User talk:Davidbuddy9/Archive 0

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Next →

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited KOI-4878.01, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ly. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ESIScore

Template:ESIScore has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of KOI-3138.01

The article KOI-3138.01 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not even confirmed yet. Ludicrous to have an article on a mundane, unconfirmed exoplanet. Mars-sized is not some quantitative division; similar enough to Earth-sized that I don't see it as defining notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Gliese 422 b

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Gliese 422 b, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://us.wow.com/wiki/GJ_422_b.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has built-in page moving functionality

You performed a cut-and-paste move on GJ 422 b, which is undesirable because it splits the page history. Instead, please use Wikipedia's existing functionality -- see Help:Moving a page. I've fixed this one but if you have done in other instances, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. MER-C 11:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

What is PHL?

The Earth Similarity Index article indicates that your change to Kepler-452b is not correct... Dustin (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: PHL or Planetary Habitability Laboratory whose website can be found here is a credible source that calululates the ESI. They are also the ones that came up with new definition of the circumstellar habitable zone and the one that came up with the borderlines between Martian sized worlds (Subterrain) Earth sized (Terrain) and Super Earth (Super terrain) PS you should be using List of potentially habitable exoplanets for getting your habitable planet list rather than the esi page Davidbuddy9 (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, strange. I see that you've already amended the article about the ESI, so this is no longer much of an issue, is it? Thank you for responding. Dustin (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: Yeah its not an issue. The list on the ESI page is just a cut and paste of the List of potentially habitable exoplanets so when new additions come and people are not careful things can get messy. That's why I mentioned you should use List of potentially habitable exoplanets when it comes to ordering planets as it is better maintained. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Test

This is just a test message for my new layout. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HD 85512 b, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terrestrial. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of KOI-433.02 m

I have tagged this article for deletion because the subject is purely speculative, as indicated by citation. This appears to be a prediction based on the mass of a candidate planet which has not itself been confirmed.--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@EvenGreenerFish: Unconfirmed exoplanets and Exomoons are not speculative. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the planet is confirmed or not (which it should not be in an encyclopedia until it is) the exomoon is purely hypothetical and as such should not have a Wikipedia article.--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@EvenGreenerFish: Your reasoning for can also apply to:

So if you think the paged should be renamed to KOI-433.02 m (hypothetical moon) that is acceptable. But deleting it is Not.Davidbuddy9 (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Superhabitable exoplanet

added links pointing to Hemisphere, Anaerobic, John Armstrong and Temperature range

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"We've got templates for star colors!"

That's cool as tits. Huritisho 00:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Minor edits

Just as a friendly tip, if you're not making a small change (grammar, text formatting, etc), you should not be marking your edits as "minor." Not only does it mean your edit goes unseen by page watchers, but also can be misleading. Primefac (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

As an additional friendly note, it's a good idea to always leave an edit summary so that other editors know why you've edited the page - even if it's something as simple as "cleanup" or "copyedit". Primefac (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop marking non-minor posts as minor. Primefac (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Notification of file deletion discussion on Commons

Please see Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Invalid licence used?

I'll remove the image from Tabetha's article as probable copyvio pending a decision about the file, we can restore it later if necessary. I will also remove some of the other details from the infobox: only her WTF research is widely enough known at present to qualify for mention in the infobox and she was not directly involved with the Kepler-61b investigations. --Mirokado (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mirokado:You probably have seen this already but are you sure that a caption is need for the image on the IAU site? (If so could you give me a little pointer as I cannot find it :) Also The copyright policy states: All IAU still and footage are released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. So I would assume that it would be ok...? Davidbuddy9 (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I've posted an update on commons. --Mirokado (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about the List of Star Systems

When you were changing GJ to Gliese, did you check to make sure that the Wikilinks weren't being improperly changed? I know a lot of the Gliese stars don't exist, but just wondered if you checked if the GJ articles existed before changing it to Gliese. Primefac (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Primefac:I checked most (some may of slipped as I am not perfect) of them yes. Most of the ones that were already linked were Gliese before I changed them. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. Figured you had (and I didn't feel like checking them all myself), but I thought I'd double-check. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Broken references

I don't understand why you have re-added a broken reference to K2-3c? Clicking on http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/epic-201367065_c/ just produces an error message: "Document not found". You also readded http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/epic-201367065_d/ to K2-3d which also produces the same error message. Fdfexoex (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Fdfexoex:Exoplanet.eu changed http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/epic-201367065_c/ to http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/K2-3_c/ (All EPIC Designations have been changed to their offical K2 Names). Next time just google around to see if anything changed instead of removing it and accusing me of original research. Davidbuddy9 Talk 21:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Borderline personality disorder

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Borderline personality disorder. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:ExxonMobil

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:ExxonMobil. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:ExxonMobil

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:ExxonMobil. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Human spaceflight

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Human spaceflight. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox medical condition

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox medical condition. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Salt Mud Slide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Salt Mud Slide. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of earthquakes in 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of earthquakes in 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Veganism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Veganism. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Marco Rubio

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Marco Rubio. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mitsubishi Magna

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mitsubishi Magna. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Holocene extinction

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Holocene extinction. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Climate change denial

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Climate change denial. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Prices

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Prices. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Conventions

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Conventions. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Overlapping circles grid

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Overlapping circles grid. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Planet Nine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Planet Nine. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Star Alliance

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Star Alliance. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:FlightGear

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:FlightGear. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Human sexuality

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Human sexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of IBM CKD Controllers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of IBM CKD Controllers. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stack Overflow

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stack Overflow. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Avoiding dangerous climate change

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Avoiding dangerous climate change. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:PBB

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:PBB. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1 metre

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1 metre. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Exponential function

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Exponential function. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Engineering

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Engineering. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

But the RfC is already closed? Davidbuddy9 Talk 04:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Schulze method

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Schulze method. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of List of potentially habitable moons for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of potentially habitable moons is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of potentially habitable moons until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. jps (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ESIScore

Template:ESIScore has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. jps (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of KOI-433.02 m for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article KOI-433.02 m is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-433.02 m until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. jps (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. jps (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Easy scale listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Easy scale. Since you had some involvement with the Easy scale redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. jps (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:MDMA

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MDMA. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Good job with the RfCs!

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		You worded the two RfCs very neutrally. Thank you! jps (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

We should work together a bit on ESI

I think one way forward is to improve the Earth Similarity Index article. I found 11 papers which cite the original paper in one way or another and we only include one on the page currently[1]. We should try to summarize those and some of the popular references I point to at one of the AfDs.

Whaddya think?

jps (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: Adding information from those papers to the ESI page would be great of course, its a no brainer. I really dislike papers behind paywalls that is just really annoying. Davidbuddy9 Talk 14:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

- I have access to many of the papers that are behind paywalls. Also, check for the ones that have links to a version hosted at arxiv.org where you can get the preprint. If you need access to any of the papers, let me know. jps (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done, This is the RfC that I have opened! Davidbuddy9 Talk 04:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done, This is the RfC that I have opened! Davidbuddy9 Talk 04:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of KOI-5806.01 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article KOI-5806.01 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-5806.01 until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Alsee (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Order of approximation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Order of approximation. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Davidbuddy9. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Mike V • Talk 18:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Davidbuddy9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not QuentinQuade, I am friends with him and yes we do have similar interests in exoplanetology but since he has moved away from where I live. EDIT: I would really like to know how you all came to the conclusion that I am QuentinQuade, especially since he live ~630 km away. Just because you Identified edit on the same pages? Davidbuddy9 Talk 21:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given the behavioural and technical evidence, this does not look like a likely scenario to me. Huon (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Davidbuddy9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First of all I would ask the admin reviewing this to read the entire post neutrally and without turning a blind eye. Second I would like to apologize, for my hotheadedness in this situation and for my wrong doing. I am sincerely and hearty sorry for my poor actions and decisions, and regardless if this ban I'm sure I will pay for it particularly by lost of respect from the community that I actively edited in before this bad. Secondly I would like to comfort anyone concerned I do not have any other accounts on Wikipedia and I have zero interest in making a new account because this is not who I feel I am, and I really didn't mean to cause all of the problems I have caused. Fourthly and most importantly reviewing who opened the sock puppet investigation is also a concern in my opinion, as we did not get along and we have conflicting views on current issues in the community, but that is not my concern my concerns with this editor must me displayed in a time line if I may.

1) WP:ESDONTS was violated here although I admit that I was a bit rude too, User I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc "jps" argues that they're edit was "vetted by experts" inplying that

A) I'm not an expert

B) That he is an expert (or a superior expert) and therefore they're edit is more accurate than mine.

WP:ESDONTS was violated because we exchanged snide comments by questioning each other's expertise.

2) On 02:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC) I replied to a section about the "vetted by experts" rational in the talk page of the same article, arguing that labeling editors "experts" and "non-experts" was not a practise suitable in Wikipedia (which I thought could particularly violate WP:BITE). Although jps reminded me that they're not discounting me, however later went to question my expertise (which I do not have a problem necessarily with if the editor has good points) because I was ok with a measurement that this editor regarded as "arbitrary" without providing any exceptional and reliable evidence.

A) I personally think here WP:ESDONTS was violated because personal remarks were made about me, and

B) WP:WIAPA in violation of the second point however rather than "affiliations" a better word would be views, and point #5 "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." No evidence was presented to suggest supporting the use of the ESI on the page all about the ESI means that you are not an expert and of course: "you aren't because you keep insisting that ESI is a measurement when it is just an arbitrarily calculated index that isn't consistently used by those who study exoplanets."

C) This comment was made on 13:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC) by jps 5 hours before I was banned, giving me no time to respond.

3) tl;dr Doing a little backtracking here jps, possibly secretly (by secretly I mean not notifying me) opened a sockpupeting investigation (or maybe that is how it works if it is then please keep reading). The thing is the attack above was made 5 hours before I was banned, giving me no time to respond at all as 13:02 UTC = 9:02 AM my local time meaning that I was already at work, and by the time I got home I was banned. Another possible personal attack can be found on WP:AST's talk page, here jps says its a shame (which I agree with him) but I have a problem with this statement "I will have some of the exoplanets experts I know review the article and see what they think." as the points I have made above jps 'experts' are not justifiable and quite concerning. And there is nothing fishy with this editor opening my sockpuppet investigation? and then as a banned user a whole slew of articles created by me are flagged for AfD? (as seen below)

Thank you for reading this, this is not intended to be a personal attack on jps, however to raise alarms on why the investigation was opened, was it legitimate (even though the sockpuppeting was a real thing that I am really sorry for doing) or was it with malicious ideas in mind? Again the ban is not going to be the sole punishment I will be receiving, my credibility with the community will be the real punishment. I made mistakes in the past and I will not make those again as I realised after re-reviewing the rules that this is not acceptable here. My purpose here is to improve and expand astronomy based subjects on Wikipedia not to vote stack or vandalise. Thank you for you patience and I apologize for my previous hot-headedness for my previous requests. Sincerely - Davidbuddy9 Talk 21:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I don't see any reason for unblock in this request. I do see a lot of talk about what other users did (which is bad thing to write in unblock requests, see: WP:NOTTHEM). Vanjagenije (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi Davidbuddy9,

I realize I may not be high on your list of potential friends at this point, but I just wanted to let you know that I hold absolutely no hard feelings about this. Sockpuppetry cases are really tough and I understand why you might feel like this was an undue attack leveled by me against you. The thing is, I saw what I thought was likely sockpuppetry in those template deletion discussions, and according to the rules at WP:SPI, what I am supposed to do is report it. Oddly, unlike practically every other report here on Wikipedia, the reporter is not supposed to inform the person when this is done because the determination as to whether sockpuppetry actually occurred is supposed to be made by a neutral third party completely independent and often times the technical evidence needs to be maintained as private. Note that the first reviewer thought that the evidence was weak and asked for a close, but it was after the second reviewer thought better of it that the technical evidence was found.

That said, I think your admission is a step in the right direction and I would welcome the chance to collaborate with you on more articles here in Wikipedia. Yes, I did start a spate of deletion discussions that are listed here below, but I truly think you are a valuable contributor to Wikipedia and can help us improve the encyclopedia. I would argue for amnesty especially if you commit to not doing socking anymore.

Peace,

jps (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: Thanks for your comment, I'll be honest I apologize for not saying nice things about you, I wasn't sure if it was a malicious attempt or not, and the put-ups that you have included in your comments really have made my day in a positive way. I'm having a really crummy day today and I don't think the admins would like me spamming them with requests too much and become a nuisance. I will confirm right now that I have no intention of running another sockpuppet operation or am I running another one right now (not even with my ip address). However what I will do say is I am very intrigued what technical evidence linked the two accounts, all I will say is that it was not absolutely by ip address. But that is just my curiosity, and I really didn't mean the harm that I have done, and quite frankly I am embarrassed about this as I should not have been 'dumb' enough to create that second account. But as stated doing this experiment is not worth it at all. I want to help the community, not cause cancer to it. Due to your positivity I would give you some sort of barnstar for making my day better, but I can't (obviously). Sincerely - Davidbuddy9 Talk 22:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries, seriously. And definitely no hard feelings. When you feel up to it, I would just put up in your new unblock request that you are sorry for socking, that you promise not to do it again, and leave it at that. The admins want to see that you aren't argumentative, that you acknowledge what you did was wrong, and that there is minimal risk that you'll do it again. I wouldn't bother with asking what the technical evidence was. They simply will not tell you, but if you google around enough you can get a pretty good idea of what the checkuser tool does. I have had my own problems with a sockpuppeting past and I'll tell you that you can come back from it. I know how frustrating it is to be blocked (you can check my block log). It's the worst.

An exciting development has occurred where Abel Méndez has joined Wikipedia. I hope he can shed some light on our discussions as to whether the thinks it is appropriate to use ESI as much we do.

Looking forward to working with you again!

jps (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "I really did not mean to do the damage." You were using sockpuppet account to review articles created by your main account. You were also using two accounts to !vote at several AfD discussions. So, it's obvious that you did mean to do the damage. On can't do such things by accident. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

- @Vanjagenije: By this I mean now that I look back at it I didn't mean to do what I did. I disagreed with what I have done therefore now I didn't mean any harm now and I apologized for the harm that It has caused. Davidbuddy9 Talk 18:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

- - What about just waiting a week (now less) until your block expires? If you ask me, a one-week block is a lot less than one usually gets for sockpuppetting. I personally am more on "your" side of the debate than on jps's, and I don't particularly like being associated with a sockpuppetteer. I would give it time and let it expire. LjL (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

- - - @LjL: Honestly this break Ironically has benefited me not having to always defend my arguments and just letting it go. The most frustrating part is so many of the issues that some people have can be solved by renaming the articles. But whatever <38 hours is something I can absolutely wait out. Davidbuddy9 Talk 03:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of KOI-3138.01 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article KOI-3138.01 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-3138.01 until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. jps (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of KOI-854.01 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article KOI-854.01 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-854.01 until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. jps (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of KOI-2626.01 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article KOI-2626.01 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-2626.01 until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. jps (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of KOI-4878.01 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article KOI-4878.01 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-4878.01 until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. jps (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of KOI-3456.02 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article KOI-3456.02 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-3456.02 until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. jps (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of KOI-5737.01 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article KOI-5737.01 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-5737.01 until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. jps (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of KOI-2194.03 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article KOI-2194.03 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-2194.03 until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. jps (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions

You do high quality work, writing templates to boot, and it sucks to be deleting it. You have the potential to be a very valuable editor, but it will take a bit more than just not socking. I would like to make some suggestions for you to consider.

Accept that you went way over the line, and just wait out a few days of block without arguing it be reversed.

You ran into trouble due to your great enthusiasm for the topic. You eagerly wrote what you thought was valuable, and you lost sight of the community's standards of what should/shouldn't be included and how to cover it.

Resist the urge to jump right back into the area of current controversy (astronomy). You can demonstrate respect for community consensus by simply letting the community deal with the current situation without argument. If you want to prove yourself as an editor, if you want to rebuild community respect, get yourself settled back in as a solid helpful uncontroversial generalist editor. Pick anther topics of interest, or find stuff to do on WP:Backlog, or fix some disambiguation links, or just start hitting the Random Article link. Trust me, the random article link will give you plenty of crap articles that can obviously and easily be improved.
No one wants your hard work thrown away in deleted articles. Heck, no one wants to waste their own time debating AFDs. You should probably focus for a while on upgrading existing articles rather than creating new ones. If you do create a new article then make sure it's got overkill Notability - multiple independent secondary sources specifically singling out the topic with significant coverage. Do not source solely from science papers. Just because a few science papers examine something does not mean it's a topic of general Notability for general encyclopedia readers. If something was covered in newspapers then people will show up here looking for it. If something is only covered in a few science papers then no one even knows the name to search for it here... not unless they already read those science papers. If you do (inadvisedly) jump right back into creating new astronomical articles then get your topics from (multiple) news stories.
I personally agree that it's essentially certain that life can and does arise on other planets, and I agree that there is exciting progress in cutting edge science searching for it. But this is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia covers what's already known. An encyclopedia should take a conservative approach to covering anything new or unconfirmed. An encyclopedia should not be hyping up "possible habitability", especially not based on preliminary and controversial basic physical statistics. Don't try to build articles or tables hyping and ranking the "exciting" OMG-here-are-all-the-planets-that-could-maybe-have-LIFE! If multiple sources are specifically discussing that an object is interesting because it's in the predicted liquid-water zone, then perhaps that warrants mention in conservative manner. Alsee (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Alsee: Hello, Alsee and thank you for your suggestions, I do not want to get into an argument with you but I just wanted to point out that you called me a "bad faith editor" on the AfD for List of potentially habitable exoplanets and then argued that I was the creator of the article. I understand that you may have been (or you are) mad about my poor choices that I have made, however I dont think it is nessasary to condemn me as you had on that AfD, first of all I did not make that article. As for those KOI's all that I can ask is to listify them into a list similar to this one, and turn those KOI pages into redirects. Other than that I will WP:DROPTHESTICK for a while. Davidbuddy9 Talk 20:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I struck my erroneous statement that you created List of potentially habitable exoplanets. Thanx for pointing that out. I guess I lost track in all the related articles.

I do stand by my comment that every vote in a batch of multiple votes is a bad faith vote. I have closed quite a few RFCs. Closers have significant discretion in the details of "reasonably" assessing consensus, with various grounds for discarding invalid votes. My firm position is that in cases of deliberate multiple-voting, the entire batch should be dropped from the basic "head count". The multiple votes backfire to a count of zero, not one. Someone willing and motivated to sabotage the process is, at best, an unreliable indicator of general community consensus.

I'm not "mad" at you and I don't intend to "condemn you", but I can be cold blooded when presenting the case for cleanup. For example this close you made. I took the unusual step of flat out reverting it and reclosing. I skipped wasting time on a close review to overturn it, per WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. I'm sorry about "calling you out" in the reclose, but I needed to present an incontestable justification for reverting a close and I needed to explain how I reached a no-consensus from what looks like a consensus.

Hmmm, I just had an idea. I'm willing to work with you to remove the "condemnation" in that close. If you withdraw the close, if you claim the IP and withdraw both votes, then I can rewrite it as merely replacing a withdrawn close. And I can simply say no consensus 3-5 due to two withdrawn votes. That will let me remove the harsh explanation completely. I would be happy to see you return to being a positive contributor, and maybe that can be a small step helping you climb out of the hole you're in. Alsee (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Alsee: I cannot withdraw those ~~two~~ (I only voted once on that RfC) on the Alpha Centauri Bb votes since I am blocked but if you would remove them with my permission go ahead with that. I was originally referring to the condemnation on the AfD for List of potentially habitable exoplanets, which personally myself I would like to change my stance on that too as I feel that the article should drop 'Habitable' and replace with 'by ESI'. Davidbuddy9 Talk 00:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:MMR vaccine controversy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MMR vaccine controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Done Davidbuddy9 Talk 01:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)