User talk:Barney the barney barney: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:51, 18 November 2013 editIantresman (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users21,376 edits →Edit warring ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:56, 18 November 2013 edit undoBbb23 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,096 edits add pseudoscience sanctions noticeNext edit →
Line 176:		Line 176:

	The fact that one kind find me that way is one of the signal achievements of my life. :) ] (]) 21:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)		The fact that one kind find me that way is one of the signal achievements of my life. :) ] (]) 21:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

			==Pseudoscience sanctions notice==

			{{Ivmbox
			\| The ] has permitted ] to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at ]) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to ] and ]. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the ], satisfy any ], or follow any ]. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "]" section of the decision page.

			Please familiarise yourself with the information page at ], with the appropriate sections of ], and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
			\| Ambox warning pn.svg
			\| icon size = 40px
			}}<!-- This message is derived from Template:Uw-sanctions -->--] (]) 00:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:56, 18 November 2013

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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.

Rupert Sheldrake (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to William McDougall and Mark Edwards

Barry Keverne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to FRS

Martin Raff (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to FRS

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

The IP on the Dean Radin is sockpuppet, please see the talk page. If you can help with this please do. Dan skeptic (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 12 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Rupert Sheldrake page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

split BLP from FRINGE, without causing POV fork

Hello Barney, I enter your lair with some trepidition. :-) And apparently at least one spelling-error, but prolly you caught the gist. Iantresman asked us to not discuss the sheldrake-article-topics on his user-talkpage further, so is it okay to move here temporarily? If not, we can open Yet Another Section on the article-talkpage... and eventually that ought to be done... but in the meantime, this split-article question might get hammered out faster with just two editors, or if TRPoD is listening, with three. If you'd rather it be on the article-talkpage, or on my user-talkpage, or just skip it, that's fine by me.

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)

So there are actually four things under discussion here, some of which are Notable enough to get their own article.

RS is a BLP article (mostly maintained by David with luck), which methinks should cover academic credentials, spiritual views, author/lecturer stuff. Morphic & telepathy mentioned briefly, noted as non-mainstream, reader directed to links covering MG/MGF/MF&MR/PM.
MG is a mainstream-science-theory, around since the 1920s at least. MGF is a specific subset with mainstream-minority-science-hypothesis status.
RS claims to have generalized MGF into his own Morphic Fields aka MF, where Morphic Resonance aka MR is one specific phenomenon found in the MF-idea. Suggest MF article, with MR as a section therein.
The fourth thing is Sheldrake's early phytomorphology work aka PM, published in mainstream places, prior to his turn to The Dark Side. ;-)

Your stance, correct me if I'm wrong, is that there are not enough reliable sources that significantly discuss MF stuff (to include MR as a subset of MF) in enough depth? When you say "working-on" you mean publishing-about, correct? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I see no problem here with there being a lair. I do not suffer fools gladly, but if you avoid beeing foolish you'll survive

"Working on" basically means sources. This as a start would include serious works referencing "morphic resonance" as a serious research issue, other seriously proposing what MR might or might not be, or indeed practical experiments designed to try to detect MR effects or the MR field.
The problem with an article describing the history of "morphic fields" dating back to the 1920s is twofold (1) we are unable to do original research on archives (2) the link between old school MF ideas and Sheldrake's ideas also seems to be WP:OR (although it is fairly obvious OR and we could choose to ignore WP:NOR as impractical). We also need to explain why the idea was quietly dropped from research. It looks like it's a reasonable topic for a historical research paper, so it may have been written already, if not, it's not yet of academic interest.
Finally, assuming the above two presently are negative, there are categorically no BLP problems with the Rupert Sheldrake article. Articles on living people do not have to whitewash well sourced, pointed criticism from senior members of a particular field. Many of these criticisms are of Sheldrake personally, and therefore I cannot see how you can extract the "philosophising" from the man. Finally note that I am also trying to, but it's really hard to find any sources. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

PS - as a bone to you, I have am preparing an article on Jaytee (dog), which I might finish sometime soon-ish. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, appreciate the bone, I'll toss it to Roxy, they might gnaw it over some. I personally don't think Jaytee is worth a dedicated article, it will be WP:PERMASTUB, and the material belongs in the subsection about Dogs-That-Know. The question is: where (in what article) does Dogs-That-Know actually belong? More on this at the end. (The lair thing, that was a joke, thanks for taking it well.) As for being foolish, I'll do my best. Wait. As for not being foolish, I'll do my best. :-) I have no big argument here with your main points, except for one little word. What is the definition of "serious" research... as opposed to, say, mere journalism?

some explanation, which you may already have heard over on the talkpage, about why colloquial 'reliable' sources has zero connection to wikipolicy 'Reliable' Sources
Misplaced Pages distinguishes between the two types of sources, when it comes to determining what is MainstreamView for some particular field of inquiry (biology / physics / historyOfTextualInterpretationOfTheBible / philosophyOfScience / telepathy). Well-respected-in-their-field-of-inquiry peer-reviewed international-journals get more weight, than just the Bozeman daily, when it comes to determining what the mainstream view is... but more does not mean all the weight. Bozeman's fine journalists still qualify for imbuing WP:NOTEWORTHY status, just like Nature. Weight aside, there is zero distinction in terms of capital-letter-Notability. If some freelance journalist noticed it, and wrote a couple paragraphs about it, and some assistant editor did a quick fact-check to CYA for the newspaper, then the subject of the paragraphs (once a couple-few sources discuss said topic) is flat-out wikiNotable. This is, obviously, different than being true or correct. Many things that are not even wrong grace the pages of modern churnalism. Because wikipedia depends on said sources, some of the crap gets into wikipedia, as well. That's what WP:UNDUE is really for -- to give the objective facts a shot at shining through. We still report what the papers said, however. Back in the early days of rocketry, somebody in the NYT gave Robert Goddard some crap. The official policy here, barring rare exceptions, is crystal clear: being a Reliable Source has nothing to do with being true. It merely means, peer-reviewed (not counting exceptions like Journal Of Sasquatch Believers), or at least, professional-editorial-board-reviewed (not counting The Onion... finest onionpaper in the world). By that standard, morphic fields slash morphic resonance qualifies, for a dedicated article, if we editors decide such a thing makes sense. Which is why your insistence on "serious" research as the standard seems mistaken to me. Sure, we can eliminate some sources discussing morphic juices as being unreliable, such as the Noetic Institute perhaps (I don't actually know whether they've been investigated or not but the name sounds a bit odd). But once they are found unreliable, they stay unreliable. We cannot say, this BBC report is "unreliable" aka factually wrong, but the rest are fine. There is a specific jargon-meaning of "Reliable Sources" aka published with some minimal level of fact-checking; we don't pick winners and losers on a sentence by sentence basis, either the BBC is wikiReliable or they ain't, end of story.

some explanation, which you may already have heard over on the talkpage, about why colloquial 'reliable' sources has zero connection to wikipolicy 'Reliable' Sources

Misplaced Pages distinguishes between the two types of sources, when it comes to determining what is MainstreamView for some particular field of inquiry (biology / physics / historyOfTextualInterpretationOfTheBible / philosophyOfScience / telepathy). Well-respected-in-their-field-of-inquiry peer-reviewed international-journals get more weight, than just the Bozeman daily, when it comes to determining what the mainstream view is... but *more* does not mean *all* the weight. Bozeman's fine journalists still qualify for imbuing WP:NOTEWORTHY status, just like Nature.

Weight aside, there is zero distinction in terms of capital-letter-Notability. If some freelance journalist noticed it, and wrote a couple paragraphs about it, and some assistant editor did a quick fact-check to CYA for the newspaper, then the subject of the paragraphs (once a couple-few sources discuss said topic) *is* flat-out wikiNotable. This is, obviously, different than being true or correct. Many things that are not even wrong grace the pages of modern churnalism. Because wikipedia depends on said sources, some of the crap gets into wikipedia, as well. That's what WP:UNDUE is really for -- to give the objective facts a *shot* at shining through. We still report what the papers said, however. Back in the early days of rocketry, somebody in the NYT gave Robert Goddard some crap.

The official policy here, barring rare exceptions, is crystal clear: being a Reliable Source has nothing to do with being *true*. It merely means, peer-reviewed (not counting exceptions like Journal Of Sasquatch Believers), or at least, professional-editorial-board-reviewed (not counting The Onion... finest onionpaper in the world). By that standard, morphic fields slash morphic resonance qualifies, for a dedicated article, if we editors decide such a thing makes sense.

Which is why your insistence on "serious" research as the standard seems mistaken to me. Sure, we can eliminate some sources discussing morphic juices as being unreliable, such as the Noetic Institute perhaps (I don't actually know whether they've been investigated or not but the name sounds a bit odd). But once they are found unreliable, they stay unreliable. We cannot say, this BBC report is "unreliable" aka factually wrong, but the rest are fine. There is a specific jargon-meaning of "Reliable Sources" aka published with some minimal level of fact-checking; we don't pick winners and losers on a sentence by sentence basis, either the BBC is wikiReliable or they ain't, end of story.

I think that stuff above is the crux. As for your second point, we can sometimes cite primary sources like the 1920s papers, even though they are not online necessarily, as long as we do it "with care". I believe I have a Shedrake interview where he linked his ideas to the older biological stuff; but that's just on Sheldrake's say-so, of course, the 1920s guy is long dead. But from what I have gleaned, MF is the subquantum juice, MR is how the subquantum juices impact plant-shape, and traditional old 1920s-style MGF does the rest. Sheldrake did not change any of the MGF part as far as I know, though maybe his mainstream axion research did somehow; I think he just added MR and MF on top, saying that subquantum juices explain MR&MF, then MGF explains the rest. I could be wrong here, we'll have to ask Iantresman or Alfonzo. Anyways, there are two sensible choices methinks, depending on what our decision about Sheldrake-MF versus 1920s-MGF ends up looking like.

some ideas for splitting the BLP page up, into BLP + MF&MR&MGF, or even better, into BLP + MF&MR + MGF, so we can clearly separate criticism of the BLP from criticism of their ideas
In one case, we end up with BLP article (including insults aimed at Sheldrake personally and directly rather than at specific aspects of his work... e.g. people saying he sensationalizes science and distorts science in the mind of the public for instance... but clearly distinguishing the BLP, from the BLP's ideas, at all times). Elsewhere, we have a morphogenetic field article, covers the 1920s stuff at the top just like now, with a section at the bottom called 'generalization by sheldrake into morphic fields' which covers MF&MR. And oh, as for why research in spooky "fields" explanation for phytomorphology dried up after WWII... methinks there was this double helix thing, that explained so much it kinda made spooky fields seem, well, pseudo? :-) Alternatively, case two, we end up with BLP article, MGF article (on "real science"), and MF+MR article (on Sheldrake's... ahem... subquantum juice theory) which links to the BLP and to MGF. I think BLP + MGF + MF&MR is the best scenario, because it separates the bio-page from the science-page from the pseudo-science page. That is what David's big concern is, same for PhilosophyFellow, same for TheCap'n. Most of the oxygen of publicity would dissipate, if we can list Sheldrake's highly respectable academic credentials on the BLP-page, with just one paragraph summarizing his pseudo work... and then zip to the MF&MR page for the criticism of his ideas. That in and of itself will stymie the perception that his BLP page is unfairly attacking him ... because his ideas deserve attacking, but must be kept distinct from him as a person (he is personally attacked -- as a person -- much less frequently!). While I agree with you that it is theoretically possible to keep everything proper and neutral in a single huge honking article, I think in practice you have to admit that the current all-crammed-together BLP+Morphic&Maddox+Jaytee&Wiseman+Staring&Randi+Philosophy&TEDx+Gerbic&Coyne article format does not lend itself to productive editing. :-)

some ideas for splitting the BLP page up, into BLP + MF&MR&MGF, or even better, into BLP + MF&MR + MGF, so we can clearly separate criticism of the BLP from criticism of their ideas

In one case, we end up with BLP article (including insults aimed *at* Sheldrake personally and directly rather than at specific aspects of his work... e.g. people saying he sensationalizes science and distorts science in the mind of the public for instance... but clearly distinguishing the BLP, from the BLP's ideas, at all times). Elsewhere, we have a morphogenetic field article, covers the 1920s stuff at the top just like now, with a section at the bottom called 'generalization by sheldrake into morphic fields' which covers MF&MR. And oh, as for why research in spooky "fields" explanation for phytomorphology dried up after WWII... methinks there was this double helix thing, that explained so much it kinda made spooky fields seem, well, pseudo? :-)

Alternatively, case two, we end up with BLP article, MGF article (on "real science"), and MF+MR article (on Sheldrake's... ahem... subquantum juice theory) which links to the BLP and to MGF. I think BLP + MGF + MF&MR is the best scenario, because it separates the bio-page from the science-page from the pseudo-science page. That is what David's big concern is, same for PhilosophyFellow, same for TheCap'n. Most of the oxygen of publicity would dissipate, if we can list Sheldrake's highly respectable academic credentials on the BLP-page, with just one paragraph summarizing his pseudo work... and then zip to the MF&MR page for the criticism of his *ideas*. That in and of itself will stymie the perception that his BLP page is unfairly attacking *him* ... because his ideas deserve attacking, but must be kept distinct from him as a person (he is personally attacked -- as a person -- much less frequently!). While I agree with you that it is theoretically possible to keep everything proper and neutral in a single huge honking article, I think in practice you have to admit that the current all-crammed-together BLP+Morphic&Maddox+Jaytee&Wiseman+Staring&Randi+Philosophy&TEDx+Gerbic&Coyne article format does not lend itself to productive editing. :-)

Along the same lines, I think the *deep* coverage of Dogs-That-Know should be a section on the page about Telepathy (or animal telepathy perhaps... which would include your Jaytee (dog) work), and that the Staring stuff should be over as a special section of the psychic staring effect page. On his BLP page, we just say, title this, year published that, one journalist said quote "thought-provoking", one scientist said quote "epic unfalsifiable stupidity", see also Animal Telepathy#Sheldrake. That's fair to the BLP, and fair to WP:FRINGE methinks. Anyways, my wall-of-text alarm has been beeping for some time, so I'll end with a final note, that I *have* seen you doing the heavy lifting with finding sources, both pro and con, totally fair and square, and do appreciate it. Good stuff, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Your rambling now. We already should have an article on telepathy. I'm not sure the few Daily Mail articles we have on apparently psychic animals are going to be sufficient reliable sources to enable an article on homo/non-homo psi. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the apparent-rambling. The jaytee-subsection of the telepathy article, sure; that's a minor point. Again, the fundamental disconnect, is your adjectives. "Sufficiently reliable". Misplaced Pages does not care, and as editors, we cannot care. "Serious works ... serious research". Again, wikipedia policy is clear. We do not get to pick and choose which sources we report. If the guardian says it, that satisfies WP:NOTEWORTHY, and if some editor, any editor -- whether they suffer from pro-Sheldrake POV or otherwise -- wants the sentence supported by that cite in the article, we cannot elide the sentence nor the cite. Even when, maybe even especially when, we know the usually-Reliable-Source-newspaper was logically factually scientifically-speaking wrong. That's the crux, in a nutshell. This is not truth-o-pedia. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misconception that Misplaced Pages reports everything. It doesn't. In particular, it tends not to report stuff that's clearly WP:BOLLOCKS. There is an editing process, and the Daily Mail, wonderful institution that it is, is not a serious source. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1911 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Evelyn Baring and Robert Muir

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1916 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Henry Woods and Alexander McKenzie

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1922 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to James Mercer and Arthur Hutchinson

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1923 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to William Wilson and Frank Horton

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1930 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to John Stephenson and Charles Todd

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1938 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to John Jackson and William Brown

Charlotte Johnson Wahl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Leo Johnson

Geoffrey Hosking (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to FBA

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1912 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William McDougall

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1918 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ernest Gold

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1920 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sir Robert Robinson

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1924 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alexander Russell

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1932 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Thomas Smith

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1933 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bernard Smith

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1934 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Taylor

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1935 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Read

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1940 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Andrew Robertson

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1941 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alexander Robertson

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1946 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Robert Hill

Peter Addyman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to FSA

Rupert Sheldrake (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chicks

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

A complaint regarding your behavior on the Sheldrake page has been lodged here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Barney_the_barney_barney_reported_by_User:Alfonzo_Green_.28Result:_.29

Alfonzo Green (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Not edit warring. Please explain the NPOV tag in line with policy, especially WP:FRINGE. How hard is this for you? Also note WP:BOOMERANG and in particular WP:ARB/PS which is the funniest case of Boomerang ever, in which Iantresman (talk · contribs) tried to get his bizarre view of mainstream academic thought which he clearly did not understand. WP:HISTORYREPEATSITSELF. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

A warning? that's a joke isn't it? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Removing an NPOV template from the Rupert Sheldrake article, although as we're back to a version now that claims he is a "biochemist" - despite not currently doing no biochemistry, I'm not sure. David in DC (talk · contribs) is trying his best, but is trying to compromise with those who are incapable of contributing effectively. The thread is closed now anyway. I have a lovely personal attack warning for not pretending that the AGF ship hadn't sailed weeks ago. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD's only edit to "biochemist and botanist" was "biochemist and author". This gives me hope. Please read my final edit summary for the day. Please consider following its suggestion.

24 hours from now, please read this diff and see if you can see your way clear to following those suggestions. David in DC (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

My preference is for "author on science related issues, , , . Compromises from this are possible.

What I don't think is acceptable is to describe him as a "biochemist" or "botanist" or "plant physiologist" if

He's not principally notable for being a "biochemist"/ "botanist"/ "plant physiologist"
He's not currently conducting research in these areas

or describe him as "scientist" if there is dispute over whether he is conducting science or pseudoscience (or a mixture of both).

I really do appreciate what you're trying to do David in DC (talk · contribs) but I think you're off the right path; you have a better understanding than most, and have more patience than I do, and I think we broadly agree.

The lead is the key. In the meantime, I'll try to find more reliable pro-Sheldrake sources, it's difficult though. I've spent literally hours sifting through and sorting sources, and even longer on dealing with those who would be deserving of personal attacks if it were not allowed. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:FRINGE is to not mislead readers. Please look at the forest, not the trees. How stupid would a reader have to be to be misled about who and what RS is with the article in its current state? David in DC (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

If your offer is open to me too, I'd appreciate PDFs of the sources you have. My email is ian2knowledge.co.uk and I can handle ZIPs. --Iantresman (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:RPP

I shouldn't have accused you of vandalism. To be honest, you might have accidentally duplicated the whole content in WP:RPP. Fortunately, I restored your request. --George Ho (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

"Left wing bullshit"

You don't seem to have "Email this user" enabled, so it's hard for me to provide the email address you requested. However, if you google the phrase in this heading, you'll find a moribund blog. The email address you request is in the user info there.

The fact that one kind find me that way is one of the signal achievements of my life. :) David in DC (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience sanctions notice

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)