| Revision as of 00:56, 17 August 2018 editRobertinventor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,925 edits →JJ (header to remove)← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:17, 18 August 2018 edit undoRobertinventor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,925 editsNo edit summary | ||
| (17 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ::::::: Another point of clarification: This article is not a ] of ]. The reason is that ] covers life through the entire history of Mars. ] by focusing on present day habitats can cover it in more depth. Articles can overlap if they have significant amounts of own content, as is the case here. ] (]) 04:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| To be done as four comments posted separately, one after another. | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| ===Context=== | |||
| This is what I'm replying to, : | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| :Robert and Dorje108 writing their own Wiki seems like a great solution. And no, I've never edited ], but does not seem to solve the issues with the lack of an encyclopedic tone.JJ 06:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :: There were three issues identified, neutrality, sourcing and tone. Tone is subjective. For instance I am the main author of ] and nobody said it lacks encyclopedic tone. Note that ping|Joshua Jonathan has just edited the main ] article to remove the banner. He gives only one of the two main sources for Milarepa's biography I mention in the lede. He does not mention the issues with his dates of birth and death or the historical context. Although he removed the banner about issues of sourcing, all the paragraphs are still marked as . He also presents a mythological account as if it was regarded as a historical biography, and so does not fix the issue of neutrality. He has also removed the section on "supernatural running". This breaks the redirect from ] which is the reason I had for retaining that section in my draft. My is to make this into a separate article and run the redirect the other way. In short, it is a hasty edit of an article on one of the most important historical figures in Tibetan Buddhism, and sloppy work, introducing new issues that need to be fixed. RW 11:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| FYI there is a delete discussion Astrobiology editors may be interested in, at | |||
| :::You're breaching your topic-ban here. JJ 11:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * ] | |||
| ⚫ | ] (]) 03:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC) | ||
| ==Article for deletion discussion - Modern Mars habitability== | |||
| There is an article at AfD that may interest you. The article is here ]. Please vote or comment at ] | |||
| :::Oh yes, that's definitely a topic ban violation, and also shows why the topic ban should stay in effect. The fact that you didn't use your sandbox approach for at least one reply here shows that the "sandbox solution" isn't a viable solution for you. About ]: you were far from the only editor there, and it existed before you started editing it. Compare that article to ], which you wrote completely and which is not at all encyclopaedic in tone (disclosure: I've nominated the latter article for deletion). CJ 15:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ------------ | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| ===CJ and JJ (header to remove)=== | |||
| '''''First a reminder that I am doing this in the context of a formal appeal process'''''. So, ping|Joshua Jonathan and ping|Ca2james - according to ], it is not a topic ban violation to talk about the topic during a formal appeal, so long as it is relevant to the appeal. | |||
| ⚫ | ] (]) 04:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC) | ||
| ===Ca2james long posts (header to remove)=== | |||
| ⚫ | ------ | ||
| <small>Notices added to: | |||
| '''''Replying to:''''' ''"The fact that you didn't use your sandbox approach for at least one reply here shows that the "sandbox solution" isn't a viable solution for you"'' | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| Ca2james, you need some background. Editors are permitted to do minor edits of their posts after they post them by ]. That wasn't the problem. The problem was my large number of minor edits. You can see how many minor edits I do between posts from my sandbox: . | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| I was told that this is a problem for other editors and I agree. ping|Softlavender suggested I use my sandbox, I agreed that this seemed a good approach to avoid this issue, and ping|Euryalus agreed in the closing statement that this potentially can solve the problem. | |||
| * ] | |||
| </small> | |||
| Even using the sandbox, sometimes I find a minor issue I missed in the sandbox or forget my signature. However, a couple of minor edits like that is normal. That's not what I was sanctioned for, as it is permitted under ]. Also it is okay to redact posts even after they are replied to, if you use underline and strike out. You may notice in my original t-ban appeal at the top of this section I linked to the wrong point in the page and fixed it in that way. | |||
| Also - since there was nothing wrong with that post, everything was to the point, except for its length. So, I'd also like to say a bit about the "Walls of text" complaint. The does not mention it, only mentions ]. | |||
| You may get the impression that comments in the Buddhism topic area are typically short. But that is not the case at all. Here is the comment ping|Joshua Jonathan did on the ] where he objected to my walls of text in the discussion - and in context here: - (1071 words and 6920 characters, not including signature), and scroll to the end where he says '''''"NB: still walls of text... "'''''. When I posted a short summary of the main issues with the ] article, this was his reply: and in context here: 1726 words and 11,164 characters. In response to my new short summary of 627 words and 3572 characters. | |||
| In our debates from 2014 through to 2017, ping|Joshua Jonathan did them frequently; many more examples could be found. '''''By both of us.''''' From this it is clear that >1000 word coments are commonplace in this topic area (as is not unusual for a highly technical subject on Misplaced Pages). I do not think that long posts by themselves were the reason for the t-ban. ] (]) 15:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ] (]) |
||
| ===CJ AfD (header to remove)=== | |||
| '''''Replying to:''''' ''"About Planetary protection: you were far from the only editor there, and it existed before you started editing it. Compare that article to Modern Mars habitability, which you wrote completely and which is not at all encyclopaedic in tone (disclosure: I've nominated the latter article for deletion)."'' | |||
| Okay can I fill in some background for the other editors here? Your says you are happy wikignoming for now, and in you contributed as a wikignome. As the article progressed you agreed that I had improved it by responding to your comments and at the end were satisfied with the article. Sadly, as soon as we were finished, two other editors from the main article came and merged it away. However I created it, and you helped me write it in good faith as I had been told by one editor on the ] page that this was an appropriate article to write. We weren't to know that two other editors would disagree and merge it away. | |||
| I was so surprised when you took my ] to AfD without posting on its talk page first, as I would have expected you to mention issues on the talk page first. You are not in its talk page or edit history before you added it as an AfD . Nor have you ever edited even as a wikignome. The only way I can think of that you could have found it is through this topic ban appeal itself. | |||
| I agree that at the time you sent it to AfD the lede paragraph had an unattributed paragraph that expressed a ] and one that is likely to seem unusual, as much of this has not yet percolated far beyond specialist journals such as Astrobiology journal and the specialist planetary protection debates. However the ] I have fixed that by rewriting that paragraph describing the full range of POV's of modern astrobiologists, all attributed with multiple cites, and finally, the main stream POV attributed using a carefully chosen suitable high reputation cite (from the German Aerospace HOME project on Mars habitability). | |||
| In short, I think it is a case of ] rather than ]. | |||
| Your other main point is on encyclopedic tone. I think that also mainly applies to the lede. That was one of your main objection on the previous article, commenting: "Encyclopaedic articles start a particular way, which is to define the title of the article.". If so, hopefully, you will hopefully be pleased to hear that it is one of the things I'm working on fixing. If anyone looks at the article please be aware it is mid edit. | |||
| For another example to show how I write in encyclopedic tone see ]. I created the article and did more than 50% of the edits. It was one of my first articles here. And right from the beginning it defined what a Hexany is. I can definitely do it, just needed reminding in the case of ]. | |||
| ⚫ | ] (]) |
||
| ===JJ (header to remove) === | |||
| '''''ping|Joshua Jonathan, my comments here seem to be covered by ] as I am discussing edits that you did in response to appeal discussions'''''. I posted that comment about this article on 06:01, 15 August 2018 to ping|GenuineArt and you started to edit it for the first time ever (as you also agree) at 06:26, 15 August 2018 to remove the POV tag with the edit summary: ''"no explanation has been given"''. | |||
| What I said about your edit is supported by facts. | |||
| Please note, I raise this issue mainly to show that my own proposed edit is a good one, not particularly to criticize yours. However, by your bold edits mid appeal, I am left with little choice but to mention these issues, if I am to continue with the appeal at all. | |||
| *'''''hasty (removing banners without checking issues were solved)'''''. The article was tagged as ] by an uninvolved editor, - and it has been left it in place through 70 intermediate edits by multiple editors. | |||
| * '''''sloppy (not checking for redirects linking to deleted sections of article)'''''. This page shows which links have been broken by your edit , they are: ], ], ], ] and ]. These redirect to Milarepa, which will confuse anyone who does a Misplaced Pages search, expecting to learn about the legendary runners of ancient Tibet. Also ] in turn is linked to by two mainspace articles ] and ], as well as ]. Again, this will confuse a reader clicking through to find out more about this topic. | |||
| '''''The latest version is still treating a poetic mythological account as real'''''. Probably almost none of those supposed biographical details actually happened, especially when you realize who wrote the "biography", an inspiring and gifted poetic ], or ]. See this paragraph in (I have worked on the draft some more since submitting my appeal), emphasis added: | |||
| {{quote|"'''''The earliest account of his life is attributed to ] (though probably they are lecture notes by one of his students), and it leaves out many of the events of the later story.''''' No hail storm, no murders, mother apparently dies young rather than his father, no building of towers<ref name=QuintmanGampopa>Quintman, A., 2013. , . Columbia University Press.</ref>....<br><br>However the later story of the life of Milarepa is based on the traditional "Songs of Milarepa" and "Life of Milarepa" by ].''' He was a ] ({{bo|w=smyon pa}}) or ]. When local villagers saw his body covered in human ashes and blood with his hair adorned by human fingers and toes , they gave him the name ']'''.<ref name=Quintman></ref>.... Many monks questioned his behavior and way of dress but Tsangnyön was known to strongly defend his unconventional practice through rigorous argument and accurate quotations from scriptures. As well as a famous teacher, he was also a composer of religious songs. These are classics of Tibetan literature.<ref name=Quintman></ref>"}} | |||
| '''''His biography is not regarded as historically accurate''''' - if for no othe rreason, because it contradicts the earlier Gompopa biography on several significant points.<ref name=Quintman>. and Heruka, T., 2010. The Life of Milarepa.</ref><ref>Quintman, A., 2013. . Columbia University Press.</ref>. You do not make this clear to the reader, and so I do not believe that you have solved the issue of neutrality and ], which was a major factor in my own revision. As I say in my version , citing Quintman, and paraphrasing him, little is known about the historical Milarepa, as all we have are these later poetic mythological stories. ]'s account is earliest but it differs from the later one in many respects, and Quintman doesn't attempt to use this to reconstruct a definitive life story of Milarepa. | |||
| '''''Note, if I am unblocked, I would not do a bold edit of ] myself'''''. I would copy my draft from my miraheze user space over to my Misplaced Pages user space, and then post a brief note to the talk page to see if editors there think that my draft would improve it. | |||
| '''''This is my normal practice as an editor when contributing to mature articles, as you can see from my contribution history. Instead of BRD, I do DB (continues DBRD, but the R is very rare after DB)''''' and for another editors bold edit, I do BDR. For recent examples of my use of DB see my edits of the talk pages for: and . I expect those edits to be uncontroversial, as all they do is to fix minor omissions, but just in case of stepping on anyone's toes, I comment on the talk page first. This also leaves a more detailed record of the proposed edit than an edit summary. I generally go back a while later, go through my contributions history and deal with the things I suggested (which usually get no replies). After all, what's the hurry? Most of the articles I edit with DB have been like this for years. This is what I would do with Buddhist bios too, at least until I am sure my edits will be uncontroversial here. | |||
| '''''I raise these issues under ]''''' because as someone who proposes to edit Buddhist bios, I wish to establish that my proposed edits of ] are good ones and that I will be a benefit to wikipedia. | |||
| '''''In my edits I relied on the best source you could get on this topic'''''. As reviewed by Rondolino<ref>Reviewed by Rondolino, M., 2015. . Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 22, pp.13-24.</ref> | |||
| {{quote|"Andrew Quintman’s study of the literary transformations of the life story of the renowned Tibetan yogin Milarepa is a welcome adaptation of his 2007 doctoral thesis,a piece of research that, albeit unpublished, had already been a key source to at least three further doctoral works on Milarepa’s legacy which, to varying extent, all build on Quintman’s work "}} | |||
| It won the American Academy of Religion’s 2014 Award for Excellence in the Study of Religion in Textual Studies and the 2015 Heyman Prize for outstanding scholarship from Yale University. | |||
| '''''Since you are editing the article mid appeal''''' - for the benefits of anyone reading this, this is the version of the bio that I'm commenting on . I hope also with these remarks to persuade not just the other editors here but you yourself also that my proposed edit of ] is a good one. | |||
| '''''If you and your fellow editors continue to say that my proposed edit of the Milarepa article is unacceptable''''', I am not interested in making a battle of it. I will go to another bio and edit that instead. | |||
| '''''If none of my edits to add content to Buddhist bios are acceptable to editors of this project, I will do wikignoming'''''. This is what I did originally in this topic area. One way or another I will feel that I can still contribute, at least in a minor way, to part of the project. | |||
| '''''The reason I was so verbose is that it is something I care deeply about. Imagine if you were a theology wikignome, and one day you get an alert on your watch list that a favourite Misplaced Pages article about the Resurrection has been altered in a bold edit to say that Jesus was not resurrected'''''. Imagine, what's more, that all material about the Resurrection has been removed as inaccurate and not historical? That is similar to the situation I found myself in, after your bold edits. That is why I was so passionate about it. And why I kept coming back to it. But I now realize that the situation has moved on, and that those 2014 articles are now in our past. I have solved it by working with ping|Dorje108 on our EOB instead, which says things that were removed from the main Misplaced Pages Buddhism project. That includes the statement of the Four Noble truths in the lede and the many attributes of Karma in Buddhism in the Karma article. The old 2014 articles themselves, which I so appreciated, are preserved in the new encyclopedia and are being actively worked on and improved. | |||
| '''''These are are amongst the most central of all the topics in ]''''', for instance traditionally, the ] was the main subject of the first and most important sermon delivered by the Buddha, immediately after his enlightenment, in which he presented the Buddhist path. The old articles describe them as our equivalent of modern Christian theologians teach them, such as the ], ], Ringu Tulku, the ] (author of many books on Buddhism), etc. They also matched the teachings I have heard, and follow in my own life, on the path of the Buddha. | |||
| '''''I think to try to explain what changed, and why it changed, from my own viewpoint, is beyond what I can do under ]. However, that there is a significant difference of some sort is clear'''''. E.g. ], compare and ], compare . As a result the newest versions of these articles, although they are regarded as "better" in ] are no longer of interest to me as a practitioner. Though, they do have some academic interest, and I learnt many interesting things from our talk page discussions about the views of ] and others, that I had never known about before. And I agree with you totally on one point - he is a highly respected scholar, one of the most notable in early Indian religions, and the comparative studies of ], ] and ]. | |||
| '''''My main focus is on improving articles in our new EOB. In the process I may produce new material that I think will benefit Misplaced Pages''''' such as this new draft of the life of Milarepa article that I've been working on, on and off, since May 22nd. I also often fix minor issues in the imported articles,. If the topic ban is lifted, I will use any material that is found acceptable to improve Misplaced Pages. If at any time I feel that the content is not welcome in Misplaced Pages, I will not add it. ] (]) 14:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:17, 18 August 2018
- Another point of clarification: This article is not a WP:FORK of Life on Mars. The reason is that Life on Mars covers life through the entire history of Mars. Modern Mars habitability by focusing on present day habitats can cover it in more depth. Articles can overlap if they have significant amounts of own content, as is the case here. Robert Walker (talk) 04:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
FYI there is a delete discussion Astrobiology editors may be interested in, at
Robert Walker (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Article for deletion discussion - Modern Mars habitability
There is an article at AfD that may interest you. The article is here Modern Mars habitability. Please vote or comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Modern Mars habitability
Robert Walker (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Notices added to:
- Talk:Astrobiology#AFD Discussion - Modern Mars habitability
- Talk:Planetary protection#AFD Discussion - Modern Mars habitability
- Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Biology#AFD Discussion - Modern Mars habitability
- Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Microbiology#AFD Discussion - Modern Mars habitability
- Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astronomy#AFD Discussion - Modern Mars habitability