| Revision as of 00:29, 15 January 2019 editRobertinventor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,925 edits →MfD nomination of User:Robertinventor/Mars Surface Life← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:12, 7 December 2022 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,661 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Robertinventor/Archive 6) (bot | ||
| (19 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{NOINDEX|visible=yes}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | ||
| Line 14: | Line 15: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ==Your draft article, ]== | |||
| == About writing == | |||
| ] | |||
| Hello, Robertinventor. It has been over six months since you last edited the ] submission or ] page you started, "]". | |||
| It's great that you have a lot of interest and knowledge in certain subjects. Misplaced Pages articles are not supposed to the latest findings but settled science, or put another way, to summarize what secondary sources say. Secondary sources for primary journal articles are not news articles but review articles and such (see ] and ]). | |||
| In accordance with our policy that Misplaced Pages is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia ], 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 {{edit|Draft:Present day habitability of Mars|edit the submission}} and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code. | |||
| There's an example out there that if Misplaced Pages existed during Copernicus' and Galileo's time, it would say that the sun revolves around the earth - at least until Galileo's theories had been confirmed by other scientists. In this analogy, you're writing about Galileo's latest findings using his published papers and news articles about those papers. Such writing makes for great blog posts or news articles but aren't acceptable articles here. | |||
| 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 ]. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. | |||
| I assume that you didn't know how articles should be focused but going forward, please make sure your submissions are encyclopaedic. I hesitate to say that you shouldn't edit here, but if you truly can't make the shift from blog post writing to encyclopaedia article writing, please consider that wikipedia is not the place for your writing. Your writing definitely has a place - but that place may not necessarily be Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your submission to Misplaced Pages! <!-- Template:Db-draft-notice --> ] (]) 08:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC) | |||
| : On ] | |||
| : {{quote|"A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view."}} | |||
| : I've had a look through the latest draft, through the lede and first section. The only issue I found is where I said "Our current state of knowledge may be best summarized by this statement from the home page of the ]" | |||
| : I've corrected it to "This is a statement about our current state of knowledge of the field from the home page of the ] " | |||
| : Things like this can usually be fixed by just expressing clearly what the statement is. I'm assuming that the reader knows that DLR is the german equivalent of NASA and very prestigious. You get into a kind of recursive loop if you have to prove notability of sources like that. | |||
| == Nomination for deletion of ] == | |||
| : On ], I do that wherever possible. For instance I cite the Findings of the Second MEPAG Special Regions Science Analysis Group on. The Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group. You can't really get higher level, secondary, or more ] than that. It is like relying on a review article by the IPCC or the USGS. This is the one that says that even the radiosensitive E-coli can survive 500 years of surface ionizing radiation and still have 10% viable. Meanwhile ] seems to violate this, since it says that the ionizing radiation sterilizes the martian surface. It does this using an essentially ] and ] argument based on primary sources. In this article, I also cite the former planetary protection officers for NASA who can be considered as the planetary protection "public face of NASA" for instance in Cassie Conley's statement “The environment on Mars potentially is basically one giant dinner plate for Earth organisms,” There is no synthesis in the article at all, certainly not intentionally. If you find anything be sure to say. The views I express are the views in the articles I summarize and never my own. | |||
| ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 23:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination for deletion of ] == | |||
| : However do note that it is not a prohibition against primary sources. To take an example like your Galileo one. Yes, it couldn't say that the Earth revolved around the sun, of course. But it could say that Galileo has theorized that the Earth revolves around the sun. Take for instance ]. It is an exact analogy of your Galileo case. It describes a theory developed by ] and for its content, it is based pretty much entirely on writings by him about his own theory. Or take ]. It uses the same sources that I use in the Viking lander section. There just aren't many review articles on this topic. For instance, where it says: | |||
| ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] (]) 00:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{quote|"In a 2002 paper published by Joseph Miller, he speculates that recorded delays in the system's chemical reactions point to biological activity similar to the ] previously observed in terrestrial ].<ref>, Proc. SPIE 4495, Instruments, Methods, and Missions for Astrobiology IV, 96 (February 6, 2002); doi:10.1117/12.454748 |quote= One speculation is that the function represents metabolism during a period of slow growth or cell division to an asymptotic level of cellular confluence, perhaps similar to terrestrial biofilms in the steady state.</ref>"}} | |||
| == Nomination for deletion of ] == | |||
| : There is no secondary source used there. This is acceptable. See ] | |||
| ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] (]) 18:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
| {{quote|"Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors"}} | |||
| : It doesn't prohibit use of primary sources. It does prohibit interpretative claims or synthetic claims - such as the ones used in the Ionizing radiation section of Life on Mars. | |||
| : Primary sources often are essential. Take ] for instance and scan down the list of cites. At a first glance I don't see any secondary sources there in this sense. | |||
| : In the case of the ] article, I've been involved in AfD debates before and know how they go. There are so many delete votes that I am not sure it is worth working on it any more. If a majority say it has to go, and they seem to be expressing cogent reasons on the page, that's it gone. They don't have to know anything about the topic to vote for it to be deleted. And that's the problem, typically most of those voting are not topic specialists, and not even much interested in the topic. Such people don't normaly go back and change a vote in an AfD if you improve the article after voting has commenced. They have probably already moved on to other things and forgotten about it. When an uninvolved administrator closes the debate they will have an obvious clear choice, to delete it. | |||
| : I am copying the article over to my own external wiki, and consider it to be a hopeless case now, not because of issues with the article, but because of the status of the AfD. But if you think there is some possibility of it being saved then I'm prepared to work on it some more here. Do you see any path towards saving it after this many delete votes? ] (]) 19:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| : Reminder of how AfD's are closed ] - I suppose - it can be closed with "no consensus" so if a few people were to vote "keep" in the next few days it might be saved. If there are places here it could be listed. It suggests . I would like to notify the Mars, Biology, Astronomy, Space, and Microbiology projects. After working on it a little more, perhaps starting tomorrow. I think that if we get some sufficiently expert eyes to look over it, they will vote keep. It is worth a try. Are you okay with that? With a suitable neutral statement of course. It can't be a clear keep but no consensus may still be an option. ] (]) 19:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't want to get into a discussion about specific sources because that wasn't why I brought this up; I brought this up because the issues are bigger than just one article. However, I will respond to a couple of points. | |||
| ::First, regarding the AfD. One does not need to be a subject matter expert to see that the article is bloated, written as an essay, and relies almost completely on primary sources. You are welcome to neutrally notify the specified wikiprojects that there's an AfD they might be interested in commenting on (with something along the lines of: "There is an article at AfD that may interest you. Please comment at ]"). If you do so, please add a note in small text to the AfD indicating which wikiprojects you notified. I'm quite certain that those editors are likely to !vote delete (because of the aforementioned issues) and that a no consensus outcome is extremely unlikely but I've been wrong before and there's no harm in trying. | |||
| ::Second, if we were living in Galileo's time, Misplaced Pages ''would not'' publish anything about Galileo's research when Galileo first published. Misplaced Pages wouldn't publish anything about Galileo's theories until a large number of other scientists had accepted them (in other words, until it was a major fringe theory), and at that point the mention would be a single sentence. Only after Galileo's theory had become accepted among a majority - only after it becomes the consensus view - would it be treated as the consensus view. Misplaced Pages does not include every information about every paper that's published, no matter how interesting it is. | |||
| ::Finally, in your reply, you're trying to justify your approach to sourcing. And if you're trying to justify your approach, you're not trying to figure out how to work within Misplaced Pages guidelines. Your approach to sourcing and your essay-like style of writing is great for lots of pther places but it doesn't work well for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::RE notifying other projects about the AFD, I have already posted at talk page for Mars project, and at talk page for the previously-existing article on the topic, ]. ] (]) 22:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| Above advice from {{user|Ca2james}} suggesting you might be an ideal blogger and might be happier putting your ideas out in that manner seems very wise to me. ] (]) 20:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| : I already am a science blogger. I disclose this on my user page here. But I also know how to do reliable sources. I frequently contribute both sources and sourced content to wikipedia. I have been doing this for years. Here are a few recent examples, notice they are always well cited and after being added they remain on the page, two from June, two from July, I could add many more: | |||
| I've made: | |||
| * - added a paragraph about the timescale for evaporation for various sizes of black hole | |||
| * - added statement about how often they occur to lede. | |||
| * - Recent research disproves possiblity of future La Palma and Hawaii megatsunamis | |||
| * - The European Southern Observatory's discovery of a pocket of bright stars in a red shift 7 galaxy. | |||
| ] is cited in a similar fashion to all the other articles I've contributed to with edits like that over the years. I also contributed much of the material to ]. Perhaps half that page is my writing. And several other articles over the years. ] (]) 20:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Ah, I just need to tag its talk page with the relevant projects, and then it will show up in their article alerts. I'll do that right away. ] (]) 20:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| : {{ping|NewsAndEventsGuy}} - saw your vote. Do ask your partner if they have heard of Cassie Conley, John Rummel, Charles Cockell, Fairen, Dirk Schulze Makuch, the Michegan Mars Environmental Chamber used by Nilton Renno and his team the Mars Simulation Facility-Laboratory at DLR run by Jean-Pierre de Vera, the Second MEPAG Special Regions Science Analysis Group, the UCLA conference on the Present Day Habitability of Mars in 2013 and the NASA / LPL four day Modern Mars Habitability conference session in 2017, and ask if they are suitable sources fr an article on this topic - you might get a surprise. Or better still, ask them to give it a glance over to see if it looks accurate to them. I have many astrobiological friends who say it is an excellent article. None of the views given there are my own. I do have views of my own but they are not presented there. ] (]) 21:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Said about all I can to help you. I'm going to stop trying. ] (]) 22:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{ping|Ca2james}} Okay I'll post to the talk pages of Astronomy, Biology and Microbiology when I finish my edits for tonight, will look at the post you did for an example. On Galileo - I perhaps didn't make it clear. ] is ''the only notable physicist'' to my knowledge who supports his ] theory. It is not at all mainstream. But it isn't fringe either. It is mathematically and scientifically rigorous, it is notable, it gets significant coverage in newspapers etc, from time to time, and it has an article about it in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 00:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::: {{ping|Ca2james}} - Is it appropriate to post to the talk page of ]? I would post to the Astrobiology project if such existed, but there isn't one. ] (]) 00:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: You're arguing instead of listening. When I was talking about Galileo I was referring to astronomy as if we and wikipedia were living in the 16-17th century, when his theories were not mainstream. I'm going to say this plainly: if you continue contributing in ways that don't align with Misplaced Pages's content and sourcing policies and guidelines - if you continue writing as if you were writing blog posts - you will eventually end up indefinitely blocked from Misplaced Pages. I know you mean well and could potentially contribute a lot but there are rules here and you're not playing by them. {{Small| I'm not trying to threaten you with a block - I'm just trying to show you the long-term consequences of your actions. ] (]) 02:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC) }} | |||
| ::::: Post notices where you think is best for the AfD. ] (]) 02:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} Sorry I don't understand what you are saying here. Would you say ] is mainstream? When it is a highly respected theory supported by a single scientist ]. If so then we are in agreement. But if by mainstream you mean, that the majority of scientists accept the theory to be correct, no, they do not. There are many cosmological theories and they are incnsistent with each other. Stephen Hawking's ] for instance is inconsistent with ]'s ]. But we have no way to distingujish between them and numerous other theories of the universe. In that sense they are all mainstream but many are only upheld by a few individual physicists. Is that a bit clearer? So they all need to have articles becasue they are all notable, but there is no one single theory that Misplaced Pages has to be about and present as "cosmology". Instead it presents numerous theories, often long ilsts of such theories of partiuclar types, again, most mutually inconsistent. ] (]) 02:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Okay I'll post it when ready. Another thing I've been doing today, a friend suggested that it would help if I attribute the statements to particular scientists, instead of just citing them. So now the lede says | |||
| {{quote|"According to Bob Haberle of the NASA/Ames Research Center, there are only five places, Amazonis, Chryse and Elysium Planitia, in the Hellas Basin and the Argyre Basin where liquid fresh water can form, but there also, it is close to its boiling point of 10 °C. According to the 2005 study by Schorghofer and Aharonson, surface ice is not long term stable at any depth in the equatorial regions to within around ± 30° of the equator..."}} | |||
| It is often done this way in Misplaced Pages in situations where you need to use primary sources - which as I said sometimes is unavoidable, e.g. with ] which seems to have almost no secondary sources in the sense of review papers. ] (]) 02:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| : The Copernicus/Galileo thing is an analogy to help convey what wikipedia does and does not include. It's not a comment on which theories are currently notable. The idea is, '''''if''''' wikipedia had existed at the turn of the 17th century, it would have said that the sun revolves around the earth. Galileo's research would not have been included until it was accepted by many, some years later. To relate that analogy to this context, mainstream science isn't doing research on Mars habitability. Such research is still very much fringe ''even though papers have been published''. | |||
| : Attributing statements to specific scientists is a bad idea because it will make the article look more POV and fringe. Misplaced Pages editors have already told you what's wrong with the article; unless your friend is also a Misplaced Pages editor, their advice is not useful. ] (]) 15:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :: Then we are in agreement. I have removed those attributions to individual scientists, I understand what you mean there. They were not ] statements, they were just the most recent and best sources I could find on those particular topics e.g. that the ice is not stable at any depth from -30 to + 30 latitude goes back to papers from the 1990s onwards and I was just citing the most recent one - I saw that also for myself after a comment by another editor I'd better not ping as she is in the Buddhism topic area - but she had clearly read them that way so I immediately edited those names out. But I have kept attribution to notable sources such as the NASA planetary protection officers or to the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group etc. And in this topic area it is normal to discuss individual researchers by name when you cover a matter on which they are subject matter experts, e.g. Charles Cockel in this case because of his special interest in uninhabitable habitats on which he has written several papers making him a notable authority in this topic area. The latest version now also starts by quoting the NASA Science Goals for Mars - the second half of its first science goal is to search for extant (i.e. present day) life on Mars. Although all the votes are for delete still, many seemed to have voted that wa based on the title and on a belief that Mars is sterile and so that the subject matter of the article can't exist, bolstered by the ] and ] argument from primary sources in the main article under ] which confuses dormant with non dormant extant life. Others voted because they thought that the topic of the article was ] and voted to delete it as a later and unnecessary duplication of that article - it doesn't in fact discuss that topic at all. Others voted because they found no occurrences of "Modern Mars habitability" in Google Scholar. I realized the source of confusion when I re-read the intro para which referred to it as a "term" which they might think meant a technical term similar to "Special regions". I have copy edited the first paragraph to be clearer on this matter. | |||
| :: For this reason,though there are only two days left of the AfD and still no other 'Keep' votes, I do not think it is lost yet, if I can get the AfD seen by enough people, especially subject matter experts in fields such as ]. Actually I should try advertising it there too. I am going to continue to advertise the AfD as far as I can in the next two days in a neutral unbiased way to attract the eyes and votes of relevant experts ] (]) 15:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == ANI == | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice-->. ] (]) 17:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *And per that ANI thread, you have been blocked indefinitely. Your appeal route, should you desire it, is to ]. ] (]) 08:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd notice --> ―] ] 22:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ==GCR== | |||
| Since you recently took part in the discussions, your opinion? See recent talks . ] (]) 16:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| : Sadly I have been indef blocked from Misplaced Pages. I still have talk page access but the only appropriate thing to say is just to refer you to the indef block. Sorry about that. ] (]) 17:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: Okay, sorry just focused on the topic at hand. ] (]) 17:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::: No problem :). It's not obvious on this page, a short comment in the ] section and I can understand how you missed it. I'd make a longer more friendly reply to you but there are risks of giving the impression of trying to evade a block if you say anything more than the minimum so sorry for abruptness. ] (]) 17:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ==MfD nomination of ]== | |||
| ] ], a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] 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.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> ] (]) 20:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks, no problem. I've copied all my Misplaced Pages user space files over to my new encyclopedia of astrobiology. They are no use to me here since as a blocked editor I can't edit them. ] (]) 00:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 03:12, 7 December 2022
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
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
Your draft article, Draft:Present day habitability of Mars
Hello, Robertinventor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Present day habitability of Mars".
In accordance with our policy that Misplaced Pages 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 edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
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.
Thank you for your submission to Misplaced Pages! CptViraj (📧) 08:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:CelestialRefAllNoImages
Template:CelestialRefAllNoImages has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:CelestialRefExNoImages
Template:CelestialRefExNoImages has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Payload fraction table
Template:Payload fraction table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)