User talk:WikiEditor2563

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

October 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Résumé, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Colonization of Mars
Hello. Sorry, but I reverted you additions to Colonization of Mars. It was well written, but it removed sourced material and replaced it with writing that looked like it was original research. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core principles, so I hope you will keep that it mind for future edits. Thank you, Grayfell (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, your edits have removed sources. In addition to that, the lead of an article is intended to be an academic summery of the body, and not simply an introduction. If you have a problem with the word "hospitable" then change that word, or alternately discuss the problem on the article's talk page. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring
I'm asking you to please discuss your edits at Talk:Colonization of Mars. Your edits have a number of problems, and ignoring me isn't going to solve them.

Your edits are written in a non-encyclopedic tone (WP:TONE). Wikipedia is intended to be written in a formal style from a neutral point of view. Writing things like "This does not preclude the possibility that man might one day step foot on Mars and 'scout around,' but whether or not we ever get to Mars seems less a matter of scientific progress, than the balance of power between sane and crazy." is neither formal, nor neutral. If National Geographic says we won't establish a colony on Mars, then we should explain that it as being National Geographic's opinion, not Wikipedia's.

Additionally, your edits have been introducing "curly" quotation marks and apostrophes, (MOS:QUOTEMARKS) which is discouraged by the manual of style (WP:MOS). They can also potentially introduce a few technical problems.

Again, I am asking you to please take these edits to the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I came within whisker of asking for you to be banned from wikipedia but I thought I'd give you a last chance. I've just reverted your recent set of edits on Colonization of Mars because yet again you (a) removed properly sourced factual material and (b) added material that promoted your opinions about the topic. You've already been warned about this both here and on the article's Talk page, and reverted several times, but you keep on doggedly. You must be well aware that this counts as both Edit Warring and POV Pushing. Wikipedia is not interested in your opinions. Please take this as a final warning and cease making these disruptive changes. andy (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

_______________

What do you mean "final warning?" It's amazing how arrogant you are! It takes two to tango. I'll just go ahead and have YOU banned! I'm going to recommend that the Wikipedia entry for the Colonization of Mars be removed from Wikipedia. The entire page is nothing but propaganda. The whole thing is NOTHING BUT A POINT OF VIEW!!!!!!!!! There is no colony on Mars, ergo nothing is "encyclopedic" or "well sourced," and even that's nothing but another POV!!!!!!!

WikiEditor2563 (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

___________________


 * Please remember that being civil is a Wikipedia policy (WP:CIVIL). It is also against policy to edit talk pages to misrepresent what others have said, as you did here: link. Also, deleting other editors' warnings is permitted, but it doesn't look very good, especially since they are so recent.


 * You are, of course, free to recommend that the article should be deleted, or that other users should be banned, but I hope you will consider a couple of things, first. Several experienced editors have been trying to give you specific, policy based reasons why we disagree with your edits. Your response has been to completely ignore that advice and revert to exactly what you had previously written. Wikipedia has no policy of protecting 'whistle-blowers' and if you try and get anyone banned, you should be aware that it could WP:BOOMERANG around back at you and hit you in the butt. What I'm saying, from years of past experience, is that if you report another editor, you better make sure your own edits will hold up to scrutiny, and from what I have seen they do not.


 * As for the Mars article, if you think it should be deleted because there is no such colony, you may be confused about what Wikipedia is for. There are many, many good, valuable articles about non-existent things, and about theoretical future things, and about recurring themes in science fiction. They have reliable sources, because some people like to discuss them anyway. This is one of those things. If you know of sources, use them, otherwise, don't be surprised if nobody takes your edits seriously. Grayfell (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

___________________

Grayfell, I have already described that I am an expert on the Martian atmosphere, which tends to be the extent of my edits, having spent the last 15 months writing a book that includes chapters on Mars and exoplanets and the prospects for a colony AND THEY ARE NOT GOOD. First, the content of this page obviously needs to be put in the context of a colony, unlike content of the "Mars" page - but that requires a little speculation. When you're talking about things that "don't exist," and you give some examples...the idea of "sources" becomes a little meaningless, wouldn't you agree? This would be true also for the "Colonization of Mars." This entire page is a POINT OF VIEW!!!! Why can't you see that?

Second, although I deleted my personal talk page to remove the icons and threats which you can't actually expect me to stomach every time I come here and which are arrogant and disgusting, I never edited anyone's words. I clicked on your link and in so doing discovered just how petty you can be, as if you are in some way superior to me! LOL. Interesting that I have never written threatening notes to others, or condescending warnings, as well as I might have - that is simply unnecessary and pointless.

Now, most people who undo my edits do so because they think they own this page, not because of factual errors. What really bothers me is that some people, maybe you, seem to be undoing my edits as a matter of your personal policy or agenda - not due to factual errors. That really bothers me. And it is clear that this is happening because MY EDITS ARE BEING UNDONE BEFORE ANY TIME HAS LAPSED FOR ANY CONSIDERATION TO BE MADE! And if people don't respect my edits it's because THEY'RE ARROGANT!

For example, one "Difference" described how there were significant amounts of CO in Mars atmosphere. This is absolutely untrue, and I noticed this as soon as I read it. Whatever traces of CO exist are LESS than the 3% nitrogen and 1.6% argon - which means it's NOT SIGNIFICANT - and CO would pale in significance to all the other adversities anyway. Listen - I wish you could trust me on my edits concerning the atmosphere of Mars. Some of the content of others is incorrect or VERY badly worded. I know what I'm saying, and I say it extremely well - it's very "encyclopedic" and neutral. If you can state it better, then please do, BUT DON'T JUST RIP OUT EVERYTHING I SAY EN MASSE because I'll just put it back in. But we don't need to keep ARGUING about this. I only edit for clarity or factualness, not out of vanity. On the other hand, you and a few others seem to be preoccupied by "procedural issues," about which I see a great deal of inconsistencies throughout Wikipedia. So why is the Wikipedia Gestapo preoccupied with this page in particular? Who are you, Robert Zubrin, Mars Advocate extraordinaire? Zubrin must have his minions trolling these pages day and night, spreading propaganda – WHICH SEEMS TO BE THE CASE!

Now, I did not "report another editor," but I did request, about 1 hour ago, that this page be removed for reasons due to excessive "edit warring," which is ridiculous. I am 1000%, completely confident of my edits, and I consider it nothing less than "Mars Advocate" propaganda when my edits are ripped out en masse - which I have, incidentally, detailed in my book, devoting an entire chapter to Wikipedia and this particular page, which is in its final editing stage and will be ready for publication soon. Would you like to become famous? WikiEditor2563 (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

_______________________


 * Yeah, sure, make me famous, by all means. No, sources are not meaningless. The term 'source' doesn't mean an actual colony, you understand that, right? Have you read Identifying reliable sources? The article needs published works by reputable authorities. For example, NASA has done research on the possibility of a colony on Mars, so that is one possible source. Do you understand what I am saying? We are not, as Wikipedia editors, trying to personally share our thoughts on the subject. In fact, Wikipedia specifically prohibits that kind of thing (WP:OR). We are trying to create a summary of the academic consensus on the topic.


 * Wikipedia is a community with a set of rules and guidelines that have been developed by thousands of editors over many years. What is arrogant is your assumption that your expertise trumps Wikipedia's policies. You are not allowed to attack other editors, and you don't get to own an article just because you say you are an expert. How are we supposed to know you're working on a book, and how are we supposed to know it's going to be worth the paper it's printed on? We don't, and we can't, and that's why we use reliable sources. You have been explained this several times on several pages, and you have given no indication that you understand why this is important. Some of your edits are fine, but some are not.


 * Your assumption seems to be that because this subject is speculative you should be trusted to edit with impunity, even when you introduce significant problems to articles. Nope, sorry, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Like I said before, for better or worse, you do not get any special treatment being an expert here. For you to state that you write very well and in an encyclopedic and neutral manor, when so many people are trying to help you contribute more productively, is itself quite arrogant. Grayfell (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

______________________

Here’s another example of an incorrect statement, which for some reason seems to error in FAVOR of a colony and is therefore expressing a POV:


 * Although microgravity is known to cause health problems such as muscle loss and bone demineralization, it is not certain if Martian gravity would have a similar effect. The Mars Gravity Biosatellite was a proposed project designed to learn more about what effect Mars' lower surface gravity would have on human.

First, it IS certain that Martian gravity would have a health problem because there is microgravity on Mars – this is known! Saying it’s not certain is double speak, used by propagandists to say the opposite of what is.

Second, the Mars Gravity Biosatellite was proposed but never happened, and otherwise the editor would have said that. He would have said “The results of the biosatellite indicate” whatever. Instead, there was no satellite, so obviously it can have no bearing on this bullet point so I removed it, as I explained in the comment. I even mention the biosatellite in my book – it would have been a major leap forward and its cancellation is provocative, leading one to think there’s no real intent to colonize but let’s keep the paychecks flowing to our boys at NASA! It’s all about the money! As of July 2010, there has been no further word on any continuing project activity, according to the wiki page for that.

I edited this point to reflect these basic circumstances, which are unequivocal – only someone intent on spreading propaganda or a POV would insist otherwise – which people keep doing here and why I recommended this site be taken down.

Do you see the intelligence and reasoning behind my edits just for this one? What part do you challenge?

NASA as a source? NASA has a point of view, and it's not impartial, nor even scientific, since they are doing nothing but trying to live out the fantasies of our ancestors, who gazed up at the stars as we do. It's all about fantasy.

It doesn't "help me" to threaten me the way people have been, which is outrageous. There are a number of editors for this page who have become a clique and they think they own the page. All my contributions are legitimate and well informed. Sourced, informed, what's the difference. Countless statements at Wikipedia aren't sourced, why would I be held to a different standard? There should be a rule against undoing anyone's editing until several days have passed or there are obvious factual errors. I've already realized that even "sourced" information can be misleading and incorrect. Advice given by an expert, quite frankly, is better than a non-expert adding some random tidbit of information completely out of context.

WikiEditor2563 (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

____________________


 * First of all, where have you suggested the page be deleted?


 * WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. Yes, there are lots of unsourced statements in Wikipedia. That doesn't give you a license to add more. Simply replacing one unsourced statement for another is pointless and counter-productive, and the rest of your edits were rife with other, serious problems. It is no great loss to Wikipedia to revert that kind of thing. If you don't acknowledge the difference between sourced and informed, then you are probably better off spending your time on your own book, and not editing here, as verifiability is a big part of Wikipedia. Seriously, if you keep insisting that your personal expertise trumps Wikipedia's core philosophy, then you will inevitably be banned.


 * As for the microgravity thing: you removed a sourced statement that gave specific information about a specific definition of microgravity, replacing it with your own statement. Saying Martian gravity is microgravity is not supported by sources. The consensus is that microgravity is similar to weightlessness, and that Mars' surface gravity is higher than that. I added the brief mention of the biosatellite because I wanted to underscore that the effects of Martian gravity are an unresolved issue. If you know of reliable sources stating otherwise, please include it, but don't remove what's there, and don't just include your own opinion, because that's not what Wikipedia is about. Do you understand that?


 * If you think NASA has an agenda, fine, find some sources supporting that. Or simply don't use NASA as a source, my point was not that you should use NASA for everything, my point is that you should uses SOMETHING. If you don't use sources, nobody is going to take your edits seriously.


 * As for the 'threats', as you call them, I started out with what I feel was a pretty clear, non-threatening explanation of the problems I had with your edits and you completely ignored them several times. I can't really blame other editors for skipping that step and going to automated warning messages. Your behavior has not been acceptable, and you need to change it. If you don't change it, you will be prevented from editing in the future.


 * Also, please remember to sign your talk page edits. Grayfell (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

__________________

You say


 * Yes, there are lots of unsourced statements in Wikipedia. That doesn't give you a license to add more.

Well, actually, it does. But here’s the point: you CAN fault me for saying something that is factually incorrect, but NOT for lacking what is in YOUR OPINION a “proper source” when most things on Wikipedia aren’t properly sourced because that’s just plain ridiculous and this wiki page isn’t SPECIAL. And it points out the double standard that YOU are practicing. To BAN me – or threaten to ban me! – but not others for this INCONSISTENCY is EXTREMELY ARROGANT AND ITSELF A VIOLATION OF WIKI STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS. WHY DO YOU THINK YOU ARE IMMUNE FROM THESE STANDARDS? ANSWER, BECAUSE YOU’RE ARROGANT. ARROGANT PEOPLE THINK THEY’RE ABOVE THE RULES AND LAWS, WHICH DESCRIBES YOU AND YOUR CONTINUED WARNINGS TO ME WHEN MY EDITS ARE COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED and a substantial improvement to this wiki page.

You say


 * My edits are rife with serious problems.

Only the moronic Robert Zubrin would say something like that. Only a person intent on spreading Mars advocate propaganda could possibly say that with a straight face. You, Grayfell, are a bullhorn for the propaganda. In fact all my edits are either well informed or so commonsensical that they don’t need a source. EVERY STATEMENT DOES NOT NEED A SOURCE.

Regarding the statement on microgravity that I edited: THE SOURCE FOR THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT WAS WRONG OR MISLEADING! JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS SOURCED DOESN’T MEAN IT CAN’T BE INCORRECT OR CHALLENGED!

In this regard, you say
 * Saying Martian gravity is microgravity is not supported by sources. The consensus is that microgravity is similar to weightlessness, and that Mars' surface gravity is higher than that.

You're obviously not a science writer. First, that’s extremely badly worded throughout. Microgravity is not similar to weightlessness, and not for lack of consensus. Second, the logic of this is ENTIRELY incorrect and false. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. Your removal of my version of this is an example of vandalism, which, as defined by Wikipedia, is the deliberate addition of plausible but false information to an article. So make sure you understand that the next time you undo any of my edits so I don’t need to report YOU. Even in another item on the SAME WIKI PAGE for this, Mar’s gravity is described as one-third that of Earth. This means MICROGRAVITY, you moron! Microgravity doesn’t mean or imply “zero-G.” Microgravity is ANY KIND OF GRAVITY THAT IS LESS THAN THE FULL GRAVITY OF EARTH ! Mars, of course, isn’t zero-G, but it most certainly and obviously has MICROGRAVITY!!! Oh my God, my edits are being savaged by MORONS!!!! God help me and the rest of the world!!!!! You and your clique of editors are nothing but DOGS OUT OF A CAGE!

It is true, of course, that, as you say, effects of Martian gravity are an unresolved issue, but how can the cancelled biosatellite experiment underscore that? Your logic is convoluted – see, YOU shouldn’t be allowed to edit these pages. Talk about experiments that HAVE been done, such as by Teruhiko Wakayama and his colleagues at the RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology in Kobe, which details biological difficulties in mammalian reproduction and development in space. They used a 3D clinostat to conduct experiments with mouse sperm and ova in a simulated microgravity environment down here on the ground – which was to have been the focus of the cancelled biosatellite that never got off the ground. Refer to that! WHY AM I TELLING YOU THIS????

The biosatellite experiment wasn’t intended to measure gravity, without which we could assume Mars has full gravity, which is the case you were making and which was completely misleading. The biosatellite experiment was intended to see if mice could reproduce in microgravity, which would indicate man’s prospects to do the same – AND WHICH SHOULD BE OF GREAT INTEREST TO NASA but for some reason IS NOT! What does THAT tell you??? Microgravity does not pose the same imminent risk of instant death as with the issues concerning oxygen or water, but presents problems that are just as fundamental to our well-being concerning the short and long-term prospects on Mars.    But I didn’t say this because it’s a little too wordy – I’ll save it for my book. You see, I do have restraint when it comes to editing – don’t you see?

Point out just one thing that I've said, on the main page, that is wrong or misleading. Just one thing. You may not believe the facts I present BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BELIEVE MARS IS WARM AND INVITING, IN WHICH CASE YOU'VE FALLEN FOR THE PROPAGANDA AND ARE BEING HUSTLED BY NASA AND THE "SCIENCE WRITERS." God help us all.

WikiEditor2563 (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

______________________

November 2013
Please please please stop trying to game the system. You have been asked again and again not to promote your point of view but to stick to sourced facts. Yet your recent edits contain loaded phrases that promote the view that colonization is a foolish and impossible idea. Wikipedia is not either in favour of a colony nor against it. If there is a scientific consensus (which I doubt) then it should be in the article backed up by reliable sources. If you want to put that in, be my guest, but if all you're going to do is tweak the article to make it sound skeptical then you should stop. Personal opinions, no matter how expert, are not welcome in Wikipedia. andy (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

_______________________

Attention All: I have written at length in explaining my edits, so it's clear that I'm willing and able to discuss, which gives anyone else the opportunity to respond in kind. But NO ONE has offered any explanations of their edits other than to say that "it's sourced." No one offers to substantiate this or that point, just condescending threats and warnings.

Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it's relevant or untouchable or belongs on any particular wiki page. Sourced material is not protected from scrutiny. Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it can't be challenged or can’t be removed or edited. Because most sources are biased and express a point of view (POV), and which may simply reflect the wiki editors POV, so just because something is sourced doesn’t mean it’s neutral.

'''Saying it’s “sourced” is not a defense to post random data about Mars that has nothing to do with a colony per se, or to make edits that are terribly worded and therefore misleading. There seems to be a lot of poor judgment regarding even what otherwise "well sourced" material BELONGS ON THIS PARTICULAR PAGE'''. Given my expertise on the Martian atmosphere and microgravity in particular (due to research for my book over the last 15 months and is ongoing), I notice immediately statements that are misleading or false, and there are many. The problem is people who don’t know better insist they are right. The problem is that experts and non-experts alike have free reign.

Here’s the problem: People read something, then paste it into the wiki page, but sometimes with no regard for it's context, as it pertains to a colony of men and women and plants living on Mars. So a lot of “raw data” about orbits or axial tilts or “partial pressures” and other irrelevant facts winds up on the "Colonization of Mars" that might be perfectly well sourced but more appropriate for the “Mars” wiki page and not the “Colonization of Mars” page.

And my position about YOU undoing my edits is not subordinate to your same position, which calls into question your threats and condescension.

It’s an act of pure vanity when someone undoes my edits “en masse,” while I’m still online making the edits! When there would be no time to consider what I’ve edited! This has all the markings of vanity and nothing else.

So instead of this continued “warring,” explain why you are adding or deleting material, as I have been. I would expect the “reason for the edit” would be enough, but evidently it’s not. AND DON’T JUST SAY “IT’S SOURCED” BECAUSE THAT DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY IT BELONGS AT THE “COLONIZATION OF MARS” PAGE.

WikiEditor2563 (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding personal attacks and edit warring which you may have been involved with. The thread is WikiEditor2563 and Colonization of Mars. Thank you. —Grayfell (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Colonization of Mars, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''OK, enough! There's a discussion going on about your editing behaviour with several experienced editors taking part. The consensus seems to be to try to help you understand how to behave responsibly as a wikipedia editor. But instead of taking part you're trying to reinstate the same old edits. You can talk about them on the article's Talk page; you can discuss your approach to editing on the admin noticeboard; but you CANNOT keep on repeatedly messing up the article.'' andy (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. This templated warning added for good measure. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Talkback
Jprg1966  (talk)  19:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding comments
Hi, it's considered bad form to insert comments in other editors' comments as you did here. Please add your comments below other comments and leave other editors' contributions untouched. Thanks. -- Neil N  talk to me  22:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked
Let's cut through the clutter of incivility, edit warring, etc. You are passing yourself off as some kind of science expert. You are also claiming that microgravity is anything less than earth's, and that anyone who doesn't know this is a moron. Since this is obviously not true, you are either (a) trolling, or (b) pretending to be an expert in an area you are actually not competent in. Either way, it is going to stop, right now. You've disrupted other editors' work enough. I've blocked this account indefinitely. I'll put the standard block template below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing (see note above). If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There is not an editing war, some of you just don’t like to have your content edited. Like I said elsewhere, “sourcing” isn’t the point and is a red herring. Sourcing doesn’t make material untouchable or eternal, since everything is supposed to be sourced anyway!

There are no prerequisites to being an editor, anyone can be an editor, and any editor can edit anything, within the general sense of reasonableness of course, but without requiring permission or consent from other editors. Separate areas are available for editors to discuss, but this is a convenience and not a requirement to editing. Failure to respond to an invitation to “Talk” is not grounds for banning. Since all my edits conform to the same sense of scientific accuracy and neutral tone as everything else on the same wiki page, arguments that oppose my editing are unfounded and misguided, and the idea that I should be banned is outrageous and without merit.

I’ve only edited the few bullet points at the beginning of the “Colonization of Mars” page, so any claims that “I think I own the page” are unfounded. I’ve only edited a few of the facts for the sake of accuracy, completeness, readability, and relevance to a colony, and for which I am completely qualified – probably more than any of the other editors. One might say I have an obligation, given my expertise, to monitor this wiki page for that purpose. No one has pointed out why any of my edits should be undone, other than they’re “upset” their own work was edited.

'''The “Colonization of Mars” in particular is a point of view, since there is not a colony on Mars! And may never be. '''  The content would therefore tend to take a favorable or unfavorable view toward a colony, where there might NOT be a neutral position. On the other hand, the “Mars” wiki page is not a point of view, it’s just a repository of data relevant to Mars. Maybe those who so strongly object to my editing should take their interests to that web page, which has no interest to me and which I don’t edit.

I do not wish to be unblocked. I will wear it like a badge of honor, and write about it in my book (which I've referred to elsewhere) since it underscores the point I make that the Colonization of Mars page is a bullhorn for the Mars advocate propagandists - AND THEY'RE WINNING!!! Of course I can always close this account and create another one, but I'll take this as an opportunity to finish editing my book and finally get it published. Look for me on the best sellers list!!!!

WikiEditor2563 (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We look forward to it. And (assuming you're notable) if reviews mention your childish behavior here then we'll be sure to add that to the article on you. EEng (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Good luck with your book WikiEditor2563. I hope you appeal your block when and if you decide to return rather creating a new account to circumvent the block. According to WP:SOC creating a new account in this situation can result in a ban. It would be better to not have that possibility hanging over your head. ParacusForward (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)