User talk:BSmith821

Welcome!

Hello, BSmith821, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Vsmith (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide WP:reliable sources to support your additions to Wikipedia articles such as your recent additions to panspermia. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also undone your recent edits to Chandra Wickramasinghe because you replaced sourced material with unsourced. Please be careful there and if you feel the sourced material needs replacing, discuss it on the talk page first. Vsmith (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me again :) Regarding your recent edit to talk:Chandra Wickramasinghe: Per Wikipedia custom (and rule) we don't modify another user's posts. You should start a new section at the bottom (per convention and that's where we look for new stuff). The easiest way is to click the New section button at the top, give it a title and state your concerns/discussion points. Then sign your post (simply type ~~~~ at the end and your signature/time/date will be added) and wait for others to respond. Again, provide reliable sources to support your desired changes. Yes, I know this is likely all confusing, but go for it and others will help you figure it out. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Education

This is my proposed correction to the Education paragraph. I have changed his University from Cardiff (where he retired) to University of Buckingham. I have a Letter of Reference in PDF format from the Dean but I am not sure how to upload it. Is there a place where PDF"s can be uploaded so they can be cited?

Wickramasinghe studied at Royal College, Colombo, the University of Ceylon where he graduated in 1960 with a BSc First Class Honours degree in mathematics, and at Trinity College, Cambridge and Jesus College, Cambridge where he obtained his PhD and ScD degrees.[5] He was previously Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge (1963-1973); Professor and Head of the Department of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at University College Cardiff (1973-1988); Professor in the School of Mathematics, University of Wales College of Cardiff (1988-1998); and Professor and Director of the Buckingham Centre for Astrobiology, University of Buckingham, UK.

BSmith821 (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know how to use the pdf of the letter, but surely, if he's been at the Univ. of Buckingham since 1998 (?) there should be some reference available at the university or some publication in that capacity. That he held that position should be verifiable. Vsmith (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will get this from Chandra or the Dean tomorrow. I have asked Chandra to clearly define his employment relationships since he joined Cardiff University in 1988.

Now another subject. What was the purpose of your edit here: User talk:98.245.112.128? That anonymous ip user made a series of edits in March 2011 and is quite unlikely to be using the same ip address now. The ip resolves to Comcast Cable. Your last paragraph there is of concern. Again, you must provide WP:reliable sources for your edits, especially on a biography of a living person. Vsmith (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was my humble attempt to win your trust. My goal was to help you understand who I am , who this academic is, my relationship to him and his mentor Sir Fred Hoyle. over the past 50 years. As you are an American I wanted to give you just a little understanding of why we Canadians and Brits hold the very best Asian academics in such high esteem.

The paragraph I'd like to work on with you first is the one around Creationism v. Darwinism. I plan to argue to you that Chandra is neither a Creationist NOR a Darwinist. In fact he was at some level "used" by the participants in this court case to appear to argue for the side of Creationism. In fact he was there because he wanted to argue the case for open evolution (and debate) of scientific theories. And for the belief that all theories should be allowed on the table for discussion.

The paragraph on the existing WIKIPAGE in no way represents what happened nor his position. It is deeply offensive and inaccurate and needs to be updated to reflect the truth of what happened.

Tomorrow I will present a replacement paragraph which I believe fairly documents this case - if you at WIKI insist you keep some information on this incident on his page. All the best Bill Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by BSmith821 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 15 July 2013

OK here it is - this is a proposed total replacement for the paragraph called : Participation in the creation-evolution debate

Participation in the creation-evolution debate [edit] Wickramasinghe is a respected UK Buddhist and regularly gives lectures to his community on the role of Science from a Buddhist perspective It is not generally appreciated that Buddhists do not believe in God. The Gautama Buddha. like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the “god idea” have their origin in fear The Buddha says: “Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines”- As a mathematician and astonomer. Wickramasinghe has an understanding of the various implications of Infinity. <blockquoteOnce again the Universe gives the appearance of being biologically constructed. and on this occasion on a truly vast scale. Once again those who consider such thoughts to be too outlandish to be taken seriously will continue to do

so. While we ourselves shall continue to take the view that those who believe they can match the complexities of the Universe by simple experiments in their laboratories will continue to be disappointed>

This quote has been misunderstood as support for the idea of “god-like” intervention in the seeding of life (on earth, in the galaxy or even in other galaxies). In fact what Wickramasinghe was expressing was two fold : 1. it was a message to his fellow physicists that it was time to bring the disciplines of biology into the world of astrophysics and chemistry 2. it was his message to chemists that it was only though arrogance that man thought he might be able to “create life” in a laboratory. As a Buddhist his own personal belief is that the age of the universe might just be sufficiently ancient that somewhere, just once, the highly improbable conditions for the evolution of an “organism on the edge of LIFE” actually happened. This moment, which Wickramasinghe attributes to the laws of probability, not to "GOD" saw the start of evolution which soon (using Darwin's theories) delivered viruses and nanobacterial. (i.e. for the delivery of an “organism on the edge of LIFE”. He was simply expressing a buddhist’s perspective to Life and its mysterious first seeding. From that moment Panspermia takes over and hypothesizes a promulgation of this “seed of life”.

In the 1981 scientific creationist trial in Arkansas: Supporters of Panspermia, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, who have a belief that the universe (perhaps multiverse) is ageless, evolved a theory they called Cosmic ancestry. This is quite separate from Panspermia. In his desire to help his "supporters" argument Wickramasinghe agreed to attend and support the "creationists" argument against evolution. Wickramasinghe presented a passionate argument for his own vision which was not "creationism" nor "Darwinism". It was a clear plea than the future should embrace open debate of alternate hypotheses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.204.240 (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again - references needed, especially for the quote. What reliable source says this? Without references you aren't going to be able to get your desired text into the article. And please log in to your account to edit. Vsmith (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient and yet relentless with me. I am still struggling with the GUI and the process. I am determined to understand and then master the style you require - especially the issue of citations on any contentious issues. Please be assured I am determined to get to be trusted and be a help for you.

When you point out a need for additional citations etc, how long do I have - ie I will never ignore your request but it can take days. I am starting out with quite a complex paragraph on the Creationism v. Darwinism section. So by the time this meets your standards and reflects what I believe is a much more accurate description of this issue, could take 2 weeks. OK? BSmith821 (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I turned the GUI thing off (you can too - click on preferences up at the top of any page when you are logged in) as it seemed rather unhelpful, but thought 'twas just me being set in my ways :)

There is no time limit, however, seems to me best to start with references rather than trying to find references to fit/support what I've written. And it's not me you need to convince — I've only edited that page recently and it wasn't on my watchlist until then. The ones you need to consider are those who have done most of the recent work on the page. That is why you need to discuss your concerns on the article talk page. Vsmith (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring the Whole wiki webpage for Chandra Wickramasinghe

FYI (for the Wiki editors) I would like your guidance and support for the following plan. Chandra is now in his 70's and has become a communicator and popularizer of astrobiology and physics. He has written many books about physics and related topics; he has made frequent appearances on radio, television, and film; and he writes extensive online blogs and articles. He has just completed a documentary for the Discovery Channel which you will be seeing very soon.

I have discussed with him the importance of WIKIPEDIA. He is however an academic. I do not think he quite realized how important WIKIPEDIA has become. This is the reason he and his associates have avoided trying to "right the wrongs" on the current Chandra_Wickramasinghe page.

Rather than providing small changes to the page everyday over a few weeks as I was planning. I thought it would be better to help him create a personal website which is more focused on this role as communicator. I will then work with him to craft a WIKIPEDIA-LIKE page - which will be a WIKIPage more in the Michio Kaku style. Once this is complete (say 2 weeks from now), I will show it to all the WIKI editors and get support for this new page. I am very much aware that the goal is to make sure everything is accurate and that citations are provided throughout.

Guidance on bio pages is appreciated.

I first learned of Dr Wicramasinghe, when I took a distance learning class from MIT in the early 1980s. I thought enough of his radical ideas to write me a simple letter thanking him for his work. He wrote me back, a fantastic letter, and the titles of a few books for further study. I read all of them, and it was all very very interesting, but I moved across the world twice, and left all the books and correspondence behind. A few years ago, I wrote his secretary, about checking a few facts about his biography, and he had recognized my name, and wrote a funny and fantastic email. I would love your work and your efforts to make my friends Wikipedia page reflect the truth for my friend Dr W, from Dr. C. 170.75.140.124 (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have finally realized what you meant when you asked me to put the 4 tildes at the end (duh) Sorry for my slow learning. BSmith821 (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ALMA

Hello Bill, could you please give me a link to the ALMA project to made mention of?

I appreciate your learning curve in Wikipedia and will be happy to help you understand the essential requirement of citations or references, please take a look at the links below to familiarize your self with the requirements stated by Vsmith:

WP:VERIFY - In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.
Reliable WP:SOURCES - Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
WP:Neutral point of view - Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV).
As an advocate of Wickramasinghe‎, you have to pay very close attention to avoid WP:SYNTHESIS - Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

If you need additional help from someone else not involved in this article, you can create a new section here in your talk page, pose your question and then paste {{helpme}} and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the best 2 ALMA links : first is a great video. I am talking to Anthony Remijan. http://www.almaobservatory.org/en/visuals/videos/477-video-interview-and-animations-with-dr-anthony-remijan-of-the-national-radio-astronomy-observatory http://www.almaobservatory.org/en/press-room/press-releases/476-astrochemistry-enters-a-bold-new-era-with-alma- Canada is heavily involved and much ALMA management is done from Hertzberg Institute in my city Victoria BC :-) BSmith821 (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BSmith821, I shall continue with my other work in astrobiology-related articles. A word of advice: STRONG passion, personal beliefs, and personal involvement with a subject can interfere with the basic Wikipedia requirement of WP:Neutral point of view. Your edits (and deletions) will be as good as the published references cited, or lack of. Don't take it personally, but the edits from the other editors involved seem to me to be correct. Myself, I think Wickramasinghe's work on extraterrestrial life is quite WP:FRINGE and most of it is not peer reviewed, but here is neutral guidance in your favor: In addition to the links I showed you above, you can review Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for further guidance. Good luck. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BatteryIncluded point of interest. You write : Wickramasinghe's work on extraterrestrial life is quite WP:FRINGE . It seems to me this is just your opinion. The basic proposition that "Life is A cosmic Phenomenon" is statistically more likely true. ie it is much more likely that life was incubated elsewhere on one of the 144 billions habitable exoplanets than here on earth.

ie the fringe "attitude" is that life was incubated here on earth.

BSmith821 (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bill. I want you to avoid disappointment, as I have seen this kind of fervor in Wikipedia several times before, and it may not end exactly as you wish. I appreciate that you are still getting a hold of the WP:Synthesis and WP:NPV concepts to be used for editing, and in addition, please review WP:FRINGE: "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is." [...]

Please realize that the overwhelming expert scientific community -while open to panspermia- do not accept the "evidence" so far presented by anyone for extraterrestrial life. There is no way around that, and that is the current status. So, in Wikipedia, a very brief mention of Wickramasinghe's current take could be all that can be presented in this article. The good news, and what I recommend, is that you may be more successful at expanding on Wickramasinghe's ideas on Wickramasinghe's biography page without the limitations of the FRINGE policy. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio note

Your recent addition to Panspermia here was little more than a copy/paste of several sentences in the National Geographic newsblurb. Plead read WP:Copyvio and quite simply: don't do that. Vsmith (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I understood the way even phrases cannot be used from cited articles, I re-wrote the whole paragraph using my own words. I have posted it at the Talk:Panspermia page to get confirmation it is now OK and OK to post. Perhaps you could look and comment.

Thanks for your guidance.

Vsmith User:BatteryIncluded

BSmith821 (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite

I would indeed like to meet him, but San Diego is too far away... I did live there back in 1964, for 3 months, place known as MCRD - or should I say survived 3 months there. (MCRD = Marine Corps Recruit Depot) Cheers :) Vsmith (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hypotheses: medical vs scientific

In your recent edit here to Chandra Wickramasinghe you added the Wikipedia article evidence as a reference re: the difference between medical and scientific hypotheses. Two problems: first - that article doesn't discuss that "difference" (doesn't discuss the phrase "medical evidence" though perhaps it should with solid references); and secondly - Wikipedia article are not WP:reliable sources. You need to find a reliable reference which discusses the difference. Vsmith (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Vsmith[reply]

Very weird. Yesterday this definitely define the difference between medical and scientific hypotheses. It's just "gone". There is now no use of the word "medical" as you point out. I know you are skilled at checking "history". Can you confirm it was recently changed . Or am I going insane.

BSmith821 (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can easily check the history of any article - just click the "History" tab at the top of any page. As for the evidence article, I see no change that removed "medical" in the last few weeks, the majority of edits over the last couple months are vandal edits and their reversion. Were you thinking of some other article? Vsmith (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note, if you place a colon as the first character of your post it causes an indent which helps keep track of what you are replying to. Two colons produce double indent and so on. Not required, but helps for following discussions. And add your sig (the 4 tildes) following the punctuation of your last line. Just helps reading and following talk pages. Vsmith (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

talk I have checked the history as you suggested and indeed can find no trail showing any changes. Very strange. I then tried to track down anything (clearly written) on Scientific v. Medical . But was unsuccessful. As you are an expert wikieditor I wonder if you can find anything I can cite. There is no question that "Evidence based" Medical hypotheses have been a fundamental part of medicine for a long time. This is for sure the issue that in publishing a scientific hypothesis in a top medical journal, even though it was just a letter, he or the editor should have explained to the medical readers the difference. I would greatly appreciate your finding me a good simple citation on this.

BSmith821 (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio again

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. : I have again removed a blatant copy/paste copyright violation which you added to panspermia here. Copied from dictionary.reference.com. You can be blocked for that kind of carelessness. Vsmith (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify a bit for you. I know that you did provide the source for the content, however, if you feel the text from the source needs to be used as is, then it should have been presented as a quote - which it was not. Additionally the website used would likely fail WP:RS as it is just a dictionary website and they are a "dime a dozen". Vsmith (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI-notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really now...

You recently [1] removed sourced content and replaced it with copy/paste of five abstracts of papers published in a fringe webjournal. That series of edits was blatant pov pushing as well as being problematic re: WP:Copyvio. That kind of editing is unacceptable. Vsmith (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I did not know that one could not include "abstracts" when summarizing experiment results. I did also "cite" the papers. Note these are peer reviewed. Should I then re-word the abstract conclusion and cite the papers?

BSmith821 (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did not know ... hmm. Well, did you happen to notice that this is an encyclopedia we're writing -- not an internet forum or chat. Yes, we re-word and cite, we don't do copy-paste. However, that is only part of the problem as you also removed cited material that just happened to be critical of the work covered by those abstracts. Do you really think that was appropriate? Vsmith (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am redoing this section and just saved the early version. I will for sure leave in alternate views. There are quite a few incorrect statements. I am gathering proof. From now on I will complete the whole proposed section, and then post it in the talk area for your comments. Is that what you would support? BSmith821 (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caps

Answered your query regarding caps on my Talk page. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Wickramasinghe

Please halt and revert your current edits to Chandra Wickramasinghe. I believe they are very strongly WP:NPOV. You have been warned about this a number of times. You are stripping out the material necessary to balance CW's fringe views. If you can't understand this, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Also, Bad Astronomer is hosted at Slate. It is a newsblog, and entirely citable, per WP:BLOGS#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs.DanHobley (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC) FYI - additional, public comment on that talk page. DanHobley (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please ask you once again to restrict your comments to the Panspermia article Talk page, rather than comments on the various contributors Talk pages. Your present method of replying makes it difficult to keep track of developments on the article. Whilst I accept your comment/apology regarding "racism", they were still remarks that should not have been made. You have again spoilt the discussion by referring to "yanks", which can be offensive. If you had bothered to check the user pages, you would have seen that I am from, and still reside in, the United Kingdom and that - at least - one other contributor is also British.

The fact remains that your statement on your User page and your contributions to the Panspermia article seem to be pushing the views of Wickramasinghe, rather than the neutral tone that Wikipedia rightly requires. We certainly do not need yet another Panspermia article, just one that is balanced - which is what BI is attempting to do. I ask you again to please abide by the conventions of the community. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

I note that you have started to edit the Panspermia article again. Please be aware that you should not sign your contributions as you have with your latest edits, signing is for the article Talk page. Please also be aware that your contributions should be neutral, have the appropiate references and not be biased to one particular individual. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed an edit re:SETI here as it contained a copyvio from this webpage. You copied a sentence from that page and left out "if it exists". Vsmith (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

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

[[List_of_Migratory_Bird_Sanctuaries_of_Canada | Victoria Harbour Migratory Bird Sanctuary (est. Oct.27, 1923]]. This was established to control hunting in 1923, and now harbours amazing

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

the large number of [[Archaeological_site | archaeological sites]] from the SUN to MERCURY (i.e. within the Star park down along the seafront to the mouth of Bowker Creek, all part of an

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:TheWildswithHollyArntzen.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:TheWildswithHollyArntzen.jpg. 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) 02:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Hoyle Shield) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Hoyle Shield, BSmith821!

Wikipedia editor Noyster just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for this contribution. May I urge you to insert any references to independent reports directly relevant to the Hoyle Shield project?

To reply, leave a comment on Noyster's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, BSmith821. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emails about Edward J. Steele image

Hi BSmith821, you have already uploaded again and added back to the article Edward J. Steele so from English Wikipedia side things are ok. However WikiMedia Commons is separate from Wikipedia and compiles with copyright strictly. The same notice as before has been put on your talk page on commons commons:User talk:BSmith821 that you need to look at. If you haven't enabled email notification over on commons I suggest doing so HERE so you know when a tag is placed on you talk page. The notice explains what the problem is and how to address it, and also links to more information (the blue links). You can also ask the user who posted the notice (see just under the notice the name has a 'talk' link next to the name). The trouble is the image is already published elsewhere on copyrighted sites such as here and there is no way to tell the claim of on honest person saying "Dr Steele has sent me the image" to someone just saying that and taking it from the internet (unfortunately this happens a lot). Also copyright of images belongs to the photographer not the subject so he may not own the copyright to use this image himself. This may seam odd and annoying but its the law and Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons have to follow the law. You can also ask for help at the commons help desk here. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hoyle Shield for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hoyle Shield is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoyle Shield 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) 13:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, BSmith821. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Hoyle Shield, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. It appears from your username that you may be intimately connected with the subject of the article that you created. Just be aware that Wikipedia has strict guidelines about how a person who is connected to a subject should proceed. I would also remind you that proposals which are outside the WP:MAINSTREAM academic thought are subject to our WP:FRINGE guideline, and it appears that nearly all of your contributions may need to be reviewed in light of that. jps (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Edmund Storms

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Edmund Storms requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/bio_storms.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Edmund Storms. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. reddogsix (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Storms

Hi BSmith821. In response to your email, the above named article was speedily deleted per CSD G12 as an unambiguous copyright violation. Specifically most of the article was a copy and paste of Dr. Storm's academic profile page. While an occasional direct quote is allowed with citation, we do not permit direct copying of large amounts of text from any source that is not within the public domain. The article has not been creation protected, so you are free to recreate it. However, please be careful not to copy text from other sources. You may paraphrase, but the words must be your own and as always citations must be provided to reliable secondary sources in order to affirm both the accuracy of the information as well as establish the encyclopedic notability of the subject. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The new version of the article also had copyright violations, with content copied from http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/35pdf/StormsTheoryPressRelease.pdf and elsewhere. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am struggling to get a good portrait uploaded. I asked him to email image to permissions-en@wikimedia.org No response. BSmith821 (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edmund Storms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Fe. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion

Responding to your email. I did not remove any content from Cold fusion; it was removed by a different editor. I did remove some material from Edmund Storms which was copied from http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/35pdf/StormsTheoryPressRelease.pdf this press release and http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/bio_storms.php. The reason for the removal is that we are not allowed to include copyright material on Wikipedia without the copyright holder's permission and release of the material under a compatible license. If the copyright holder wishes to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an easy way for me to see what words were deleted so I can reword them?

BSmith821 (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that New Energy Times is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. It has also been extensively spammed. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per your question. Try the "View History" tab near the top right of the article, then under the edit where you added the material, or the edit where it was removed, click "prev" on the left side. Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BSmith821 (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BSmith821 (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC) FYI Status of #LENR Research in Japan : https://plus.google.com/+BillSmith104/posts/c8BupJuvpEW[reply]

BSmith821 (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Steele

Please advise on why the portrait keeps being deleted. I thought I had the copyright all OK'd

BSmith821 (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add polemic tot he debate, but do feel free to advocate keep or delete, and to add sources to the article, especially sources putting his ideas in context (since the main problem was neutrality, with very few sources describing the reality-based perspective that his support of Lamrckism is bonkers). Guy (Help!) 19:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

?Please don't add polemic tot he debat: ?? please clarify

Thanks for this guidance. BSmith821 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this article should not be deleted then just say "keep" and give a one or two sentence reason why. Your "missive" really added nothing to the debate (but was no less nonsense to my mind as some of the arguments used to ask for it's deletion).Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might now have been allowed to "not be deleted"? Correct. I am too late to add my two-pence to the "Please don't Delete" group? I will be seeking help to improve it from Oz Librarian.

24.69.170.250 (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Storms

Hi there, I have been following this article. I think you have done some good work especially since Diannaa trimmed out the copyvio material. I see you added a good quote, but you need to cite it to something like an article, book or other. Just putting his name that he said it is not acceptable by itself. Thank you. Keep up your good work. Happy editing! Antonioatrylia (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to advise you how to make a less problematic statement on the Steele AfD, but saw this. You know Storms is a cold fusionist, right? We have had a bit of trouble with them in the past (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2). My nest friend worked in Fleischmann's lab during the cold fusion debacle. Promoting the work and beliefs of cold fusionists is citing YouTube is inadvisable. It's also important to keep an eye on the provenance of sources - cold fusionists have a long history of publishing in journals which are not actually close enough to the physics to exert effective peer review, and they also have their own journals which are largely uncritical. I recommend approaching this with extreme caution, and in particular not stating any cima made by Storms in respect of cold fusion without attributing it. We can say that Storms claims X, but not generally that X is true based on Storms saying it. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you shouldn't say "Storms claims X" per WP:CLAIM, but I think that people generally agree that his views should be attributed. Something like "Storms said X", or "Storms reported X". Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The issue is that minority views have to be contextualised. The corollary is that majority or supermajority views don't need to be attributed to individual experts, and actually should not be. A bugbear of mine, since defenders of quacks will often try to attribute the consensus view, e.g. "according to Edzard Ernst, homeopathy is nonsense", rather than "homeopathy is nonsense" sourced to Ernst. I thnk WP:ASSERT or WP:YESPOV might be the relevant guidance here, but I could be wrong. Guy (Help!) 12:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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 that 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.

Note that the Rossi e-cat is also covered by this, as it's also fringe. Very, very fringe. Guy (Help!) 19:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In 2017/2017 we are moving into a declassification phase. Even without declassification the funding of LENR is now considerable. Take a look at my collection of articles and references. :

[[2]]

My research and advice from Canadian Defence Scientist is that several production devices are proven and being rolled into the market place for mass production in 2018.

BSmith821 (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. These "production devices", e.g. the Rossi "e-cat" are generally considered to be delusional at best, fraudulent at worst (nice discussion here and here). Regardless, the history and profile of cold fusion is such that any change will have to rely on high quality scientific sources on a par with the Nature paper that started the whole thing. e-cat world, new energy times and the like are True Believer sources and unreliable. They are the equivalent of citing the Discovery Institute as a source for changes to the scientific consensus on evolution. Cold fusion is considered a prime example of pathological science, and let's not forget how many people claimed to have observed n-rays before that claim was busted. And let's not forget either where the burden of proof lies here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things for you to read:

WP:RS. There are a number of sources you've added that fail this, including new energy times, i-sis, the lamarck blog and so on.
WP:FRINGE covers fringe science and pseudoscience, which includes cold fusion, Lamarckism and the like.
WP:PRIMARY discusses when to use primary sources. Much of what you've written is teased out from such sources, and I think you need to look at WP:SYN as well.

All this is actually quite normal when people come to Wikipedia form an academic background: we are not like academic publishing, we do not permit an individual editor's knowledge to override the consensus of sources (i.e. we can't be the place to prove science wrong), and we don't allow novel thought, we can only reflect arguments made elsewhere. In these areas especially, academic journals are preferred. But even that's a minefield, what with predatory open access publishing. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guy has a valid point, you can put whatever lunacy you like in an article, as long as it is backed by RS. What you "know is irrelevant, it is what RS say that matters.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Guy is correct, it is very important to understand the policies that he has written above before advocating for a massive change to the article. We have to reflect what other reliable sources say, and accept that the consensus (even if we disagree with it) is what the article should reflect. Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point is my efforts is to document where LENR is in May 2017 : This may guide you :

The Promise of Controlled Nuclear Fusion Part 19 Posted on 23-Sep-16 by admin There have been further significant developments in LENR since my last report and perhaps the most important in terms of its academic respectability is that the prestigious Aarhus Nano Technology University in Denmark will be partnering with the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project, to conduct open science research into LENR. This was explained in detail, together with some history, by MFMP project leader Bob Greenyer during his presentation to an invited group of interested persons in Silicon Valley, fully half of whom were Venture Capitalists(!) The project will be overseen by a professor of Chemistry, Kim Daasbjerg. One graduate student will work on the project full-time and another part-time.

So this will be the arrival of a new generation of “serious academic muscle” to LENR, both in terms of qualified manpower and professional laboratory facilities. By itself, it may not yet herald the “tipping point” that might finally neutralize Professor Price’s Reputation Trap but, combined with another report, this time from Japan, it may. In this, researchers in the Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS) Department at Tohoku University, Japan have reporting successful production of excess heat in experiments that are apparently still ongoing. Most importantly, in this paper (translated by LENR stalwart Jed Rothwell), they claim to have developed a process that is 100% reproducible. If the claim stands up, it will answer the long standing objection of the LENR skeptics – that the effect cannot be consistently reproduced. If it does result in a recipe that all other scientists (including at Aarhus) can replicate anywhere in the world, it will be “game, set and match”. Granted, some hard core skeptics may then adopt a fall-back position and question whether this particular procedure could ultimately produce industrial amounts of net heat but, if they did, they would be shifting their ground: the Japanese researchers have seemingly demonstrated that the currently accepted laws of Physics have been broken and it will be time to break out the champagne – or perhaps, in this case, the sake!

http://www.thinktankreport.com/2016/09/23/the-promise-of-controlled-nuclear-fusion-part-19/

How do editors feel we should document this status well defined in the above summary.

PS here are Brouillon's list of peer reviewed papers: http://brillouinenergy.com/science/lenr-peer-reviewed-papers/ BSmith821 (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling Someone has just arbitrarily reversed my carefully researched and even more carefully crafted new paragraph.

BSmith821 (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In order to have this seen by a wider audience, please post your question at Talk:Global cooling. Primefac (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OR and RS and fringe

I have reverted your edits to Panspermia as original research because the citations do not refer to anything closely related to panspermia. Please see WP:OR about the requirement for sources that fairly directly refer to the topic rather than making the connection oneself.

In Global cooling as well as OR there was a problem about using a citation to a fringe website rather than to a reliable source. Please see WP:RS. Plus one needs to be careful about the use of WP:FRINGE. Dmcq (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panspermia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia#EXPOSE

These two papers I cited are from two NASA scientists doing the 2 studies on the ISS - on algae and microbe survival in space. Both experiments verify that the entities will survive deep space exposure to cosmic ray - especially the new study which looks at cosmic ray damage to DNA. This is critical evidence for the Panspermia Hypothesis. I have emails from them in which they confirm the experiments support Panspermia. Would you like me to post the emails here?

No we don't expect private emails on Wikipedia. I don't deny that having seeds survive for a while in space is some evidence that things can survive in space. What is missing is what you got the email for. We can't stick those emails in as they are not in a reliable source. If they had said something along those lines in the papers that would be fine but they didn't. Dmcq (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So would a quote from them (on email to me) be agreeable? They told me they did have a clear Panspermia citation in the paper, but were asked to remove it. Someone doesn't like Panspermia. It's become mainstream now so it is important to record this.

Don't forget the edit is WITHIN a whole section (ISS/EXPOSE) talking about ISS experiments. This is already ON the "Panspermia Page". All I am doing is documenting the result of experiments already described there.

Please see this is reasonable to document the results. BSmith821 (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will allow you to support my 2 references : http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/morning-glory-seeds-are-tough-enough-interplanetary-trip?et_rid=34980468&et_cid=1303806

BSmith821 (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I want to do is add these two citations into the EXPOSE paragraph.

175. Tepfer, David; Zalar, Andreja; Leach, Sydney. "Survival of Plant Seeds, Their UV Screens, and nptll DNA for 18 Months Outside the Intenational Space Station". Astrobiology. Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. June 2012, 12(5): 517-528. doi:10.1089/ast.2011.0744 176. Tepfer, David; Leach, Sydney. "Survival and DNA Damage in Plant Seeds Exposed for 558 and 682 Days outside the Intenational Space Station". ASTROBIOLOGY. 17 Number 3, 2017. doi:10.1089/ast.2015.1457

BSmith821 (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the start of WP:OR "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources" If some sort of connection was not made by the source then it can't go in. We can't do our own research, only report the connections others have made. It doesn't have to be a peer reviewed source, a reporter for a reputable newspaper for instance could write about it though then it would only qualify for inclusion as an alternate view later on in the article. Dmcq (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just read a bit more of that panspermia article and it certainly is full of OR where people have just grabbed stuff and stuck it in to support their ideas rather than the source talking about it. If the topic of the article was something about survivalship in space that would be fine. I don't see any way of changing the topic to that rather than the idea of panspermia itself so I do think there is a real problem there. There might be some way of saving the work in some other article instead. I'll have a look and see if there a way around the problem there. I am afraid this is what happens sometimes to articles on ideas people like to latch on. Dmcq (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global Cooling

Which are the fringe references? I provide 5 references all reputable sources. You have removed the 5 so I cannot double check why you think these are fringe. The intent was only to use credible scientific journals and mainstream media. With your OK I'd like to undo and take screen image so I can go back and study what you mean and which one's need replacing.

BSmith821 (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I am not a climate change denyer. I am simply trying to document a point of view that is extremely interesting and has great importance in the whole debate.

BSmith821 (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Principia Scientific International is run by John O'Sullivan and caters for cranks. It has a large leavening of reasonable stuff that it scrapes from legitimate sites like the bbc to make it superficially okay and get clicks, but basically it is there to exploit conspiracy theorists. Dmcq (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looked up John O'Sullivan on the web and got this bit about him [3] Dmcq (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you send me my citations 1-> 5. I did not think to keep copies.

BSmith821 (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For my record this is what you removed :

Global cooling is the alternate hypothesis to Global warming. The hypothesis is proposed in several peer-reviewed papers including the most notable one by Dr. Khabibullo Abdussamatov, the Russian space scientist, Head Of Space Research Laboratory Of the Pulkovo Observatory in Russia. [1][2]

(quote) "The onset ot the deep bicentennial minimum of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is expected in 2042±11 , that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years - in 2055±11

A former climate modeller for the Government's Australian Greenhouse Office, Dr David Evans, concurs saying Global Cooling Starts in 2017.[3] The cooling of the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) has already impacted the cryosphere in the northern AP . This includes observations of a slow-down of glacier recession and a shift to surface mass gains of the peripheral glacier. Also Observed has been a thinning of the layer of permafrost in northern AP islands. [4]

The significance of potential global cooling to remote communities in places like Canada has resulted in renewed interest in this hypothesis.[5]

Thanks for your help. Even though it is painful.

BSmith821 (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the top of the page for an article you'll see tab "View Histoy". If you clickon that you'll see when your last contribution to the aticle was. Here is a link to that version [4].

The article was about the global warming idea in the 1970's, but I can see that there is evidence for a new fringe idea as per WP:FRINGE which there probably should be something about. Wikipedia has to treat things as fringe until it gets as accepted as being some sort of possibility by most of the people working in an area, and global cooling certainly does not satisfy that. The paper "Recent regional climate cooling on the Antarctic Peninsula and associated impacts on the cryosphere" looks like actual good science and a link to global warming has been made by other sources. In general in Wikipedia it is good to wait for a proper critique of what things like that really mean rather than jumping to conclusions to match a bias. For instance there the large amount of ice deposited into the sea by melting glaciers has increased the sea ice and reduced temperatures there - but that is hardly any demonstration the cooling is permanent there or that cooling is global!

The stuff by Khabibullo Abdusamatov looks cranky and he isn't a climate scientist and hasn't done any modelling but he managed to get it through a peer review, and Dr Chris Evans hasn't produced a peer reviewed paper in this area just talked but his credentials are good enough. That's all reasonable stuff to put into a article about a fringe topic but it isn't good enough to stick into the lead of an article as though it is in anyway generally accepted. See [5] for example as an example of how it is viewed generally. Wikipedia articles must show the stuff against such fringe ideas prominently and not make out that they are in any way generally accepted. Dmcq (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, BSmith821. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, BSmith821. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]