. Then maybe it's the next stage - I thought this was the case itself. Was it just a preliminary step that would lead to the case as a second later step? They did say things that seemed to show they supported his view that I was the problematical editor for putting this content into wikipedia in the first place. Did they not drop the case just because he dropped out? Or are you saying I mis-remembered that, and that this wasn't actually the case itself, and that even if he hadn't dropped out they would have dropped the case? Robert Walker (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Also just to say - it was a very stressful time for me. I mean - it is just words on a screen, and why should I be bothered about what someone else types about me on some distant computer, who I've never met and know nothing about? And - many things one attempts to do fail, why be so bothered that this particular thing I tried to do failed because someone deleted all my content instead of some other reason? It's not sensible to get so upset by it, but I was, and so was doubtless a bit confused and stressed at times, more so probably than it seemed with just text cues. So, that could be part of what went wrong, if I misremembered the process details, because one often makes not so good decisions and ones judgement is not so good when one is stressed out like that and upset. Robert Walker (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If you really think that Wikipedia is as bad a place as you appear to think it is, then leave it alone, rather than getting into content and conduct disputes that you make worse by imposing gloom and inaccurate memories on it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was just saying it seems to have issues with some editors deleting content that other editors contributed in good faith, and that as an editor in a situation like that you can't tell at the time that at some later date your content might be deleted. And that if it does happen, there might not be much you can do to reverse the decision. That's all. But - don't want to make content disputes worse! This is all in the spirit of trying to help other editors, if clumsily. Robert Walker (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

In all this I am just saying things I thought would be helpful, was not trying to re-open the old case, didn't post about it on your talk page or alert anyone else, was just a comment on my talk page on this section which I thought needed a comment since it started the new version of the talk page as a result of the archive bot removing the previous content. That was my only motivation for writing this comment, to make this talk page a bit clearer.

And I have indeed stopped editing wikipedia pretty much except for talk page discussions and occasional small fixes and such like, and rather more work on those two planetary protection articles, I think the only extended work I've done here since the dispute, except an occasional few sentences here and there. I rarely write the extended content I used to write, whole sections of articles and sometimes entire articles. Instead I write on Science20 and Quora. I got drawn into this latest issue more as a reader than as an editor. Robert Walker (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

When I first got in touch with you and you criticized me for lack of courage in following things through I had already tried to use normal processes of dispute resolution myself, and found it often just made things worse, so it was not too surprising that I was already a bit disheartened by the whole process I think. After all courage can lead you into trouble sometimes, e.g. the Charge of the Light Brigade type courage. That's how I see it. Surely a wikipedia personal talk page is a place where you can put your own views and ideas about wikipedia? Robert Walker (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not meant as a new topic but rather a comment, started as a comment, just added the header in order to separate it out. I have just made it into a subsection to make it clearer. It is okay to add comments to earlier sections in a talk page not just to the most recent current section. So hopefully that now makes it okay in that respect. Robert Walker (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for resolution of this issue of adding a comment to this section of my talk page

Robert McClenon just a thought. Since you see it as a major user conduct issue that I added that comment today to my talk page - what about just moving this entire section and the previous one to my archive? Can that be done? The only reason for commenting on it was because it wasn't archived. I'd be perfectly happy to just archive it and forget about it if that is okay by you.

I just didn't like having a talk page section titled "Why I regard these recent edits as censorship of wikipedia" right at the start of my talk page, with no previous talk page sections to give it context and without further explanation to put it in context and tell the reader how it all turned out. Robert Walker (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration was indeed resolution declined but one of the moderators also recommended that I be topic banned

Robert McClenon, Just to say - I have found the past talk page discussion now. It had been archived by the archiving bot as "archive 2" for some reason not "archive 1" and then lost, with no link to it. I found the material as a result of following up a comment in the history by the archiving bot where it said it archived a discussion to "archive 2", and fixed it by adding a link to archive 2 to the head of the page.

Anyway this shows that the arbiters did decline the request. But at the same time - one of those involved in arbitration had recommended that I be topic banned. So, wasn't just the opposing editor who said this on a talk page discussion - the possibility was also raised independently in the arbitration discussion.

The summary on my talk page was: User_talk:Robertinventor/Archive_2#Arbitration_case_request_declined "Hello, this is a courtesy notice to inform you that the request for arbitration regarding Mars, in which you were named as a party, has been declined to be heard by the Arbitration Committee. The Arbitrators felt that as well as there being content aspects to this dispute that tensions are begining to ease. "

But the background to this is that the main reason that tensions were beginning to ease was because the main opposing editor, the one who deleted all my content from wikipedia, had "thrown in the towel" and stopped editing wikipedia.

And one of the arbitrators said

As this matter has been through some attempts to resolve by the community - including the third opinion not linked above by the initiator; and it appears to a fairly clear case of User:Robertinventor (also known as Robert Walker) driving other users to distraction, and not listening to reason, we could deal with this by motion, topic-banning Robertinventor from the Mars topic. I feel this page: User:Robertinventor/Present day habitability of Mars dispute is useful. Robertinventor created it on 15th July - even though on that date, the statement he regards as BatteryIncluded's OR, was cited to Biogeosciences, a peer-reviewed journal. We don't need to send this back to the community and waste any more time. Content editors need protecting from other users who are attempting to pursue their own or fringe theories, and are not listening to reason. The incivility that has taken place toward Robertinventor also needs commenting on, as it is not acceptable; however, it is somewhat understandable, and so mitigates any need for a formal admonishment.

See: Arbitrator's opinion on hearing this matter

The thing is - in my case anyway - it was all decided on basis of user conduct - nobody involved in the arbitration reads the citations at least didn't show any evidence that they had. And one of the arbitrators was considering topic banning me because I wrote too much on the talk pages to defend the material which the other editor deleted - and because he thought that what I was presenting were fringe theories.

I'm sure he can't have read the many COSPAR workshop reports on the topic or the extensive studies by the NRC or the ESF on planetary protection issues for sample return and missions to Mars, so is not in a position to judge on the fringe nature or otherwise of the deleted content. So this arbitrator was considering topic banning me simply on basis of me writing too much on the talk pages. And in his belief that the deleted material was fringe science, he was just relying on the assertions by the opposing editor that my edits were fringe content.

The bit about BatteryIncluded's OR in this quote, I think refers to his idea that cosmic radiation makes the surface of Mars totally inhospitable to present day life meaning that only past life could exist on Mars..

(How I would have replied to that minor point if I had the opportunity - the way it is structured you can't reply)

If I could, I'd have pointed out that first, yes, it is true that BI did include citations to peer reviewed journals. But you can easily have OR based on good citations. When you follow up the citations then you find that they are all discussing dormant life, and everyone agrees that life that remains dormant on the surface of Mars for millions of years can't survive the cosmic radiation. The way they would survive is through reviving every few centuries or millennia, or even every year as is possible in some of the potential habitats identified recently. So the OR bit was his assertion that the life is likely to be dormant. Which is, obviously, something that scientific opinion can change about, as new discoveries are made about conditions on Mars, and he there is relying on papers that are way out of date now. There have been many new discoveries especially from 2008 onwards that have changed the minds of many scientists who now think that there may well be a number of different microhabitats on Mars, niches for microbial life to survive and reproduce on or near the surface.

After all - why do planetary protection at all, and what was the sense in the COSPAR categorization of the Mars Special Regions if life on the planet surface or close its surface was already proved to be impossible? S

(end of the reply I would have made if permitted)

So - again that was a matter of an arbitrator deciding that my edits were "fringe science" who has surely not read the many sources on the matter, and simply wasn't qualified to make this decision.

Incidentally Life on Mars still says that present day surface life is impossible due to cosmic radiation, and I have given up trying to say anything about this on the talk page, my talk page comments there get immediately hidden as "troll activity" when I try. For more background: User:Robertinventor/Present_day_habitability_of_Mars_dispute

With the benefit of distance and hindsight, probably I over-reacted and they would not have topic banned me. After all it was only one vote by one of the arbitrators. But that I think is surely the origin of my fear that they would have topic banned me if the opposing editor had remained with wikipedia for duration of the dispute. With one vote already for topic banning me - would there have been more arbitrators voting that way if the discussion had continued? Would some of the "declined" votes have turned to "topic ban" votes?

At any rate nobody suggested restoring the deleted material or topic banning the opposing editor or disciplining him for his treatment of me and uncivil remarks. So there was no "good outcome" on the horizon as far as I was concerned and one possible "very bad outcome" (though with just a single vote so far) at the point that the request was declined.

I probably wouldn't have gone for arbitration at all if I had thought that this was a possibility, so I think it is good for other editors to know this - that the arbitration discussion can sometimes lead in unexpected directions like this. I think, being new to this and not understanding how it worked, I expected the arbitrators to read the citations.

But I am not saying "don't go for arbitration" just saying, it needs care.

Lessons for other disputes based on my own experience

• if you can create some distance so you are not totally overwhelmed and upset by what has just happened, that probably also helps, at least was part of why my attempt to try to do something about it went wrong I think. Because I was upset I wrote even more than usual in an attempt to defend all these edits removing my content. And to the arbitrators all that discussion seemed like writings of a fanatic trying to promote a fringe theory (since they didn't read the citations and the opposing editor repeatedly said my editing was fringe, and because it is a topic that most haven't heard of and that is easily presented in a way that makes it seem "fringe").

• With a cooler head, perhaps I could also have helped by focusing more on the process by which the deleted content was added in the first place - making it clear to the arbitrators that I contributed the material in collaboration with other editors (it wasn't only my own text that was deleted) and following the wikipedia guidelines as best I could, and pointing out that I have never done any tendentious editing of articles, have always followed BRD, and acted in collaboration with other editors throughout.

• When in the middle of heated talk page disputes, rather than try to answer all the opposing edits comments point by point, and trying to justify myself as an editor in response to all his ad hominem remarks about me, and his allegations about my motives for editing wikipedia, I should have created some space by replying less frequently. This gives other editors a chance to catch up with the discussion, and gives oneself a chance to calm down a bit and put things into perspective. Indeed probably best to ignore ad hominem remarks. I should have just stated once, simply, that I am not attempting to rewrite wikipedia to promote fringe theories and that I am acting in good faith. Then just repeated that from time to time, like once a day or something in the conversation and ignored everything else he said.

• Don't expect arbiters or moderators to read the citations or to try to understand the material under dispute in detail. That's not their role (as I understand it).

• Is fine to ask for advice and follow up leads for ways to resolve the dispute. But before you start the process to enter into any dispute resolution process - before the clock starts ticking for the dispute resolution - I think it is a good idea to ask lots of questions, and try to get a clear idea about what you hope to achieve before going ahead. That way you won't enter with unrealistic expectations of what the arbiters can or might do, as I did. And hopefully won't get any unexpected nasty surprises.

Robert Walker (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Since not topic banned

Since I wasn't topic banned, and on reflection with only one of the arbitor's votes suggesting it, perhaps I wasn't even close to being topic banned, I feel a bit more confident about possibly editing the Mars section again in the future on planetary protection issues. I've just posted to a couple of the talk pages suggesting edits. I might just possibly try adding a planetary protection section to Colonization of Mars. But it would be better if other editors show interest first. It would also I think be good to add a section there on the practical logistical issues raised in the recent MIT graduate students logistics program survey of issues with supplying a Mars One mission to the surface of Mars.

If my edit was reversed I'd probably just give up at that point, but it might be worth a try, perhaps the only way to find out if other editors would like to see such a section is to put one in and see what comments they make. Robert Walker (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Robertinventor/Four Noble Truths

User:Robertinventor/Four Noble Truths, a page which 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/Four Noble Truths and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Robertinventor/Four Noble Truths 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:Robertinventor/Life on Mars - Other surface habitats with liquid water, suitable for life

User talk:Robertinventor/Life on Mars - Other surface habitats with liquid water, suitable for life, a page which 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 talk:Robertinventor/Life on Mars - Other surface habitats with liquid water, suitable for life and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Robertinventor/Life on Mars - Other surface habitats with liquid water, suitable for 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)