Per your discussions with the Ban Appeals SubCommittee, you have been unblocked under the following conditions:
Iantresman is topic banned indefinitely from editing any articles or its associated talk pages related to fringe science and physics-related subjects, broadly defined.
Any violations on the above-mentioned restrictions will be enforced through a series of escalating blocks (e.g. 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, a return to your banned state). You may appeal the above topic-bans in six months' time, subject to your conduct and contributions in due course.
By a vote of 7-4, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:
The topic ban placed against Iantresman (talk·contribs) as a condition of unblocking in [1] is hereby lifted. In its place, Iantresman is subject to a standard 1RR restriction (no more than one revert per article per 24-hour period) on all articles covering fringe science- and physics-related topics, broadly construed, for six months. This restriction may be enforced by escalating blocks up to and including one month in length, and up to and including indefinite length after the fifth such block. When each block is lifted or expires, the six-month period shall reset. Additionally, the original topic ban shall be reinstated if Iantresman is subjected to an indefinite block as a result of this restriction. The Arbitration Committee should be notified of this situation should it occur.
And you have been mentioned as an involved party. Please review the request [2] and consider assisting to clarify the matter before the committee. Thank you, My76Strat (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi... I believe you uploaded the file showing the roots of a quadratic equation. Unfortunately, you have missed the minus sign in the numerator that should precede the b. Perhaps you might upload a corrected version? Thanks. 121.216.157.82 (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted. While I have corrected the error, I have recently been" banned from all articles, discussions and other content related to plasma physics and astrophysics, broadly construed across all namespaces".[3] Since algebra is used in physics, I am unable to upload it as it would contravene my ban. --Iantresman (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Iantresman. I noticed this comment on my watchlist. If you are willing to email the corrected file to me, I'll accomplish the upload on your behalf. Additionally, it occurs to me that it may be possible to relax your ban to allow a mentor the leverage to authorize non-controversial edits that could otherwise be "broadly construed a violation" provided the request and authorization are threaded on your talk page in advance of the edit in question. Would you accept a mentor arrangement, if it could be arranged? My76Strat (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's very kind you. In principle a mentor would be great. On the other hand, I'm not allowed to evade a ban by allowing someone else to do my edits. But with the express permission of the Arbitration committee, and/or someone with the authority to do so, no problem. --Iantresman (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my personal opinion, Ian could add something about quadratic equations with no risk that it would be considered to be violating his topic ban from plasma physics and astrophysics. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would agree, but there are too many examples of editors concluding the exactly opposite of what the evidence shows. I thought there was no risk in discussing an academic text book on a talk page, but editors said I was pushing fringe theories into an article, that I have not edited since 2006. I was topic banned.[4] The textbook concerned specifically states "cosmological issues are not discussed here" (preface, page v), yet editors have decided that although they can not provide a single quote or reference to say otherwise, that they know better, and they believe that the book is about cosmology. --Iantresman (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for correcting the image. I was unaware of any problem with any ArbCom problem with making the correction, so I apologise if my request was a difficulty for you. I was only concerned for the accuracy of the encyclopedia given the image's use in an article. Regards, 121.216.157.82 at 22:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.48.111 (talk)
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion has been proposed and is being voted on by the Arbitration Committee, which would affect you. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By a vote of 8-0 in response to a request for clarification, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:
Remedy 13 of the Pseudoscience Case is modified to read "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning."
Existing discretionary sanction remedies that this motion will deprecate may be stricken through and marked as redundant in the usual manner. Enforcement should now be sought under Pseudoscience, rather than under previous decisions concerning sub-topics of pseudoscience, but previous or existing sanctions or enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.
File permission problem with File:Robin-ramsay-lobster.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Robin-ramsay-lobster.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File source problem with File:Fodens 12-piece brass band.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Fodens 12-piece brass band.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lobster (magazine), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Security service (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Tallia-storm-publicity.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.orgor a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Tallia-storm-publicity.jpg.
However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you.
are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered) (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) 20:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Aluminium-can-white.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Aluminium-can-white.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good sir, I apologize!
Thanks for the good work on the sheldrake page. I accidently deleted a few comments in TALK because I edited out of an older window which automatically deleted all the posts since, and I believe one or two of them were yours. I am going to give this a scour tmrw but if you see one of yours not there please let me know. The Tumbleman (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could be very helpful, IMHO, if you could post some sort of opinion (ANY opinion) HERE. The Sheldrake talk page is short of people who express opinions politely and helpfully. Anything at all from such a person could serve as an example to others. Lou Sander (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have missed something, and are at least the third editor to hold the Sword of Damocles above my head. I am quite disappointed that you would bring this up, but it is consistent with Sheldrake's comments on the BBC World Service radio program "World Update" (1 Nov 2013), that some editors seek to have other editors banned. This is really a very shitty way of collaborating. --Iantresman (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I don't want to get you banned Ian, I fear it always leaves a bitter taste in one's mouth. I think we've done the Sheldrake shuffle on the talk page to death now, but you do seem to raise the same old creative interpretations of sources.
But you can see it does rather put me in a difficult position. Do I report this to, say Mailer diablo (talk·contribs) who unblocked you with that complaint? I'd regret having to do that. But what really has changed since 2011? How do you think you can contribute positively now, when you couldn't back then? Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't want to get you banned .. Do I report this .. I'd regret having to do that". This kind of approach to collaborative editing that disgusts me. I haven't edited the article in over 20 months, am doing what an editor is supposed to do: discuss, and even that is unacceptable to you. I will just point out that (1) All the edits I have made to the article are still present, how have your edits faired? (2) I am not the only editor who has expressed their concern, yet you have singled me out. (3) You've offered not one diff in support of your position. You do what you have to do. --Iantresman (talk) 10:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, I appreciate very much your explanation that you think this is different now because you're being careful not to edit the article. However, we really do have genuine issues to discuss on the talk page. Extremely creative interpretations of sources, including but not limited to (paraphrasing) "Sir John Maddox FRS isn't a good source because he doesn't have a PhD", "Biologists don't have to follow the scientific method", "The research programme into morphic resonance is just like the one into dark matter", "The generalisation that almost the whole of the scientific community rejects Sheldrake's ideas isn't true just because you can only name about a dozen or so who have negatively commented on him" is essentially disingenuous subterfuge. The problem with this approach is that it pointlessly wastes a large amount of time as we get on the WP:ROUNDABOUT of explaining to you how over and over and over again the basics of how science works, and how Wikipedia works because WP:IDONTHEARYOU. I humbly submit to you it would be better for you to allow other people to discuss without any inane interruptions.
PS - I will give you the courtesy of answering your question, despite the fact that you haven't answered mine: I have introduced many sources into the article, including a few that are broadly supportive or non-critical. I have spent a good time paying attention to the article which in the words of Wolpert "it clearly does not deserve". I don't mind people copyediting stuff that I've added. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will answer your question tomorrow, as I am off out now, suffice to say that I utter reject your distorted paraphrasing, which is why diffs are the proper way to refer to criticism. --Iantresman (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the threats of banning folks from the Sheldrake page? Come on, Barney the barney barney, you're an experienced enough editor to know that this is not the way WP is supposed to run. Anyone can find a WP:JUSTIFICATION to legitimize muzzling dissent, but at it's root that's diminishing the marketplace of ideas that WP is supposed to embody. Banning is last resort with someone who's deliberately and maliciously disruptive, not simply making arguments that you find frustrating. You've done a lot of good work and I respect you, barney, but veiled threats of getting someone banned if they irritate you is bad form. The Cap'n (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@TRPoD, yes we most definitely include the scientific point of view (SPOV), but this is NOT the neutral point of view, a writing style that neutrally describes the SPOV, and other significant views. Previous attempts to make the NPOV equivalent to the SPOV in scientific articles has failed (see WP:SPOV). ie. we work toward the NPOV not the SPOV. --Iantresman (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
while we can mention things like "there is a significant base of looneys that believe that the US Government is responsible for 9/11 and an even larger group of misinformed Americans who believe that Iraq was responsible " we DO NOT represent their views as having validity. We present the mainstream academic views. In the case of Sheldrake, the OVERWHELMING academic views range from he is talking nonsense to his nonsense is harmful to the way people view actual science. Any other views within the academic community are vanishingly small. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom19:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we do not present any view with having more validity, credulity, veracity, support, or whatever, with the proper sources. That doesn't stop us from describing them neutrally per NPOV. That includes excluding weasel words like overwhelmingly which probably means different things to different people, and might make us inadvertently draw misleading conclusions. --Iantresman (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect use of WP:BURDEN, TRPoD ... Iantresman and VeryScaryMary have supplied plenty of Reliable Sources (cf WP:V and WP:RS which *define* WP:NPOV). If you want to elide their sources, you have to show, on a source-by-source basis, that per WP:FRINGE guidelines, #1, the utterance in question is *claiming* to be science rather than spiritual or philosophical, and #2, that the source in which the utterance was published is *not* really Reliable (meaning specifically either Fact-Checked-Editorially or Peer-Reviewed-Academically ... no truth-value is relevant for wikipedia unfortunately). One person in one reliable source one time called one of the guy's ideas pseudo... therefore, his PhD is gone, his fellowships are gone, ten years of science are gone, everything he ever did or will do is bad. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Barney, following my Appeal to BASC resulting in my "topic banned indefinitely from editing any articles or its associated talk pages related to fringe science and physics-related subjects, broadly defined" (first grey box above)[6] there followed an "Amendment request" (22 March 2012 - 21 May 2012. See "See also" immediately following the grey box above), that results in an "Arbitration motion regarding iantresman" (second grey box above) in which " The topic ban placed against Iantresman as a condition of unblocking in [1] is hereby lifted".--Iantresman (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about this stupid mess, Iantresman; as you may have gathered, you and I prolly disagree about the validity of morphogenetics in particular, and morphic fields more broadly... but you are dead on correct that the article on Sheldrake is a WP:BLP that is full of extremely non-neutral stuff. That is really bad for wikipedia, which is why David is there, and why I am there, and why you are there. You can join my WP:NICE cabal, if you like, any time. :-) Barney is welcome to join as well, of course, if he'll just do what pillar four demands. Please alert folks on the talkpage if you get the WP:9STEPS treatment, trying to drive you away as a means to win some piddly content-dispute; folks like 76 and myself cannot have watchlists, so that's the only way we can know such things are afoot.
p.s. If the article were once again split into a morphogenetics page, and a BLP page, that would solve plenty of complaining, would it not? Hard to see how separating a man's mainstream academic career, and his personal religion, both of which belong on a BLP page, from his controversial theories, which are *surely* Notable enough to merit their own page, is all *that* difficult. p.p.s. Anyways, I hope you stay around the talkpage, and keep on keeping your cool, but if you need to take a breather from unduly-caused WikiStress, then do what you gotta do, and come back when your gumption is restored, and you can hold the moral high ground with pride once more. No matter what, sooner or later, mainspace will be NPOV again. WP:DEADLINE Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a split only if it can be shown that individuals other than Sheldrake have been working on morphic resonance with reasonable independence from Sheldrake. Until then, MR is simply not notable enough for its own page. Mentions in Doctor Who don't count. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, excusing 74's bizarre verbiosity, I thank Iantresman (talk·contribs) for his clarification regarding the terms of his unbanning. I am curious though as to what makes you think that you now have the competence to edit fringe pages, when previously people seemed to believe that you didn't? Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment comes across as a little condescending: I wouldn't ask you about your competence to assess my answer, and I hope you would feel taken aback if I did. You are assuming that there are competence issues.
My 2011 "Result of Appeal to BASC"[7] took place in private. It neither accountable nor transparent, so only BASC know the reason for the restrictions. This followed my 2007 Community ban[8] which is equally vague.
It claims I am "a general POV-warrior of all sorts of pseudoscience and fringe science [..] repeatedly POV pushing" but no diffs are provided.
It claims I "repeatedly harassed User:ScienceApologist who eventually left the project over a variety of issues, including Ian's behavior" which is nonsense, as he states his reason for leaving at the time.[9] which says nothing about being harassed, or anything about me specifically
It claims I am "now repeating the exact same thing with a relatively new user User:Mainstream astronomy", which is also nonsense, as this user was (a) not a new user (b) did not leave the project (c) turned out to be ScienceApologist using multiple sockpuppet that editors found to be used abusively.[10][11]
Ironically the Community Ban Noticeboard was itself subsequently banned, partly because it found the process of my banning to be "One amazing example [in just] five hours and eleven minutes [and] rather unfair to a longtime user",[12]
To summarise, no diffs supporting claims, an editor using socks abusively, and a flawed process that was subsequently banned, and you're asking me about competence? --Iantresman (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad this issue seems to be dying down, but I'm still a little concerned about what provoked it. You said you've been threatened with banning by several other editors, Iantresman, and I've seen more comments like that associated with the Sheldrake page than I've seen in years. I'm not suggesting this skeptic guerrilla organization I've seen referenced, but something's got people militant on that article. Thoughts?
And yes, TRPoD, I've read what WP is about. Perhaps marketplace was a poor choice of words, but WP is supposed to foster equal collaboration from diverse perspectives to come to a balanced, neutral POV. Whatever terminology one uses to describe this, I think we all agree that threatening minority contributions is not conducive to that goal. The Cap'n (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"threatening" minority viewpoint holders for being minority viewpoint holders is obviously not conductive.
Editors have heard, as is clear by the fact that they respond, and give a rationale as to why they might disagree. Disagreement is not the same as not hearing. --Iantresman (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*[[Lily of Killarney (1929 film)|Lily of Killarney]], a 1929 British] drama film directed by [[George Ridgwell]] and starring [[Cecil Landau]], [[Barbara Gott]] and [[
<ref>"http://collections-search.bfi.org.uk/web/Details/ChoiceFilmWorks/150022778 Choral Cameos]",BFI | Film & TV Database, retrieved 13 Nov 2013.</ref>
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Adam Paul Harvey may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
His most recent role was in ''[[The Five(ish) Doctors Reboot]]'',]]''.<ref>"[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03lv3mj The Five(ish) Doctors Reboot]", BBC programmes,
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
This is a warning: Please note that your contributions are disruptive and if they continue on the Rupert Sheldrake page you will face blocking or banning. Please note that talk pages count as editing. Thank you.
This is ridiculous. Anyone who participates on this article's Talk Page is getting these warnings. Don't let it intimidate you. Any editor can post a warning but only an Admin can enforce sanctions if they are deemed warranted. LizRead!Talk!23:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Liz (talk·contribs) - I too think this warning was not probably not necessary. Iantresman (talk·contribs) should be very familiar with WP:ARB/PS as it was he who brought the issue to the attention of the arbcom in the first place, and in a spectacular case of WP:BOOMERANG, as "a chronic promoter of pro-pseudoscience bias in articles, Iantresman has consistently disrupted pseudoscience article talk pages dismissing WP:NPOV, and has a history of tendentious and disruptive arguments at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, where he's sought to weaken Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight to favor his bias", he managed to get himself topic banned. Iantresman (talk·contribs) should be intimately familiar with WP:ARB/PS. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More misrepresentation, incivility and nonsense. When I originally requested the case on 2 Oct 2006, I called the case "Pseudoscience vs Pseudoskepticism", and questioned whether there was a level of "Pseudoskepticism".[13] The request was approved around 6 Oct (4/0/0)[14] But when the case was opened in 12 Oct, it was no longer about "Pseudoskepticism" the term being removed from the case,[15] and focus was only on "pseudoscience". I didn't shoot myself in the foot, I had my gun taken away from me and given to the other editors. Hardly fair.
Please don't quote other editors unsubstantiated accusations (ie. "a chronic promoter of pro-pseudoscience"). There was a good reason that the editor concerned provided not one diff in support of this. If you check the "Finding of Fact"[16], you will see there was no evidence of "pushing pseudoscience", although there was a bizarre criticism of my "orientation" based on hearsay.
If you are going to criticise my editing, do the decent thing and provide some diffs, otherwise your comments could be misconstrued as personal attacks. --Iantresman (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
I'm reading your ?'s you posted ... you're aware that they've essentially already all been answered in the previous questions, right? ES&L11:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sheldrake
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I apologize for the delay in answering your Arbitration Committee Election questions; I didn't have enough time over Thanksgiving break to sit down and catch up on my questions and immediately upon returning to school I had to prepare for a meteorology exam. I am planning to sit down and do my catching up today and you can expect answers to your questions by 6:00 UTC December 4. Thank you for your patience, and again my apologies for any inconvenience this delay has caused. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)17:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request for arbitration rejected
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. The arbitrators felt that the already imposed discretionary sanctions were adequate to deal with current issues. Failure by users to edit constructively or comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should be brought up at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for further potential suggestions on moving forward.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to C3H2F4 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Hi, in response to your question at AE, I'm just trying to remove the submissions that are all about content and not about conduct so as to keep the thread to a manageable size. We, the administrators processing the request, simply don't care (and more importantly aren't allowed to care) whether that guy is the world's greatest charlatan or Galileo Galilei reborn. We only care about whether anybody has violated any of Wikipedia's conduct rules and needs to be prevented from doing it again. By making content arguments in your statement, you are only wasting your time, and everybody else's. I suggest that you stop contributing to the thread if you have no useful evidence of misconduct to contribute. Sandstein 17:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I just thought that if conduct is based on content, then the latter will determine whether an editor's conduct is appropriate or not. But I take your point. --Iantresman (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few cases where writing really questionable content can violate core content policies like WP:V or WP:NPOV in their aspect as conduct policies (in that all editors are explicitly required to follow them), and in such cases content problems can become conduct problems and subject to discretionary sanctions. But these are normally cases of very evident and persistent POV-pushing. In cases such as this one, where there is a legitimate content dispute (how to describe the nature and recognition of the work of the person at issue), administrators will normally scrupulously avoid making any determination about the content, because (a) administrators aren't allowed to use their tools to decide content disputes, and (b) they simply don't know nearly enough about the intricacies of the subject matter to have an informed opinion about it, and don't have the time and inclination to read the huge number of sources that may be relevant. Sandstein 21:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
third category, for direct-COI editors
Hello Iantresman, I was pretty hard on you in my post. :-) Sorry about that; I do like you, even when we disagree. But what I would like to point out, is that you are letting Barney's us-fringe-fighters-the-only-true-wikipedians-versus-the-rest color your prose. "If any editor feels I have misrepresented them here, I will happily strike their name. --Iantresman"
You are putting Tumbleman into the same group as me, David, yourself, et al. That is not correct; Tumbleman was socking, and they in the real-o-verse have at least a personal relationship (some off-wiki sources say more[vague]) with Sheldrake. Same goes for Craig Weiland. They are COI-encumbered editors where Sheldrake is concerned, just the same as the young college kid who came here to write a BLP article about her sorority-sister that was in some indie film (a flop by all accounts) a couple years ago.
So I would ask that you remove Tumbleman from the "consensus-builder" group (not my favorite name but whatever), and add Tumbleman to a new third group (called "direct-COI editors" methinks... or something gentler if you prefer). They do not belong where they are, because they were not here to build consensus; see my post-disaster-analysis of their true motives, elsewhere. Usually I would let your judgment stand, but as Tumbleman cannot request themselves to be removed due to socking stuff, and I don't want the rest of us lumped in the same bucket, I figured it wouldn't hurt to suggest it to you. WP:REQUIRED applies, of course; it has been there awhile, and though I don't want it that way in the page-archives, please do what you think is best.
Anyhoo, thanks for keeping your cool in distressing circumstances. I'm not doing as well as I'd like. :-) So I have abandoned the Sheldrake fiasco, except in small infrequent doses. But, that said, I'll go edit some glacier articles, or something like that, and then keep coming back until we get it fixed. Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia.
p.s. Others that were around when I started, but left... don't know if they have requested you strike them of if they just were errors of omission... would include Tento2 and Dingo1729 plus prolly VeryScaryMary (though she was a bit too excitable for "consensus-building" to apply). Dan skeptic and IrWolfie and MilesMoney (plus maybe Johnuniq?) used to be active amongst the fringe-fighters... and truth be told, I would actually be tempted to include wolfie in the consensus-building camp, for the Sheldrake article... because despite their zeal to 9STEPS anybody they disagreed with elsewhere, wolfie actually seemed reasonably calm to me in the sheldrake context (as opposed to *other* contexts). But nobody likes to get drug into an AE, so I would vote leaving Tento and Dingo and Mary and Wolfie off your list unless they ask... I purposely did not 'ping' them, so they can keep their own counsel. HTH, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sheldrake AE
I've looked at your recent comments here, and I agree with them. Good work. There is a problem: because of the collapsing box, it is VERY hard to follow the diffs. Clicking the diff number takes you to the diff, but when you return, you return to a somewhat random place, and the collapsing box is collapsed. The effect is to make it easy not to investigate your diffs. Lou Sander (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Small world. My first Mini was welded up by a bloke who worked at Elstree Studios. I asked him if he was experienced with Minis, he said "have you seen The Italian Job?" - he was the set welder, mending the cars between takes. Mum still lives at Park Street, when they were first married my parents lived at Frogmore (technically - actually it was a cottage on the Handley Page site, opposite the George and Dragon). Guy (Help!) 11:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy. Nice anecdote. I learnt to drive in my mum's mini, in the days when I could drive home from the Mops and Brooms with 8 passengers, and the phrase "compulsory seatbelts" hadn't been conceived. --Iantresman (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ways to improve List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1665
I was looking through your talk page and found that you had started this article. Years ago I somehow came upon it and did a couple of edits, some along the lines of "why are you knocking this guy without providing citations?" I even telephoned Tifft, looking for a photo. When I mentioned Wikipedia, he cursed it and hung up on me (really). I have no idea what drew me to his article, since I have no intrinsic interest in Tifft, red shift, etc. It was probably a random article. Or maybe the Mystic Sheldrake Force was somehow at work. As I recall, I was just exercising my editing skills.
I also took notice of your photo File:Sikh-temple-adornment.jpg. This thing has an uncanny resemblance to the Turkish crescent that is a favorite subject of mine. The TC is primarily thought of as a musical instrument, but there is a lot more to it, for example as a totem in battle or authority symbol. There is not much information about the latter uses, and I'm wondering what the Sikhs think about their version. Do you have any special insight into that?
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.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free rationale for File:Adam-Maitland-portrait-1928.jpg
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: NinaGreen
"She is also topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, all broadly construed." My involvement in the dispute is minimal, but I would still appreciate it if you'd edit your comment to avoid giving out false information. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This topic ban on NinaGreen is indeed in force, but even when it was imposed it struck me as a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and in Nina's subsequent appeal against it every member of what could be called our Shakespearian community who commented on the appeal supported the topic ban being lifted. On both occasions, I thought that the meaning of "disruption" was being stretched astonishingly far. I am just amazed by the new indefinite ban, which seems to me to stretch "disruption" to the point that it now means pouring forth a large volume of rational argument about a serious subject. Do please do anything you can to get to the bottom of what is going on and to bring back Nina, whose flood of work in the field of English history is very good and should be more valued. Moonraker (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK[•]00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail!
Hello, Iantresman. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 02:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Request for comment on using secondary RSs at "List of scientists opposing maintream assessment of global warming"
In the most recent AFD of a particular article, you made a comment that referenced "original research" or "WP:OR". I am sending this same message to every non-IP editor who metioned either character string in that AFD. Please consider participating in a poll discussion about adding secondary RSs to the listing criteria at that talk page. Thanks for your attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endless Disputes Among The Talking Heads
Jello! I see you've grown as an editor and a kind supporter of Elerner over the years. Kudos for doing him a justice.
I'm not a scientist by trade but am interested in Wikipedia as it becomes a more significant & subtle tool of international materialist politics, via such asests as paid Security-state trolls, Big Science- propagandists, and military-careerist terrorists.
I write now to refer you to a note I've left with Elerner at Endless Disputes Among The Talking Heads.
It concerns an effect on WP I've noticed which if cautiously exploited could occasionally allow suppressed information to become more available here.
When it comes to deception, summon all the spacious dragons to hear
HilarleoHey,L.E.O.11:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ed. You might want to post that on your userpage somewhere, Ian. It appears you are under no more restrictions at all. jps (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...banned from all articles, discussions and other content related to plasma physics and astrophysics, broadly construed across all namespaces.... T. Canens (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)"[reply]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
Hi, in the past Rupert Sheldrake had reached out to several Wikipedia editors about his Wikipedia article. Have you discussed the Rupert Sheldrake article with Sheldrake?
I have not discussed the Sheldrake article with Sheldrake. I am sympathetic to Velikovsky being described fairly, just as I am sympathetic to Sheldrake, and anyone else, being described fairly. As I have said before, I do not accept the idea of pet telepathy, nor of Velikovsky's planetary history, but am embarrassed how some editors find it to distort the facts to say so. --Iantresman (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK but you know Sheldrake, right? You at least run into him at conferences and whatnot. I hadn't quite been aware of the connection between Velikovsky and [the subject of your topic ban] until now. Sheldrake appears to be involved with the scene as well, though I haven't heard of him supporting Velikovsky or related topics. I suppose the common thread is just fringyness.
This is an interesting diff, wherein you add five external links to "Organisations sympathetic to Velikovsky's work". You own four of the domains and may be affiliated with the fifth. In the intervening decade, you have learned not to use Wikipedia to promote your own stuff, right? Manul ~ talk21:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've heard Sheldrake talk once, about 15 years ago, which I think was also the last conference I attended. The idea that I "run into him at conferences" is laughable. I owned some of those domains (some are defunct) because I was asked to host websites for the relevant organisations concerned. --Iantresman (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You said "owned", but you still own those four domains which, in your words, are "sympathetic to Velikovsky's work". After a decade of editing you should now understand that it was inappropriate to use Wikipedia to promote your own sites, but your comments here do not indicate anything to this effect.
Considering that Sheldrake had contacted several editors in the past, and considering your dogged participation on the Sheldrake talk page, now going on for well over a year and a half, it seemed appropriate to just ask. Manul ~ talk15:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need to differentiate between owning a domain, and owning and being responsible for the content of a website on that domain. If you have any problems with any of my edits, I suggest that you discuss them on the appropriate talk page, rather than bring up edits from over a decade ago, and try and make capital of them.
You have also made extensive edits to the Sheldrake article (50 times[18] more than I have [19]), but I am not interrogating you over who you may, or may not have had contact with. I do not consider it appropriate to ask as the connection is tenuous. --Iantresman (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The same thing happened when Guy raised the issue of your talk page participation in that AN thread. Neither he, then, nor I, now, were referring to your mainspace edits, yet in both cases your response was to point to mainspace edits. Guy corrected you then, and I am correcting you again now: I said talk "participation on the Sheldrake talk page", where you are the #1 contributor. My concerns are similar to those of Guy's. Manul ~ talk20:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That you are not directly addressing my points on the Sheldrake talk page concerns me too, as you are having to resort to a decade old edit that has no relevance to the Sheldrake article, and, to any outside interests I may or may not have had outside Wikipedia... I suggest you read WP:WIAPA, What Is A Personal Attack: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream". I will remind you that every one of my edits to the Sheldrake article is still present, and I have included edits that are not in Sheldrake's favour.[20]. Remember, WP:AGF and don't make WP:ASPERSIONS. --Iantresman (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sax Pax for a Sax, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andy Scott. 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.
Thanks for uploading File:CorelDraw X8 logo.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for File:Coreldraw x8.png
Thanks for uploading File:Coreldraw x8.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discretionary sanctions alert, pseudoscience and fringe science
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Hi, Ian. I believe you're already aware of these discretionary sanctions, but such awareness is supposed to "expire" after a year, so I thought I'd better post a reminder. Sorry for the bureaucracy, it's not my intention to badger you. Bishonen | talk16:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
editor EdJohnston said that "A party should not require a special notice that the discretionary sanctions of that case can apply to them" (11 Nov 2012)[21]
That the article I was involved with was not related to pseudoscience (and failed the "broadly construed" criteria)
That I was following the DS guidance and discussing the article as required by AC/DS, and made a big effort to provide sources
I certainly agree parties to a case do not require a notice that the discretionary sanctions may apply to them. Compare also Timotheus Canens' close of the thread you link to. But as the years go by, I guess a new alert can't hurt. Bishonen | talk08:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Hello, Iantresman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
Hello, Iantresman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered) (3rd 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) 20:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94: @jps. Thank you for the notification. I can provide several third-party independent sources for the AfD on both Pensée and Kronos, but my topic ban from 11 Nov 2012 could be seen by some as "broadly construed" to exclude me from them, even though there is no discussion about plasma physics and astrophysics. I think there are three options: (1) If you think I can contribute to the discussion without infringing my ban, I am happy to do so, (2) I am happy to provide the sources here, and you can add them to the page yourself so that everyone can assess them impartially (3) Of course if this comment is itself considered an infringement of my ban, I will strike it, and you can consider the sources buried. --Iantresman (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that I am allowed per the rules to proxy on your behalf, but I'm not sure whether I would be a good person to do so considering our past history. It seems like it would be better to get an uninvolved admin who can determine whether your suggested contribution is well-considered or not in light of the controversial subject material. jps (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something, JPS? I see an article on a journal whose subject matter relates to a fringe Egyptologist etc., but the topic ban is about plasma physics. Oh, wait, it's the astrophysics part? As far as I'm concerned Velikovsky wasn't really a scientist, but I assume that the topic ban was issued for behavior related to suchlike topics. On that assumption, which can be proven wrong of course, I'd say that it does fall under the topic ban (and I always appreciate Doug Weller's input), BUT, since y'all seem to be getting on so amicably, and since we're all big kids here, and since I have faith in mankind, I will be happy to state that I have no problem with participation in the AfD--as long as it does not become a slugfest or some other carnival, of course. Good luck, and please let me know if I was unclear or did indeed miss something. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian. How are you? I can see arguments both ways, but you've posted and you obviously asked first, so I doubt anyone is going to get upset. I'm not. Doug Wellertalk18:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to understand whether you are really confused about my points or whether you are missing the points I am making on purpose. Perhaps it is because of the history we have, but I truly feel as though it is the latter. We are discussing, for example, whether the sources you listed at the two AfDs speak to the notability of the defunct Velikovskian publications to the extent that they deserve separate Wikipedia articles. The question is one that is different from the question as to whether there are reliable sources which simply mention the publications. I have been trying to emphasize this in the distributed locations we have been discussing, but nevertheless find your repeated revisiting of concepts of "reliability" as well as demands for sources which discuss sources to be borderline WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, if you get my drift.
To illustrate:
You write, "From my point of view, it is crucial also to provide a source that link the pseudoscience to the concerns you have about Bauer's book, otherwise it appears as it if is just your opinion, and conclusions only you have made."
I think I have been abundantly clear that the concern is not that the book in question about Velikovsky promotes pseudoscience. Rather the concern is that Bauer is partial to pseudoscientific claims in general and, as such, is liable to pay more attention to them than a more mainstream source would. In the context of determining whether a concept is notable, sources which are independent are a must. This extends not just to direct conflicts of interest, but also to the more general point that a pseudoscientist (which Bauer has been tagged as, like it or not) will necessarily pay more attention to other sources of pseudoscience whether they are noteworthy enough for Wikipedia to be able to neutrally do so or not. (Note that this has nothing to do with whether the discussion provided by the conflicted source is reliable or not -- it merely is a question of looking for the sources which are independent in order to establish the notability of an article subject).
You write, "For my part I have already said that I have looked at reviews of Bauer's book, and they all appear positive (even if I may not agree with them all myself), and of course I am happy to provide them."
But this entirely misses the point. No one is asking for reviews of Bauer's book because, crucially, Bauer's book is not the subject of any article. Rather the subjects of the articles are defunct publications which Bauer mentions in his book. If we are to claim that Bauer's book makes those defunct publications notable, we have to consider the source itself which is a book which by all accounts pays more attention to pseudoscience than is usual. The problem is that in determining notability we should be clear that certain sources are more independent than others. Bauer's ongoing support of pseudoscience makes his attention to those journals suspect. It's not a question of whether we should not use Bauer in Wikipedia. It's a question of whether the Bauer source confers notability onto the subjects in question.
You write, "This is the big question, can an editor's opinion out-weight published sources. Or is it just WP:OR and WP:SYNTH?"
But this isn't a question, or, rather, it's begging the question. There is no out-weighing of published sources going on. This is simply a matter of evaluating the sources that could plausibly be used to write an article. If we were going to write a book based solely on Bauer's in-depth exploration of the relationship between the journals and Velikovsky Affair, I think we would end up with an article that does not conform to WP:NPOV because it would be a repeat of Bauer's positions. We do have other sources, and the best one listed is Grodin's book, but the question we face is to what extent do these sources speak to the notability of the fringe journal in question. This is entirely different than questioning whether the judgment of you or me is sufficient to "out-weigh" published sources. In fact, no one would argue that this would ever be the case, but this question you are posing is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
You write, "So that brings us to the suggestion that because Bauer's associated with other fringe subjects, that makes him unreliable to comment on all fringe subjects."
Crucially, just before you wrote this I wrote: "For some reason, you still seem to be in this mode of not really understanding the basic point that I wrote: the reliability of Bauer's book is not anything anyone is arguing against." It's almost as if you aren't commenting directly on what I'm saying but instead are fighting some strawman. I am not claiming that Bauer is unreliable in his discussion of these journals. I am claiming that Bauer's proclivities for being attracted to pseudoscience means he is likely to pay more attention to subjects that are obscure and pseudoscientific to the tune that his focus on these subjects do not help us answer the question as to whether the subject itself is notable. Notability is the question here, not reliability.
I am not sure how much more plain I can make this. I am reminded of previous disputes we've had where you seemed content to engage in source counting rather than dealing with the substance of a claim, often hiding behind the argument that as editors we were not capable of doing any editorial analysis whatsoever of a source. This strikes me as being a very dishonest practice and I am not particularly enthused by the point that you link to a number of sources in the AfD which do little more than mention the subjects in question (I note you do not provide any description of how one might use the sources you think are appropriate, but instead seem content to merely list them as though they are impressive enough to stand on their own).
I guess what I'm saying is that I am on the border between disappointed and frustrated with your contributions thus far to our discussions regarding Velikovsky. Seeing as how 10 years ago you issued at call-to-arms at the late Halton Arp's forum to skew Wikipedia towards "maverick" understandings of what redshift was in astronomy (arguably the source of all subsequent bad blood between us) and basically adopted the tactic of listing papers published by members of the Alternative Cosmology Group as a kind of means to attempt to skew Wikipedia towards a non-mainstream approach towards the subject, I hope you can understand how I might be wary of your current tack. What I would appreciate at this point is a bit of honesty in your approach rather than this hiding behind lists.
For example, while I am not surprised that you argued to keep the two articles you created, I am confused as to why you won't explain directly why you think these two defunct journals are more worthy of an article than any of the other journals that are devoted to this or that aspect of Velikovsky's ideas. For example, there are no articles about Aeon, The Velikovskian, or Chronology & Catastrophism Review in Wikipedia. Is there a line that can be drawn to determine whether something is keep-able or delete-able when it comes to Velikovsky promotion on Wikipedia or not? If there is no line, then at least be honest and argue for that radical inclusionist philosophy. But if there is, I would like to know how you would draw it.
Thank you @WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94:(jps) for taking the time to explain your position. I'd like to do the same, but can't at the moment, but thought I'd give you the courtesy of an acknowledgement first. More when I can devote a bit more time to a response. --Iantresman (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94:(jps) Thank you for being patient. If I seem confused, then this is the case. I would not deliberately miss or avoid points. In the Pensee AfD, you had mentioned a "lack of adequate sourcing that isn't dominated by fringe or unreliable sources (I'm looking at you Henry H. Bauer).", so a misinterpretation on my behalf. Additionally, I may not have read your suggestion that Bauer is not independent, as alternative to the issues regarding reliable sources, rather in addition to the suggestion that he is not reliable.
Either way, I am not "counting sources" (even though the number of good sources contribute to notability). Rather than accept your point regarding Bauer and independence at face value, and likewise you accept mine, I believe that we should be looking at sources, and sources about sources, as a means of independent assessment. In other words, you may be right that Bauer's involvement with fringe subject makes him to close to the subject, and likewise there may be other editors who disagree, suggesting that this is a subjective assessment; the solution is to assess third part sources about Bauer and his book. Because his Beyond Velikovsky has received only positive reviews, suggests that others are willing to accept his views, otherwise I would expect, for example, Velikovskian sources to criticise him on the same point your make, as it is not in their interest to accept Bauer. None seem to, even though his association with the Lock Ness Monster would be an obvious target.
Regarding the inclusion of these journals, first let me say that although they are (a) defunct (b) Velikovskian, contributes zero as to whether they should be included or not. From my point of view, Wikipedia does not care as to the subject matter of a journal, nor whether they are in print. So it comes down to reliable sources for notability, and the fact is that Pensee was quite significant it its time (with a peak 70,000 circulation), and Kronos to a much lesser degree. Both have coverage, and had circulations that exceeded many astronomy journals.
Magazines like Aeon and The Velikovskian never attained the same interest/circulation as Kronos, and this is reflected in the lack of sources, and hence non-notability. The SIS Review was included in the article on the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies. Personally, I think there were sufficient sources (not all included in the article), eg. one or both mentioned in Palmer's book[22], the Biblical Archaeologist[23], Gordin's book[24], The Times (London) newspaper, Skeptical Inquirer, BBC publication The Listener, On the margins of science[25], and elsewhere.
I also utterly reject the idea that inclusion of any article on any subject in Wikipedia is "promotion". If we were to improperly slant the contents of an article to suggest a subject was more widely accepted that it really was, that would be "promotion". I have never suggested that "Velikovsky", or any subject is accepted more than it really is or isn't. For the record, Velikovsky was wrong in a great many areas, not least astronomy, but that does not prevent us describing his views and his critics neutrally. --Iantresman (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. I think the discussion will rapidly descend into a meta-discussion which is fine with me. I would like to expand a bit more on some points now, but I think I might say more in the future:
I think we need to be aware that inclusion of a topic in Wikipedia lends the topic to being promoted if for no other reason than it announces to the world that the topic is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Velikovsky, of course, reaches that standard. You seem to agree that certain auxiliary topics related to Velikovsky do not. Circulation would be an interesting metric by which to judge this, but I don't think that a peak of 70,000 is all that significant in the grand scheme of things (a peak membership to a commercial website of 70,000 subscribers would not necessarily make the cut here, for example). What I worry about is the attempts to make things seem more important in the grand scheme of things than they actually are. Were the Velikovsky journals at all influential in the long haul? Did they accomplish anything more than making object lessons for retrospectives?
I think it is important to acknowledge that Bauer's book is written by someone who supports pseudoscience even while not necessarily supporting Velikovsky. To that end, it seems to me that he is liable to want to look at the pseudo-academy that developed surrounding the proposals. I don't think that necessarily paints the idea as notable. I liken this concern to the ones I had about a person like David Wilcock: [[26]]. Basically when the only sources are those who are like-minded, it becomes difficult to give a proper WP:NPOV treatment of the subject without delving into massive WP:OR. I think that Bauer's work takes a side in the Velikovsky discussion in that he thinks of the auxiliary clatter as being of greater importance than most commentators on the subject. Gordin doesn't go quite as far, but that's really the only two sources we've got. I find it hard not to discount Bauer which leaves just Gordin and the concomitant perspective that cannot be neutralized.
I would happily discuss the other sources, but they seem very flat indeed. Mere mentions rather than worthy analysis.
@jps: While I agree that an article in Wikipedia gives a topic currency, I still reject it as a reason to exclude it from Wikipedia. The veracity of a subject should never be a criteria for inclusion, and an article's promotion is accidentally. It's a slippery slope I don't think Wikipedia should be considering.
Nobody supports pseudoscience. Just because Bauer may investigate the Loch Ness Monster does not imply he supports pseudoscience. If he is wrong about anything, it is because of a flaw in his reasoning, such as lack of evidence, fallacious deductions, or whatever.
I disagree that "like minded" sources make it difficult to attain WP:NPOV. Neither of us would have any problem with like-minded mainstream astronomy sources supporting one another. Attribution lets us make it clear that views are personal, and framing a subject (even in as little as a single sentence) lets us know how the article stands with the mainstream. You can see that with any article on an extreme subject from astrology to the Nazis, where we say quite a lot about them, but it is still clear that they are not acceptable.
I'm fine with other sources in their totality. I'm not expecting analysis from each one, but together they all mount up. I'm happy to agree to disagree.
Finally, if Wikipedia was only a scientific source (eg a science encyclopedia), then I would happily accept many your points, and if I were editing, I would also remove the articles. Wikipedia transcends science, and cover the whole human experience irrespective of whether it is right or wrong, which is why it rightly rejects WP:SPOV. And that is why I also think many of the articles should remain. --Iantresman (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't anywhere say that an exclusion criteria for a WIkipedia topic should be whether the subject is "true" or not. That these journals never existed is not something I am arguing! What I am saying is that the notability of a subject when its community is one that is outside the WP:MAINSTREAM should not be established by sources that are written by authors who are outside the mainstream. We would want mainstream sources to establish notability, or, really, WP:FRIND sources.
Claiming that nobody supports pseudoscience is a strange contention. Nobody admits to supporting pseudoscience, but Bauer is a known supporter of pseudoscience and we have the citations that indicate this in his very article.
Like-minded sources that are WP:MAINSTREAM is completely different from like-minded sources that are WP:FRINGE. They must be treated differently here. To do otherwise is asking for trouble.
If your argument is that Wikipedia should include these articles because WP:SPOV was rejected, I do think we are rather far apart. Wikipedia cannot accommodate the fringe viewpoint in a fair way. For example, our articles on alternative medicine do not shy away from pointing out what the mainstream evaluation of the treatments has been.
Wikipedia can accommodate any viewpoint in a fair way by simply stating and attributing that viewpoint. Of course we should not shy away from including the mainstream viewpoint, as it is by definition, the main viewpoint. --Iantresman (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that's not true. Wikipedia cannot accommodate viewpoints that the relevant communities which discuss such viewpoints have not commented upon. This is the essence of the exclusionary aspects of WP:WEIGHT and WP:N. There are many statements have been verifiably made but since no one noticed they don't belong in Wikipedia. Lord Steven Christ does not have a Wikipedia page in spite of the fact it is very easy to attribute to him that which he has said. jps (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Big-bang-never-happened.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thank you for saying on the talk page attached to the article on Rupert Sheldrake that I was right about the BBC programme just being called Heretic and not Heretics of Science. While I am here, can I say how much I like the images decorating your user page - I think you may be worthy of a barn star for your delightful images!Vorbee (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify whether you've successfully appealed your topic ban or not relating to astrophysics? These things are not well-documented at Wikipedia, as you well know.
I am still topic banned from plasma and astrophysics related articles. If you are referring to my participation in Coherent catastrophism, then I believe this is outside of the description of "Broadly construed". History and astronomy, yes, astrophysics, no, as is shown by the references and categories in the article. Can you make the connection? I am sure you will have no problems whatsoever. --Iantresman (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that any third-party would argue that this is related to astrophysics. Would you like me to ask an admin? jps (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure I can find editors and admins who would agree with you, but then we know that most of them don't know the difference between astronomy and astrophysics, and don't care either. I'll bow out. --Iantresman (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The main difference between astronomy and astrophysics is when I am on the airplane and the person next to me asks what I do. If I want to talk to them, I say I'm an astronomer. If I don't, I say I'm an astrophysicist. jps (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Iantresman. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
This is my draft appeal against my 2012 Topic Ban[27]
Preliminary discussion regarding draft appeal
Hello Iantresman, I noticed you preparing an appeal of your discretionary sanctions and wanted to wish you the best. I also wanted to offer my assistance if I can be of any. I am curious, if Timotheus Canens doesn't set the discretionary sanction aside himself, which I believe he may in fact do unilaterally, where will you file your appeal? Additionally, your draft statement is a little weak at present so let's work on writing one that a reasonable person, which TC is, will find difficult not to grant. If you frame your request to him thoughtfully and well, I believe your appeal will succeed by his discretion and you'll be finished. That's what I'd aim to accomplish. It's doable, I believe.--John Cline (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@John Cline:That's very kind of you, I would accept any advice you can offer. I was initially thinking of appealing via WP:AE, as my last appeal directly to TC was declined. --Iantresman (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, TC felt you had violated the spirit and letter of your sanction in close proximity to your having posted your request. For sure it is imperative that you not have encroached the line since your last unsuccessful request. You really need to be able to approach him with an irrefutable demonstration that you have not gamed your sanctions in any way whatsoever since that last request. Additionally, I think You should create an outline based on Newyorkbrad's statement to you at your last appeal. He gave excellent advice for framing a request postured for success. Also, If you recall, advice was given to you that you would be evaluated on whether or not you availed yourself to the advice you were given. I'd review your last appeal and ensure that I incorporated every comment offering advice into my statement, in some thoughtful manner. You have quite a few people pulling for you to get this matter behind you. I would not be surprised to see a few of them posting here in the coming days to give more advice. Either way, you are your best advocate, and you can prevail in this matter. Show the community your best side, they will like what they see if you do it in sincere earnest. And Wikipedia will be that much better with your unhindered participation. This is a win win situation. Approach it as such, in my opinion.--John Cline (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@John Cline: Thanks again for your input. Newyorkbrad asks whether I am confident that I'll be able to edit articles consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.[28] I have no confidence that I can, because I thought I was adhering to Wikipedia policies including those mentioned at Discretionary sanctions "For Editors" (as of 2012). I am not trying to be difficult, but I don't know which policy I broke. --Iantresman (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I remember, having been right there at each befuddling moment. The hard truth is: that question will not be entertained, let alone answered. Here is why you can answer confidently in your editing ability and policy adherence even without a full understanding of WTF happened in the first place: Because you have been editing since 05/13/2004 and have made 21,347 edits since that day – you understand that the vast majority of editing interactions are non-controversial (96.8% of your edits remain live) – because you should announce your intention to hold yourself to a voluntarily, self imposed, 1RR restriction to ensure that nothing goes afoul of the 3.2% that might see reversion (if you don't restrict yourself, it will be imposed on you anyway for at least the first year, I'm nearly certain. Self discipline is favored so much more than stipulated discipline that you'd nearly be a stubborn fool to not lay it on the table yourself! To the victor goes the spoil and you and I have lost this war; a long time ago (metaphorically speaking). You can contribute productively on Wikipedia because you've faithfully endured a 1,435 day block, without sock evasion and know the full value of proactive block avoidance, because you know the value of not being blocked by contrast, and you know without equivocation which you prefer. Because you've uploaded 166 files to en Wikipedia,[29] 92 files to Commons,[30], created 904 pages,[31] and edited 4,434 different pages an average of 5 times each, and hopefully can say that you enjoy the eclectic variety of contributions that have endeared you, and show that you are not singularly motivated. Because you have grown in wisdom, because others have grown in wisdom, because Wikipedia has improved, and because people are willing to help you wherever a need might arise. I have no doubt whatsoever that you can contribute to Wikipedia in accordance with policy; you should come to know this of yourself.--John Cline (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@John Cline: That's what I thought you'd say, though you've said it better than I could. I might appropriate a couple of your phrases! I'll make some enhancements in the next day or so. --Iantresman (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DRAFT Arbitration enforcement action appeal by iantresman
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.
Statement by iantresman
I would like my topic banned to be considered for lifting. Since my ban in 2012:
I have had one appeal declined over a year ago, and this is summarised in my deferred appeal in Dec 2017 (described in the "Amendment request: Pseudoscience, Notes to @Newyorkbrad ).
I have received no other sanctions from over 4000+ edits
I have upheld the 1RR restriction on me[32], and will continue to do so
I have also endured the current 1,435 day topic ban without further penalty, even though I was on a self-imposed 0RR at the time, and thought I was following Discretionary sanctions guidance at the time to "adopt Wikipedia’s communal approaches" in my editing[33]
I have made efforts to improve my editing, reaching out to Timotheus Canens for advice [34], and to the Help Desk[35],[36], and the Teahouse[37] (all without success)
Since my time as a Wiki editor
I have made over 21,000 edits, of which 96.8% are still live[38] a retention rate that is as good as all but two active members of the Arbitration Committee
I appreciate ban avoidance more than most, having endured a 1,515 day Community Ban[39] (given without a single diff in evidence, and with such short deliberation that it contributed to the banning of the Community Sanctions Noticeboard[40] that was instigated by an editor who was described as having misled the community[41] by using multiple socks abusively.[42])
I have also uploaded over 60 files to Wikipedia[43], over 100 images to Commons[44] created over 900 new pages[45], edited over 4000 pages (on average 5 times each)[46], and have been directly involved in the attainment of 4 good articles (one subsequently reassessed)
I am always open to discussion with any editor regarding my editing,
Statement by Timotheus Canens
Statement by (involved editor 1)
Statement by (involved editor 2)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by iantresman
Result of the appeal by iantresman
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Despite many attempts to get help to find how to improve my editing (and presumably behaviour), I am finding just about everyone talks at me, rather than with me. I want to know what I should do differently.
Iantresman (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's something others can help you with. Sandstein said in the latest ban review: "Iantresman does not indicate that he recognizes that his editing at the time was problematic, and why, and how he would now edit differently." That's about as good a summary of what's expected as you can get. I could probably write a successful request to have the topic ban lifted - but it's not my understanding of the issues that needs to be demonstrated. Huon (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Huon: Thanks for taking the time to respond. I could probably write a successful appeal if I knew how to change my behaviour. As far as I know, I followed policies, so I'm after help identifying where I went wrong with my original editing, so I can make changes. --Iantresman (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:CorelDraw X8 logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello, Iantresman. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
Decortive use of non-free cover art being used in Gray Jolliffe#Career. Non-free cover art is generally allowed when it's used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the work in question, but it's use in other articles tends to require that the cover art itself be the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 so as to provide the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8. The only mention of this book in the article about Gray Jolliffe the single sentence "He wrote the Wicked Willie books with Peter Mayle.", and this certainly doesn't require that the reader see a non-free image to be understood per NFCC#8 or WP:FREER.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
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.
Thanks for uploading File:Encyclopedia-of-pseudoscience.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Lobster (magazine) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
![{\displaystyle {\color {Blue}{\sqrt[{2}]{x^{3}}}\equiv x^{\frac {3}{2}}}}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/26076e33d1e4daee8244c1977702a6ff14ff1c94)
