User talk:MarsTrombone

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


Welcome

[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, MarsTrombone, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

[edit]
icon
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).

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

Request reason:

Incident occurred three years ago with no further incidents. Can the partial ban be removed? MarsTrombone (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given that you have no current need to edit the articles in question nor evidence to suggest that an unblock would be acceptable, I am declining this unblock request. I recommend building up acceptable edits in other areas to prove you can collaborate with other editors on this particular page. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

It's a block, not a ban. Is there a particular reason that you need access to those articles? 331dot (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely no. The consensus edits have achieved a state similar to the original article I posted. However, I plan on reviewing edits to related articles to this page. The lifetime block on this page feels punitive. Also I did learn from this experience, but would still prefer the block removed from my record MarsTrombone (talk)
The block will not be removed from your record. Any other reason to remove the partial block? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that your partial block is indefinite, not permanent. Although they may seem like the same thing, they are very different. An indefinite block could technically be lifted on the same day as it is placed. The purpose is to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. If you can prove that lifting the block would not disrupt the encyclopedia, you can be unblocked. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does my [| recent history] of edits count as "prove you can collaborate with other editors"? I've also reached out to the original admin on Talk in order to [| request review and clarification] of the specific conduct that justified a block. MarsTrombone (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on reviewing the content of the related CARD and ABA article. If I made edits to the CARD article, I may need to also edit the Granpeesheh article given her role at CARD and Autism research. MarsTrombone (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note also there's been almost no edits over the past three years. --Yamla (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk page cleanup

[edit]

Hi. I reverted your removal of conversations from Talk:Center for Autism and Related Disorders. Discussions on article talk pages (in contrast to your own user talk page) can't just be removed but, in the interest of reducing the size of a very long talk page, discussions that are closed or old and stale can be archived, while leaving more recent discussions in place for easier reader access. See WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE for guidelines on the conditions under which to archive a discussion and Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to do it. Largoplazo (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! MarsTrombone (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References left behind

[edit]

When you made this edit, removing content to rearrange it elsewhere, why did you leave all the citations without the text that they were there to verify? Largoplazo (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My fault - forgetting to move those citations was an unintentional oversight. The citations are important. Cit 5, 6 should be moved to the "Blackstone Group acquired..." sentence. Cit 7 should be moved to the "Granpeeshe stepped down..." sentence. Cit 9,10 should be moved to the "In June 2023, Card..." sentence. Do you agree? If agreement, I can make the edit. MarsTrombone (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you, as the editor of the content, know what's correct. Largoplazo (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the references with [edit]. Thanks for the review. MarsTrombone (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review of partial page block

[edit]

@Abecedare:

Hello, and thank you for your time.

I am requesting review and removal of a long-standing **partial page block** on Doreen Granpeesheh. The block dates from mid-2022 and cites *WP:PROMO* and *WP:TE*.

Summary: I made only one major edit to that article (diff), followed by an unrelated revert. The changes were substantially unrelated to any edits on the CARD article, in other words the material was different and new. My intention was to rebuild a biographical article that had been reduced to a four-sentence stub by prior deletions (version). My edit added fully referenced, neutral content based largely on third-party publications including The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and Los Angeles Times. I believe it complied with WP:BLP and WP:V. The revert (of a new editor to the article) included a link to the talk page and was meant to facilitate discussion, not to start an edit war as alleged.

After my edit was reverted, I did not reinsert the material. Instead, I opened two talk-page discussions (1, 2) and also engaged with the reverting editor on their user talk page. These demonstrate that I sought consensus and did not edit tendentiously.

Policy basis: Per WP:EXPLAINBLOCK, I request clarification of the specific conduct that justified an indefinite block. Under WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE, blocks should prevent, not punish. This three-year-old partial block no longer serves any preventive purpose, and my editing since then has been consistently cooperative.

The block also disqualifies me from accessing the Wikipedia Library despite otherwise meeting eligibility requirements.

Request: I respectfully ask that the block be lifted, or that any specific remaining concerns be clarified.

Thank you and I appreciate your time and consideration. — User:MarsTrombone (talk) MarsTrombone (talk) 05:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MrsTrombone, if you are seeking an explanation as to why the partial block was placed in the first place, please see my posts here where I spelled out the reasoning, which I still stand by.
That said, given that three years have passed, I am going to accept your appeal in the hope that that the conduct that led to the block won't recur. Note though that if you wish to effectively re-do the edits discussed here or here, you should re-open the discussions and establish consensus for the proposed changes.
Finally since the topic of interest lies at the intersection of several areas that are contentious, I'll drop you notifications about the special care that must be taken when editing in these areas. All the best. Abecedare (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Abecedare! I really appreciate your response. I have no desire to repeat this experience, so you have my assurance it won’t happen again. I love editing Wikipedia and look forward to many years of constructive collaboration and consensus-building. Wikipedia is, in my opinion, one of the greatest inventions of the internet. If I ever find myself in uncertain territory again, I’ll be sure to reach out for guidance—if you don’t mind. All the best. MarsTrombone (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

[edit]

Information icon You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Abecedare (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

[edit]

Information icon You have recently made edits related to pseudoscience and fringe science. This is a standard message to inform you that pseudoscience and fringe science is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Abecedare (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar

[edit]
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Presented to MarsTrombone on November 13, 2025, for your tireless persistence in editing with precision and style and defending the difficult articles while encouraging others to do the same. A true wikipedian! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the notice! Especially coming from an editor with such deep experience and history with Wikipedia. Thank you @Valjean! MarsTrombone (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]