Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:42, 18 November 2013

This is TheRedPenOfDoom's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 10 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

And there is also This archive

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Elli Avram may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Thiagarajan 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:

• | 1990 || '']'' ||]||Thiagarajan]], ], ], ], ]||

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Saif Ali Khan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""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:

• | spouse = {{Unbulleted list|] <br><small>(m.1991–2004; divorced (2 children)</small> <br>] <br><small>(m.2012–present)</
• Saif Ali Khan''' ({{IPA-hns|ˈsɛːf əˈli ˈxaːn|pron}}; born '''Sajid Ali Khan''' in 16 August<ref>[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/saif-ali-khan/specialcoverage/6318120.cms</ref> 1970<ref>{{cite

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Milan Zeleny may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""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:

• | birth_place = ], ]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Trivia??

That's not trivia! Trivia is if I added cast, crew, shooting place, duration etc. This is how it it done in Misplaced Pages (as far as I have seen it) Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I have seen your past discussions with other editors on the same topic. And I totally agree with them and disagree with you (once a film starts you can start an article, so you can add it in the table too, as simple as that. The guideline doesn't state anything like what you said!), but I'm not going to argue with you and not going to undo it again. Tomorrow someone else will come and change it again, because that's how it is done in almost all actors' pages. It is you only who breaks ranks. If it makes you happy, whatever.. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk)

Seen this WP:FILMOGRAPHY? Going to deny this too? That's the example of the style of filmography explicitly given by Misplaced Pages, so it's definitely NOT wrong, and you definitely canNOT change it (whether you agree or not). Thank you! Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And nowhere, it is said that Notes should not be used for upcoming not completed projects. It is up to you to find a guideline that prohibits it, but you won't find one, because it doesn't exist. Hence problem solved, there is absolutely no way you can deny this. I request you to not undo this again. Take care. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Shraddha Kapoor

Thank you for your contribution on Shraddha Kapoor, Shraddha Kapoor had already gone to GA Nomination and had already been nominated, if you disagree anything about the information existed on the main page, you can reassess it. Join the talk page, see the GA template. Start your actions ---- Smauritius 123 12:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

co-evolution of Roxy

"Sheldrake's morphic fields would mean they are not only easy to find, but getting easier to find and getting better at knowing when their owners are coming home to be giving more and more conclusive results!" -- TRPoD @ 21:51

  Well, I'm no phytomorphologist, but I think this is backwards to what Sheldrake would say. He's a big advocate in favor of evolution, and in fact believes that morphic fields are subject to evolutionary pressures (a key separation between him and the new age crowd who believe mystic psychic resonance is forever), and thinks evolving-morphic-fields could potentially help explain super-quick 'punctuated evolution' periods like the Cambrian explosion. Sheldrake's most likely position -- whether authentic or self-serving you be the judge -- is that psychic dogs are *exceedingly* rare nowadays. Dogs were domesticated not-that-many-thousands-of-years-ago, and were primarily then presumably used as they still often are today, as guard-dogs.

  Telepathically detecting the location of humans, and of invaders, would be mildly useful in a modern home... but not necessarily evolutionarily selected for. It ain't like Jaytee or their owner would *die* if the psychic connection failed, right? Whereas, five or ten thousand years ago, having a psychic connection to your guard-dog really *might* conceivably save your life, and would be highly advantageous evolutionarily.

  Nowadays, in the modern world, the main sort of psychic is the jealous spouse: they don't *suspect* when their significant other has been cheating on them, they *know* it. As a countermeasure, the cheating spouse *also* needs to develop a psychic premonition that their angry spouse has decided to come home. If you've ever seen Jerry Springer, or studied the homicide-and-manslaughter statistics, that is where Sheldrake ought to be doing experiments, if he wants to find psychics.

  But it's hard to experimentally pin down such noisy environments rigorously.  :-)   Also, just like the dog thing, over time adultery has lost some of the evolutionary sting, since the Old Testament is no longer enforced, in most jurisdictions. Hope this helps. p.s. For the staring-experiments, Sheldrake ought to use nervous college kids (or maybe nervous grammas) as the stare-ee, and convicted mass murderers as the stare-ers, if he wants to maximize the chances of triggering some buried instinctive psychic behavior. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

thats not telepathy, thats just a recognition that you have married a sleazy horndog. :-) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay *that* was funny, I don't care who you are. Better be careful about insulting canines around Roxy, though!  :-)   p.s. You are morphically receiving an irresistible urge to click this. User_talk:Barney_the_barney_barney#split_BLP_from_FRINGE.2C_without_causing_POV_fork. Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Female novelist argument

Sorry, for prying, but I can't help but notice that you pick some rather strange positions of late in you deletion discussions. The female novelist vs Pokemon is one that I simply find astounding. More so because I am planning on working on both these areas. Would you agree that BLP is a preventative measure that articles on culture like Pokemon do not need to address? And that if Pokemon wasn't a multi-billion dollar industry and decades long success that none of the characters would be notable in the first place? Why advocate to remove content by arguing that other included content is worthless? And if you are sticking to your guns on this, why not make a big push in the area? Afterall, Misplaced Pages lost tens of thousands of articles on novelists and important novels - so much so that even FW's covered ones do not have any coverage - including their writers. I just think you are pushing a position that isn't backed by sound reasoning when you make such claims. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

are you referring to this edit where I am quoting content from the article linked by the previous poster?] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've encountered the same type of argument by another user for composers and asking for deletion because an article deemed less worthy, but heavily sourced exists. Are you taking the quote as part of your argument or just echoing it or... doing what with it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Just emphasizing what the article actually said rather than what the original poster implied it said in support of their position. And that I do agree that Misplaced Pages has a glut of essentially useless stand alone articles about ultra trivial content that require us to spend inordinate amounts of time maintaining at even awful quality levels that exist purely because of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. At 4M+ articles we do NOT need content just because it is content -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh! Okay, I misunderstood. Nevermind... its really late for me and my eyes go on me at this hour. And I find that those terrible quality articles are often grown throughout the years, but I have a plan for 10 of them in the coming year. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Morrisburg Ontario

Dear TheRedPenOfDoom: I read your comment on the above page, but I can't find the copied text to which you are referring. I went back to the earliest version of the page and I still don't see any copying. The only information that is common to both articles are (1) who the town was named after, (2) the fact that the town and the highway were partially flooded by the Seaway project (3) Upper Canada Village, which I added myself, with a reference. Everything else is different, and the two facts in common are pretty necessary parts of the article. If you are seeing something that I have missed, can you please point it out? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Bhagwanji

Just told XrieJetInfo time to stop, you are both past 3RR/ Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Thank you so much for changing the link to reference, I was trying to figure out how to do that. I appreciate your welcome and the info you left on my talk page! Nonnyme (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Notability

Hi, Mr. Red, I was wondering if I came across any non-notable articles that I could consult with you on them. Thanks for your time. Momo Massaquoi (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Momo, you can call me 74, I was just here to leave TRPoD a message, but figured I would swoop in to take a shot at answering your question while I was in the area. There are all sorts of articles that need assistance of various types. I'm currently working on AV-8B, which needs a little fine-tuning, but is already a super-great article. There is a company in Malaysia called Duromac that does maintenance work for the military there, and needs help getting their article started -- we have some reliable sources, but not much else (yet).

  In fact there are a ton of articles in the Misplaced Pages:AfC queue that are waiting to become new articles -- they usually need help, and in particular, some of them are notable, but some are non-notable. You can try your hand there, sorting the wheat from the chaff, and learning about how to create good articles from Anne and Julie and Davidwr and the other AfC regulars, if that interests you.

  What sort of topics do you like? Arts, sciences, humanities, television, music, games... wikipedia has it all. Give us some hints about what you want to try first, and what skills you are trying to learn. Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia. p.s. If you have any quick questions, the best place to get fast answers is WP:TEAHOUSE. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Edits on Kolhapur

Hello Red,

This is regarding the Kolhapur artcle, you said the edits made by me are unsourced, and i know that but not all the edits made by me are not without a reference, plaese, i need more time to get reference at least give me a day to get the reference while please undo your edit so i can update my edit and can get references as possible as i can for my edits to be reliable.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.22.68.6 (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your respounce

Thanks for inviting me, But on other hand No Thanks, as been a veteran member of Misplaced Pages i am familiar with Misplaced Pages Policy and rules. It has been more than One year that i have taken active part but i no more wish no again log in in to my account User:Akshay b patil. Because of the Recent edits on Kolhapur article i made a few edit. I would give you a advice to look previous version of Kolhapur article so, that it will help you in maintaing the article according to the various Misplaced Pages policy. There are some reference in the edits form last one to two years of the article previous version. Any how thanks for help on your edits on Kolhapur.

Thank you

1.22.68.6 (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I am familiar with Misplaced Pages policy of sock puppetry But i really don't care even if i am Banned from any further edit and but jut look after the Kolhapur Article and even if possible try to adopt the article if you have sufficient knowledge about Kolhapur this would be my last edit on Misplaced Pages.

Thank you

1.22.68.6 (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Embedded lists

Hi Pen. Thanks for the edit in Holy Trinity Diocesan High School. Do we have a policy or a guideline to how long, bulleted, unreferenced embedded lists we accept? Best, Sam Sailor 18:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome

I wanted to thank you for your time. I just need to ask you how to finish an article that is in my sandbox. I finished it and want to save it as a regular edit. Do I need to start it on my user page?

Thanks again,

Aida delgado (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

American film categories

Hi. Please don't remove the parent category of Category:American films from film articles, even when there is a sub-cat on the article. Per the parent category instructions "For convenience, all American films are included in this category. This includes all American films that can also be found in the subcategories." This is standard for any top-level country category (French, German, etc). If you have any concerns, please visit the Film Project. Thanks. Lugnuts 13:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Kollywood films

Alright, then you need to remove the source for Thuppakki too, because it says: "Eros International announced the release of financial results for the quarter ending 31st December, 2012. As per the announcement made by Eros, Thuppakki made a total box office collection of Rs. 180 crore (domestic) to become the fourth film to join the 100 crore club in Tamil films". It's clear that Times of India itself took this number from Eros International's press release too. I can find other sources for Enthiran too that quote the gross of 179 crore (http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/-enthiran-clocked-rs-179-cr-111053000078_1.html or http://profit.ndtv.com/news/market/article-sun-pictures-future-on-shaky-ground-146820) all of them have taken it from Sun's press release too. Thuppakki's gross in indeed nowhere near to 180 crores, so let's remove them all I say. As I suggested before the article should be deleted, there are no official figures at all. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow

Is it fair to say that we've now seen an approach that seems out-of-bounds to FRINGE=fighter and BLP-junkie alike? Thanks for cleaning up my clean up. David in DC (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify

Please clarify WHY you deleted what you deleted on this article. because I can't seem to find a GOOD reason for deleting FACTS. https://en.wikipedia.org/LG_Display Yoonchip (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me be more specific. You deleted this sentence "The company provides display panels in a wide range of sizes and specifications for use in TVs, monitors, notebook PCs, mobile products and other various applicatoins." and "currenty operates". Im sorry but its a FACT, how is this inappropriate?

and PLEASE examplain why deleted the product chart under key technolody and products. May I remind you that LG Display is NOT a B2C company but a B2B company. We do not SELL to endusers. last but not least, please, please explain why "www.lgdnewsroom.com" is inappropriate under External links. please. Yoonchip (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Your response to my question was extremely rude. I was confused why you deleted my edits, and thats how you reply back to me? i'm just providing information, NOT advertising. appreciate your damn help! Yoonchip (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, im going to undo most of your edits, because you lacked an explanation. please, have a GREAT day. Yoonchip (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Explanation for change

The comment by the DRV closing administrator is not relevant to the warning on that talk page, as it's no more than an empirical observation that the endorsed final statement was an admonition. It was directed at those who couldn't seem to wrap their head around this concept. It was not an approval of future superfluous nominations, nor did it remove/change any of the validity of the statement. Furthermore, the only point of the admonition/notice/warning on the talk page (and the wording in it) is to attempt to discourage the creation of further superfluous deletion discussions, (especially by editors not familiar with the last 7 AFDs or the standing community consensus) - Note: it does not actually prevent someone from doing so, as it's not moratoria. In other words it's only there to try to stop more of the community's time from being wasted. At any rate, the only possible effect of your change I can see is the further enablement of superfluous/useless nominations by those not familiar with the AFD/DRV/consensus process. I hope this was not your intention. If you still are unclear as to why I've changed the notice, please discuss it with me here before changing it on the talk page again. I'll gladly take the time to further discuss this with you, if you so choose. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 20:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

'academic" support, sounds a lot like barney talking about "serious" research...

  Over at the BLP noticeboard, that is the key hang-up. You and I both know that Sheldrake has very little academic aka scientific support. What 'support' he does have is people like Sokal, who make fun of him, but don't outright call him a terrible man, and people like Bohm and Durr, that don't *disrespect* Sheldrake but have hardly brought him any respect.

However...

amongst non-academic sources...

and most academic sources with four known exceptions...

  Sheldrake is always called a biologist. Misplaced Pages must reflect the sources. You cannot delete the fact that newspapers call him a biologist, from the wikipedia article, just because Nature once called him a pseudoscientist. You know, and I know, that logic dictates he can only be one or the other: 1960 thru 1980, biologist. 1981 thru 2013+ pseudoscientist.

  But wikipedia does not work that way. WP:VALID and WP:FRINGE do not permit you to pick and choose *which* Reliable Sources you want to reflect. They do permit giving more *weight* to academic sources, when in comes to SPECIFIC CLAIMS where their academic field-of-inquiry matters, especially when saying what mainstream-biology means, what mainstream-physics means, what mainstream-christian-theology means, and what mainstream-philosophyOfScience means.

  But you cannot synthesize, and use logic to delete otherwise perfectly valid sources, like the BBC, or like the Wiseman quote where he says "the patterns match". You can give plenty of *weight* to the Nature quote, and in fact get something like my the phrase of choice "biologist-and-now-parapsychologist" right into the very first sentence! You can give plenty of *weight* to Wiseman's indisputable final position that no evidence for psychic phenomena exists. But you cannot delete 'biologist' and ignore sources that say it, just because it conflicts with Aristotelian logic. You cannot delete 'the patterns match' based on some tortured argument about undue weight, and wp fringe, and so on.

  In other words: you cannot save the readers, by writing the truth. You can only save them, by writing the truth, in a way that they can decide for themselves.

  Yes, that means some readers will get suckered. Sheldrake is a master at it. Misplaced Pages is not gonna be able to stop him. Only death with stop him.

  Oh crap... unless his morphic resonance travels through time, and infects future biolo...... dammit, now Sheldrake's got ME spouting nonsense.  :-/

  The sources are spouting nonsense. Misplaced Pages has to reflect what they say. Sorry, I really am. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You're edits

I don't know why you keep reverting my edit at Srishty Rode. What do you mean by the Persondata is used in other processes? What process are your talking about? That Persondata does not appear in the article page. In case that persondata is not used anywhere than it is useless clutter and it should be removed immediately. You must explain what "other process" it is being used or it will be removed. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh sorry. Still I'll like to request you to keep an eye on that Mahabharata TV series article since I'm sure that IP adress will try to again insert unsourced edits. If you can then it will be a big help. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Rangiora High School

Why aren't the past results of the school house competition notable? Olliechick (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Substantiality

Hello! I am wondering if it made sense to start a discussion, if the link to Dungeons and Dragons Wiki at List of Dungeons & Dragons deities might be within the limits of WP:ELNO after all. What would constitute a "substantial history of stability" in your opinion? For my personal interest it would also be nice to know in which way you think the article has benefited from the removal of the link. Thanks for your thoughts. Daranios (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I disagree: Looking through the first 4 pages of a Google search for "Dungeons and Dragons deities", the only one that has as much and more information (but from a different perspective, e. g. mixing published and homebrew information partly without delineating), is Planewalker.com. So maybe we should add those two links, because they provide information that has been banished from Misplaced Pages for notability reasons, but will be interesting to some readers? Or did I overlook many pages? Daranios (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Ahm, so would you object if I (re)introduced these two external links at List of Dungeons & Dragons deities? Thanks for letting me know. Daranios (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Rangiora High School

Why can't I add

making it among the five largest schools in the South Island.<ref>Only larger schools are Burnside High School (at 2550), Hagley Community College (at 1950), James Hargest School (at 1921) and Cashmere High School (at 2344) (all as of August 2024).</ref>

to Rangiora High School introduction? Olliechick (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Would this be a reliable source?

http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/excel_doc/0004/62572/Directory-School-Current.xls Olliechick (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a work in progress in so far as school's data (i.e. rolls, prinicipals, etc.) is constantly changing, so could it be used? Olliechick (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Commons images

For Commons:File:Lucas radebe cropped.JPG and Commons:File:Lucas radebe.jpg, there actually was a bit more you should have done. I've followed through, but for future reference you might want to take a look in the file histories for what I did. - Jmabel | Talk 23:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

But coverage of the Sheldrake/Chopra v. Coyne kerfuffle is

Please reconsider this ill-considered revert. David in DC (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring on Rupert Sheldrake

You seem intent to violate 3RR, please desist. The Dawkins material is well sourced, is notable, and fits snugly under either the Interactions with Scientist or Popular Culture bit. I'm going to put in under Interactions with Scientists instead since you seem to not want it under Popular Culture. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. I wish we could include comments by Dawkins on Sheldrake, but we can't rely on an WP:ANECDOTE, clearly, so we'll have to rely on Rose and Wolpert instead. The complaint is clearly spurious, although it's worth noting that Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) has raised a similar WP:BOOMERANG on WP:3RR/N even though, oddly enough, I haven't broken 3RR. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Some problems about the article of Milan Zeleny I created on Misplaced Pages

(Zhuyuxiang (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC))

Hi~ TheRedPenOfDoom, I have seen your editing on the page of Milan Zeleny and also your comment on this page. Thanks for your attention. I created this page about one month ago but then User talk:Palu posted the copyright violation issue on my page and all the related contents on that page have been blanked.

My question for you is that as for the biographies of living persons, how could I create a biographical page introducing the certain person which is not to be similar with the source book or materials you identified?? I mean the things the person did, his academic research and publications are all fixed and can't be changed.

The FACT right now is first I really get the permission from the copyright holder, Milan Zeleny. He Allows me to post this text and photographs describing the biographical information, professional information and professional publications on Misplaced Pages, the 💕. Actually the point of That Misplaced Pages page I created is to introduce the biography for this Czech-American economist.

Second, Milan Zeleny has already written the Permission Request Letter and sent it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org two weeks ago. But there is no reply from OTRS until now. Milan Zeleny wrote this letter in reference to the template on Misplaced Pages: Declaration of Consent for all inquiries. As for the problem of the modification of the text from source http://ebooks.iospress.nl/Download/Pdf/29019 , Milan Zeleny is copyright holder of the source book. In his Permission Request letter, he said he agree to publish That Contribute and work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License.

Basically, I do not think there is still the copyright issue on the Misplaced Pages page of "Milan Zeleny." The reason is that i did research on the Wiki Donating policy of the copyrighted material and Milan Zeleny's permission letter meets the requirements Wiki.

You say it is based on unreliable third party source and not independent. BUT What I can do toward my original page of Milan Zeleny is that I can re-edit and delete the irrelevant contents, keep the basic facts and make it more concise and neutral~

Thanks for your time. (Zhuyuxiang (talk) 22:26, 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) 00:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)