User talk:Marsadvexpdev

Marsadvexpdev (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC) And BTW, if people who are not subject matter experts write what ever they want, then this site does not honestly and truly serve as an Encyclopedia, it serves only as a message/opinion board - and today, that is what most internet traffic accomplishes. This site should be above that.[reply]

Marsadvexpdev (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC) So, Andy. Why did you remove my comments from your Talk page unless you feel that I am correct in my assertions?[reply]

Marsadvexpdev (talk) Andy, my response to your message below is on your page.

Manned mission to Mars

Hi. I've removed your material about "longboats" again because it fails wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Basically, if there's not been serious third party coverage of an idea then it shouldn't be in wikipedia. I did a search but can only find the original article, a few links to it, and a couple of unimportant sites where it's been mentioned. It looks like nobody was interested. If you want to include this material you'll have to find coverage in reliable third party sources - see WP:RS. andy (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your edits one final time in order to give you an opportunity to reconsider your position. If you restore the material again I'll ask for administrative overview to see which of us is right. And you should try to avoid "edit warring".

You really need to do something about your attitude. Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise and differences of opinion happen all the time. It's not acceptable to be gratuitously rude to another editor as you have been to me, accusing me of skulking around, lacking guts and so on. That sort of thing alone can get you banned from wikipedia.

Wikipedia's policies are clear and you should familiarise yourself with them. Material must be demonstrably noteworthy. I'm sure there are many, many Mars-related concepts out there but most of them do not find their way into this encyclopaedia because nobody is interested in them, they've fallen by the wayside. If the "longboats" idea is worth including in an encyclopaedia article it should surely be easy to demonstrate that? Just find some reliable third parties who've considered the idea. If nobody is interested then it should not be in. This is why wikipedia strongly prefers secondary sources. As it happens I've searched for such sources and have been completely unable to find them, but if you know better then fine, reinstate the material and add a reliable third party source. Was the idea ever taken up by a space advocacy group, by a NASA working party, in a learned journal editorial, in other scientific papers? Anything decent will do. andy (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you restored the item but nope, still no third party source. Which confirms my view that there aren't any. This is a paper that nobody noticed and which contributed nothing to the topic and therefore should not be in the article. As a first step I've raised the issue on the article's talk page. (And BTW you don't have to be a subject expert to edit wikipedia, just someone who can understand and follow basic rules as laid down. In fact, even robots do it.) andy (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

FYI I've sought a third opinion about "Longboats" at WP:3O. You don't need to take any action.

You know, I'll go away and stop bothering you if you can find any third party sources to demonstrate that the original idea gained any traction.

BTW your advocacy puzzles me - do you have any connection with the paper's author? andy (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Marsadvexpdev. You have new messages at Talk:Manned_mission_to_Mars#Longboats.
Message added 17:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TransporterMan (TALK) 17:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marsadvexpdev, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Marsadvexpdev! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Longboats" dispute

Hello. I saw your comments here. As you can see from what I said there I waited a while and then deleted the disputed section. I took your silence for assent which was clearly a mistake and I'm sorry about that.

As you can see from the third opinion there are further steps you can take if you wish to pursue this - see here - of which the best is probably a request for comment.

I'd like to point out that nobody, least of all TransporterMan, has set themselves up as a subject expert still less "Editor-in-Chief". We're just people who have an interest in the integrity of wikipedia and try to correct issues when we come across them. As you point out there's a lot in the article that needs better references but the difference is that there's no doubt that these references are available. A quick Google Scholar search for "MarsDrive" for example will show several good quality references, and from the main Google search you can see that they're an active organisation that attracts a moderate level of interest. That's enough to push them over the threshold of notability (which isn't a very high threshold). I took that step with regard to "Longboats" and was not able to find any such references other than links to the original paper. If I've messed up then please prove me wrong.

Incidentally, if Transporterman is correct and you are the author of the paper then you really should not be trying to place it in wikipedia. I'm sure you understand all the issues surrounding conflicts of interest and if, as I suspect, this paper did not flourish in the way that you had hoped, then you definitely should not be trying to promote it in this way. If other disinterested people take up the idea, and if they can find supporting references, then they can add the item in your stead.

In the opinion of two (and so far only two) experienced editors this material is not appropriate for wikipedia. That is emphatically not a rejection of either you or your ideas, simply a statement that it does not fulfil strict criteria for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Plenty of other material does not get included for precisely the same reason. "Wikipedia intends to convey only knowledge that is already established and recognized. It must not present new information or original research"

andy (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. andy (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marsadvexpdev (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Over a week and a half ago I responded, with a need for direct answers to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and have either been dismissed (by the many subject matter non-experts out there, seemingly controlling the data on this site) or my assertions are still correct. I am therefore again re-posting the information and await a proper response to my questions.[reply]

Edit wars

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 11:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Use of talkpages and edit summaries

Hi again, Marsadvexpdev. It's much better to keep discussion of the article you're interested in on the article talkpage. (You haven't posted there even once.) Also, please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. It's especially important when you edit an article, and even more especially, when you revert article edits repeatedly (which is something you should very much avoid doing without discussing your edits on the article talkpage, see section above). Thank you. Bishonen | talk 13:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

March 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Manned mission to Mars. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Negotiate, don't fight! You've seen the expert opinions and therefore you know this material is not appropriate. andy (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marsadvexpdev (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC) 129.7.16.105 (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC) And yet again. I have tried to get answers to specific comparison question to other posts, and Mr. Andy J Smith does not have the courtesy to provide answers as to the validity of other posts that are exactly the same as the one I have posted and he has repeatedly deleted. I have not deleted one of his posts or edits. That should say something.[reply]

Posted above today: Marsadvexpdev (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Over a week and a half ago I responded, with a need for direct answers to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and have either been dismissed (by the many subject matter non-experts out there, seemingly controlling the data on this site) or my assertions are still correct. I am therefore again re-posting the information and await a proper response to my questions.

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Manned mission to Mars. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Please pay attention to what people are saying you! You are engaged in an edit war which you will lose, and with it your edit privileges. You're heading fast towards being banned from wikipedia. So why not get with it and follow the rules that have been explained very clearly? The opinion of multiple editors is that without proof of notability this material should not be added. All you have to do is supply that proof. Why won't you do this? andy (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]