Misplaced Pages

User talk:Robertinventor

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robertinventor (talk | contribs) at 15:45, 18 August 2018 (→About writing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:45, 18 August 2018 by Robertinventor (talk | contribs) (→About writing)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archiving icon
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

DS Alert - climate change

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in Climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Robert, I gave the same thing to myself. As the template itself says they are just FYI so everyone knows about WP:ARBCC#Principles and that discretionary sanctions apply to climate pages. As you may recall if you were here back then this used to be a badge of shame thing and "notice" warnings were given out when there might be a problem. We don't do that anymore. Now they are for anyone and everyone in the topic area. I try to remember to give it to everyone who shows substantial interest in climate articles. Besides you and me, the other ed currently looking at clathrates, Prokaryotes, is also "aware" of this stuff. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank for letting me know. I know what DS are, have edited in areas that are affected by DS before, but didn't know they applied to Climate Change. Also spotted your comment on the talk page and I'll reply. It seemed like a dormant article because nobody replied to my talk page comment about a month ago, it will be interesting to have a conversation about the latest research. And agreed on your basic point there too - yes - it can take some sleuthing to find out what the current consensus is, what the implications are of the latest research and how widely it is supported. Robert Walker (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Super I'll watch for that. However, I have no interest in a general discussion about current research (see WP:FORUM) but I am interested in talking about how we use the reliable sources to improve the article. See you there, as time allows. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh sure, that's what I meant, that it is good to have someone else to talk to about how to use reliable sources to improve the article. I've been working on this summarizing the research and there seemed to be nobody else there or I'd have been talking about it all along. I've replied to you there about my future ideas for work on the article and commented on the paper you mentioned in the discussion. Robert Walker (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
OK moving to article talk... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Robertinventor#Too_many_edits_for_a_talk_page_post

FYI, that's what user sandboxes are for. Find yours at User:Robertinventor/sandbox NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed that myself and will use the sandbox in future for our conversation. I tend to forget about this because I do a lot of writing off wiki where it is never an issue, as there is no comment history. I've actually just now edited my user page to ask people to let me know if they notice this. So thanks for doing it. I hadn't edited my user page since before the t-ban and it is way out of date, am working on it right now. Robert Walker (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Modern Mars habitability for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Modern Mars habitability is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Modern Mars habitability 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. Ca2james (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Modern Mars habitability, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazonian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Appeal of topic ban

I have closed your appeal of your topic ban as declined. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

About writing

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 WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:RS/AC).

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.

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. Ca2james (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

On WP:RS/AC

"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 DLR (German Aerospace Center)"
I've corrected it to "This is a statement about our current state of knowledge of the field from the home page of the DLR (German Aerospace Center) "
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.
On WP:SCHOLARSHIP, 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 WP:RS 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 Life on Mars seems to violate this, since it says that the ionizing radiation sterilizes the martian surface. It does this using an essentially WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS 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.
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 Conformal cyclic cosmology. It is an exact analogy of your Galileo case. It describes a theory developed by Roger Penrose and for its content, it is based pretty much entirely on writings by him about his own theory. Or take Viking lander biological experiments. 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:

"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 circadian rhythm previously observed in terrestrial cyanobacteria."

There is no secondary source used there. This is acceptable. See WP:NOTRS

"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 Megatsunami 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 Modern Mars Habitability 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? Robert Walker (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Reminder of how AfD's are closed WP:CLOSEAFD - 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 Notify interested projects and editors. 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. Robert Walker (talk) 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 WP:Articles for deletion/Modern Mars habitability"). 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. Ca2james (talk) 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, Talk:Colonization of Mars. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. Periodic Analysis of the Viking Lander Labeled Release Experiment, 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.

Above advice from Ca2james (talk · contribs) suggesting you might be an ideal blogger and might be happier putting your ideas out in that manner seems very wise to me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 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:

Modern Mars Habitability 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 Planetary protection. Perhaps half that page is my writing. And several other articles over the years. Robert Walker (talk) 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. Robert Walker (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@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. Robert Walker (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Said about all I can to help you. I'm going to stop trying. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@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. Roger Penrose is the only notable physicist to my knowledge who supports his Conformal cyclic cosmology 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. Robert Walker (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ca2james: - Is it appropriate to post to the talk page of Astrobiology? I would post to the Astrobiology project if such existed, but there isn't one. Robert Walker (talk) 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. I'm not trying to threaten you with a block - I'm just trying to show you the long-term consequences of your actions. Ca2james (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Post notices where you think is best for the AfD. Ca2james (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand what you are saying here. Would you say Conformal cyclic cosmology is mainstream? When it is a highly respected theory supported by a single scientist Roger Penrose. 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 Hartle–Hawking state for instance is inconsistent with Roger Penrose's Conformal cyclic cosmology. 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. Robert Walker (talk) 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

"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 Megatsunami which seems to have almost no secondary sources in the sense of review papers. Robert Walker (talk) 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. Ca2james (talk) 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 WP:POV 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 WP:OR and WP:SYNTH argument from primary sources in the main article under Life on Mars#Cummulative effects which confuses dormant with non dormant extant life. Others voted because they thought that the topic of the article was Colonization of Mars 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 Planetary science. 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 Robert Walker (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

AFD conduct

Robert, Regarding your participation at this AFD:

  • Please stop creating sub-sections at the AFD
  • Don't move the article while it is at AFD

This messes up the pages where the AFD is transcluded to, and only increases the work for the closer in case the article is deleted. You should also limit your comments at the AFD to ones that would help the closer decide whether the article should be kept. Abecedare (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Okay. I didn't know those rules, sorry. I will follow them now. My mistake was that I thought title change would be covered by "improving the article" and didn't think to check. Since I cant' do this, can you kindly move the talk page back to the original article as well then? It's here Talk:Possibility_of_modern_Mars_habitability. Also, will it be appropriate for me to remove the new section saying I have moved it from the AfD disucssion and add it as a suggestion to the talk page instead? Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Completed the talkpage move. Yes, feel free to remove the new section about the article move from the AFD since no one has responded to it yet; it will also make following the discussion easier. Abecedare (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, done :) Robert Walker (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@Abecedare: wonder what to do, @NewsAndEventsGuy: has posted a very WP:POV post publicizing the AfD which in my view is strongly suggesting to editors which is the right way to vote saying "So far the only "keep" WP:NOTVOTE is from the article creator, and many have suggested deletion." and saying "Mars eds may wish to comment whether there is enough good material at newer article to merge, or if it should be deleted outright." as if those were the only options with keep not a possibility. . It is also very confused. It says that my article is about Mars colonization. It is not. It is about the possibility of present day microbial life on Mars. I will take this opportunity to edit the lede to make this clearer by adding a diambiguation or something. Robert Walker (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC) @NewsAndEventsGuy: Sorry should have pinged you first, got mixed up. Can you please remove your latest post from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mars#Colonization_articles_and_AFD - there is no way this is a neutral advertisment of the AfD. Colonization articles and AFD. And my article is not about human or any other form of colonization of Mars. Robert Walker (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm in the process of making corrections, which of course can be reviewed and critiqued again. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! It's okay now. I've left my comment on the AfD talk page in case it is relevant to the closing editor. As it is now, there are so many deletes and no keeps that it is not going to make a difference. But if I get a lot of last minute keep's for some reason, enough for a possibility of a decision of "no consensus", it might swing it as there were a few deletes while your version was on the Mars project talk page. Robert Walker (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

And yes - as you say in your edit summary - it was fine to delete my comment on your post there after you fixed it. Only need a mention on the AfD page for the closing admin. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)