User talk:OffTheFence

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Shot info (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * I got into a muddle with my first couple of edits on a talk page and ended up signing them twice, but I don't think I have forgotten to sign any. Could you show me an example that you think is me, please.OffTheFence (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome to wikipedia. You and I may have different points of view on homeopathy, but I hope that we can be gentleman and follow wiki policies. I hope that we can also assume good faith WP:AGF.  Because you've come on to the scene here at a similar time that some previous editors who followed me around were blocked for sockpuppetry, I hope that you have learned (or will learn) from their mistakes.  DanaUllmanTalk 06:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. I do not edit under my real name, because my contact details are in the public realm and when I first started engaging with members of the alt.med. community under my real name a couple showed unpleasant stalking tendencies so I retreated behind pseudonym. I do not edit at Wikipedia under any name other than OffTheFence. As far as I can see you are not being pursued by one individual, but many different people challenge your views because they are wrong.OffTheFence (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I restrict my comments to the discussion pages because I currently have no desire or time to get involved with the minutiae of the stylistic requirements for the articles themselves.OffTheFence (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal commentary and original research
You wrote: "Linde was not a competent judge." That is not for Wikipedia to decide, I hope you understand our policies on WP:OR do not allow us to make judgments on the competency of reliable sources. If you have other reliable sources that are critical of Linde, they should be supplied. I really think your demands upon Dana Ullman to engage in meta-analysis are unreasonable, Linde performed a meta-analysis, and you disparaging him as incompetent does not help matters. &mdash;Whig (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC) This meta-analysis is flawed. Linde also had to publish a correction to his 1997 clinical meta-analysis. We are interacting on a talk page not the article itself. I have no desire to include a formal comment on Linde in the Article.OffTheFence (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is Linde's correction relevant and if so why should we not comment on it in the article? &mdash;Whig (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm afraid I'm not getting the point you are making. I was making an off-the-cuff comment on Linde on the Talk page. If there was a wiki on Linde himself, doubtless this fact would be relevant. In the current context it is just an amusing sidelight.OffTheFence (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I was so intent on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arsenicum_album of Ars alb, that I had not notice that Ullman had elected to make edits to the main article that are definitely not consensual though he claimed in the edit summary that this was the case. "23:52, 21 February 2008 DanaUllman (Talk | contribs) (6,182 bytes) (→Research studies: Changes per Talk page)" I have removed the tendentious material from his edit and made it more NPOV and verifiable. If he has a problem with this then I would suggest that he backs up what he has repeatedly claimed about the Cazin and Linde papers but has failed so far to do. OffTheFence (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * p.s. I find the royal plural pronoun a little nauseating "I hope you understand our policies on WP:OR do not allow us to make judgments on the competency of reliable sources". In wikipedia I am just as much "us" as you are. It is not a secret boys club. It's rules are just its rules, they are not god-given tablets of stone. Clearly in the handling of material from scientific journals they are hugely deficient. As I have said elsewhere, "peer-reviewed" does not equate with high-quality. If something is peer-reviewed but demonstrably rubbish then it is not "reliable" in any sense of the word. If wikipedia's rules cannot cope with that then it is the rules that are wrong not the assessment of the evidence.OffTheFence (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you don't like Wikipedia's rules. You are just as much an editor as I am, but you are a new editor and you do not know the policies very well, as you seem to think that the verifiability policy is optional. It is one of the three foundational policies of Wikipedia, the other two are NPOV and NOR. We (and this includes you if you choose to remain an editor and abide by the policies) do not make judgments about the competency of sources or the truth, these are matters for other secondary or tertiary sources which can be cited if they are reliable and verifiable.

&mdash;Whig (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not that I don't like the rules, but they are ill-suited to the job in this circumstance. If something that is obviously and objectively false can be cited verifiably from a "reliable source" where Wikipedia's narrow definition of reliable means merely that it needs to have been peer-reviewed AND where that obvious falsehood is has not been pointed out by another verifiable reliable source then that falsehood cannot be balanced within he article pages. To put it in Wikipedia's language: an objective falsehood can be both WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABLE, but require WP:OR to demonstrate that it is false. In the instance we have been discussing, no one in the mainstream scientific community would waste their time debunking a trivial paper like Cazin's so it just sits there ignored until someone with a specific agenda picks it up, disregards the normal processes of assessment of study quality and tendentiously exploits it. Wikipedia is simply a bad source from which to derive information in contentious areas, but its rules can be used to minimise the problem through interactive editing and discussion amongst editors. But this does "assume good faith". If an editor wants to deliberately engineer the inclusion of objective falsehoods then the rules are weak at preventing this.OffTheFence (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * p.s. " you seem to think that the verifiability policy is optional". You have confused necessity and sufficiency. Verifiability is a necessity and rightly so. But, it is not sufficient and it can be made to seem sufficient and this is a problem. "do not make judgments about the competency of sources or the truth" Huh? In an article one would not do this unless a verifiable and reliable source could be found for it, but you are getting very close to demanding that we come to these discussions having put all ability to judge the quality of evidence to one side. I would not include material that was not verifiable nor from a reliable source, but I would not deliberately put in anything that I had been shown was unreliable in the normal sense because that is a matter of simple human ethics. Would you add something that you knew to be false in an article by exploiting the verifiability, reliable source rules?OffTheFence (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy article probation notification
You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. &mdash;Whig (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of that, thank you. I was very surprised to find that Dana had inserted the references to Cazin and Linde into the article although no consensus had been reached on them. Have you taken the trouble to warn him that he should not have done this? That is not a rhetorical question. I'd appreciate an answer.OffTheFence (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I find your implicit accusation that my edits have been disruptive deeply offensive. I replaced the word "found" with "claimed". I acknowledged that this was not ideal and told you I had worked that out for myself with you needing to make snippy little comments in the history page. I have inserted the word "reported". You have not come up with any valid argument with that word is not suitable whereas I have produced valid argument that neither "found" nor "observed" is suitable. We have established that your point of view is biased in favour of homeopathy, so please do not pretend that you are an impartial arbiter. If you think I have made a disruptive edit please specify it.OffTheFence (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect to all the interaction policies, I am maintaining my temper with yourself and Dana and have remained civil. I'll apologise for making some jokes if you want. Dana has directly accused me of lying. Have you warned him about that? That is also not a rhetorical question. Particularly in regard to WP:POINT and disruption, I have been carefully treading around these issues: "Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources" and WP:POINT of which there was very obvious evidence already in existence in what was being attempted at that article when I first arrived.  I have explained very simply and politely to Dana that his version of what Linde says is not supported by the actual text of the paper and I have given him the opportunity to retract without making these accusations. Forgive me, Whig, but you do not have the Linde article and are not in a position to judge its content. However I have quoted from it so extensively that you can see Dana is not representing its content accurately. It is more than a little ironic that you are criticising me when I have been trying very long-windedly and gently to explain why he should not use the papers that he has been wanting to use and I have been trying to give him the opportunity to retract.OffTheFence (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I keep ignoring your comments about referring the contentious material over Linde and Cazin to Wikipedia's arbitration mechanisms because unless others have access to the papers then there is no way for them to have a valid opinion as to their content. As I keep saying, Wikipedia's rules are singularly ill-suited to resolving matters such as this. Much better to debate as grown-ups and reach a consensus. That would have been helped considerably if Dana had condescended to answer any of the various simple questions about the content of the papers he wants to cite.OffTheFence (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia dispute resolution is an integral part of our editing process, arbitration is only the last step in that process when other steps have been exhausted. Your disapproval of Wikipedia policies and mechanisms will not serve you well if you wish to continue as an editor. &mdash;Whig (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2008

(UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. Please consider the following hypothetical situation. Suppose that a "reliable" source contains statements that are demonstrably false. Wikipedia is non-judgmental about truth and falsehood, but it does require balancing of viewpoints so that falsehoods are set against their alternative. Overall, this does tend to amplify the apparent significance of minority false opinion, but those are Wikipedia's rules and I don't have an alternative set hidden up my sleeve. But, what if their falsity requires careful reading and interpretation of the source material AND that no other "reliable" source is available which clearly comments on that falsity, probably because the mainstream view has paid no attention to the source and its content? There is thus no balancing view available from the world outside that "reliable" source. If the "reliable" source is proven in discussion to contain falsehoods, but it satisfies the requirements of "verifiability" "notability" "reliability", do you maintain it should be allowed to be cited in the Article space without comment as to its incorrectness or should the Talk page discussion be the place where consensus is reached that it should not enter the Article?OffTheFence (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider further the situation where an editor may vexatiously persist in submitting falsely based material via the mechanism above but because of the effort and time involved to reveal the deception ultimately the opponents may become exhausted and stop making the effort. I don't see a mechanism whereby this tendentious and determined editor will ultimately be restrained. Do you?OffTheFence (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I probably don't want to continue as an editor for exactly the reasons I have described. Balance is a problem where a minority persists in advocating incorrect ideas in the teeth of the evidence. I can do no better than to quote Oliver Wendell Holmes "Do you think I don't understand what my friend, the Professor, long

ago called THE HYDROSTATIC PARADOX OF CONTROVERSY? Don't know what that means?--Well, I will tell you. You know, that, if you had a bent tube, one arm of which was of the size of a pipe-stem, and the other big enough to hold the ocean, water would stand at the same height in one as in the other. Controversy equalizes fools and wise men in the same way,--AND THE FOOLS KNOW IT." And no I don't have an original copy of the "Autocrat of the Breakfast Table" sitting by my keyboard, but even if Holmes were fictitious and even if that book didn't exist, the point being made is valid. A bit like that Aztec thing.OffTheFence (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am going to answer you once. I will not engage in an ongoing discussion about this here, because I have explained it before. If you believe that there is false information that is being presented, find a verifiable, reliable source that criticizes it. We cannot decide what is true or false in many parts of the encyclopedia, for instance is it true that cannabis is an ingredient in the holy anointing oil? I believe so, but many people disagree, and calamus is the more usual translation. As you can see, this is an article that I have had involvement in, and I would invite you to take a look at it in order to understand how I view policy. I treat homeopathy in the same way. I believe it works, many people do not. Both views should be represented by verifiable, reliable sources. Truth does not enter into it. &mdash;Whig (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you have not answered the direct question. I have told you the reasons why no wiki:verifiable or wiki:reliable source may exist to confront some kinds of false information. Are you really saying that if there is false information being presented but no wiki:verifiable or wiki:reliable source to set against it then that information can enter the Article space unchallenged?OffTheFence (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If it will make it easier. let me work through an example that does not involve the currently contentious issues. Let us say that a "reliable" source is being relied upon to present information about the heights of 5 mountains. Say the source reports that the average height is 10,000ft and for some reason this information is vital to the point than an editor thinks it is essential to make. But say there is information in the source that allows it to be calculated by the reader and the average height is 5,000ft. No one else has ever commented on this, but for some reason inclusion in an article of this 10,000ft figure has become essential in the opinion of one editor. What happens now??OffTheFence (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:DR. &mdash;Whig (talk) 09:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raymond_arritt/Expert_withdrawalOffTheFence (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I therefore see no need to alter my inference that you are content to accept fallacious material entering the main article pages provided they adhere to a strict interpretation of the rules and that exhaustion of the opposition is a guarantee of eventual success for a deceptive and tendentious editor in certain areas of Wikipedia content.OffTheFence (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I forgot to ask again whether you had warned him against his accusing me of lying. Have you?OffTheFence (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not the only one!
It's nice to have one's prejudices confirmed, but sad that they should be confirmed in this way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raymond_arritt/Expert_withdrawal OffTheFence (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Whig
Hi OfftheFence, feel free to ignore Whig, he is just trying to push your buttons such that you will snap back at him, and he will then run off to a kind and loving admin crying "OfftheFence was uncivil to me...please block him"... So best not to respond to him, because it's a setup. Shot info (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to second the advice that writing is better than fighting. Wikipedia talk are simply not good rhetorical fora, and engaging people on that level is highly unlikely to accomplish anything. Just accept that there are editors who will scrutinize your every edit with the apparent purpose of finding fault, and that there are editors whose every edit you will feel should be scrutinized with a keen eye to policy. Instead of trying to convince anyone of anything, engage them on the level of building a quality encyclopedia, and cite WP:PROVEIT liberally. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'm going to break off and see wheter DU responds reasonably to my suggested course of action on the Ars Alb page. If he does nothing then I'll make some changes and see what happens. OffTheFence (talk) 16:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Philip Ball
My typo there. Thanx for the correction. I know better and have been in touch with Philip in the past. Orangemarlin previously deleted my inclusion of this reference, even though I thought that I was doing you and him a favor. Glad to work with you on this minor point. DanaUllmanTalk 21:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

7 day ban from homeopathy related articles
Your recent talk page conduct has been disruptive. If you suggest an idea, and there is absolutely no enthusiasm from anybody else, then in future I suggest you drop the idea. Suggesting that specific homeopaths were members of religions, and we should therefore have a section which suggests that homeopathy can be viewed as quasi-religious isn't an especially worthwhile proposal. Wikilawyering the talk exists for proposals, so you can propose whatever you want, and indefinitely continue to present argument is disruptive. In accordance with the conditions stated at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation of which you are aware, I am banning you from all Homeopathy related pages for a period of 7 days. Addhoc (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is untrue that there is "absolutely no enthusiasm". Art Carlson liked the idea provided it was accomplished within the rules. Tim Vickers suggested introducing the comparison with magic. MaxPont said " I doubt that you can find RS that support this without resorting to syntesis. And considering the toxic editing environment here both(!) sides should have solid support before adding new content." and I was looking to see how this might be built. Skinwalker voted against on the basis that it would be "more polemic than descriptive" to which I gave a reasoned answer, which addressed the point adequately. Brunton brought in the idea of conspiracy theories. Whether that represented tacit approval only he/she could say. So, I'm afraid you're wrong and all you have done is give in to Peter Morrell whose own work was picked up by Tim Vickers as consistent with the validity of my proposal. Perhaps you might suggest to Peter that he writes the section himself, indeed I was about to suggest that perhaps one of the pro-hom side prepare a draft version when your ban notice appeared. At least you'll have pleased Peter Morrell. Given that the idea that there was "absolutely no enthusiasm" for the proposed section, which was your ground for the ban, presumably I have a right to appeal. What is the mechanism, please? OffTheFence (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I'm not clear in what way my edits were "disruptive". I was using a Talk page to develop an idea for inclusion in a controversial Article. If you want edits to such pages discussed then you need to give the opportunity for such discussion. OffTheFence (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It does not please me that you are banned and nor did I personally get you banned as you claim. I merely pointed out that acting in the way you did, spamming the talk page with endless drivel, is a good way to get banned on a talkpage for an article that is already on probation. You are lucky not to have an indef block. You pasted up too much talk, you raised too many questions, you refused to back off when nobody really wanted to run with your idea/proposal, you made inaccurate spurious claims and demonstrated a very limited knowledge of homeopathy or its core principles. You also used insulting terms about belief, science and religion. Taken together your postings amounted to time-wasting drivel. Foolishly, I answered your post thinking you knew something. It soon became apparent you are just a typical anti-homeopathy spammer. You should not engage in a topic where your knowledge is so obviously lacking. What is your motivation for doing so? I would not dream of interfering in an article I know nothing about. Why do you think it OK to do so? I will think over your points and I will let you know if anything can be used for the good of the article, which is what a talk page is for, NOT for debating the rightness or wrongness of the topic and rambling all over the place. Peter morrell 15:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a nice stream of personal invective. I assume you have read parts of the Civility policy that I have not. Your assertion that I know nothing of homeopathy would carry a little more weight if you had produced counter-argument rather than just insults. And I am sure that my 7d banning referenced as a reply to you 26minutes after your second incidental commenting on the subject was just a coincidence and doubtless would have happened anyway. Coincidence and causality. Always tricky areas. OffTheFence (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * p.s. "you raised too many questions" So it would seem. Certainly they outnumbered the answers. OffTheFence (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, AdHoc, " Wikilawyering the talk exists for proposals, so you can propose whatever you want, and indefinitely continue to present argument is disruptive." I don't think I understand that bit. OffTheFence (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You are doing here exactly what you did on the homeopathy talk page. It is not my fault that you got banned. You are the sole architect of your own misfortune. All I did was alert you to the dangerous path you were treading. I am not an admin and have not been instrumental in blocking you. Nor do I have any contact with the admin person who blocked you. What I predicted would happen did happen and I take no pleasure whatsoever in that. If you had been more reasonable and less spamming then maybe some of your points could have been dealt with, but you just would not stop the endless flow of rhetoric. It is obvious to me that your knowledge of homeopathy is limited. Dana Ullman has been using & studying homeopathy for 40 years, myself for 30 years. Please don't insult our intelligence and knowledge by pretending that you know very much because you don't or you would not be asking the silly questions or making the cheap jibes that are peppered throughout your ramblings on the talk page. Just because you have been civil does not mean you were not disruptive. I will think about some of the points you raised and see if any of them can be included. That's all I can promise. thank you Peter morrell 19:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Nor do I have any contact with the admin person who blocked you." No, you just placed on record twice the idea that a ban would be sauce for the gander though no one else had done so. Please don't be concerned that I am upset, the situation is humorous more than upsetting. Meanwhile, as to the issues at hand, I don't think wasting a lifetime believing that sugar pills cure disease is a very good basis for judging the claims of homeopathy and as I have already said, your assertions that I do not know what I am talking about would carry a little more weight if you produced some arguments to support your position. I am not insulting your intelligence, I am asking you to employ it in dealing with the issues. It may be that you do not wish to help me obtain a copy of the Article you wrote called "Homeopathy and Religion", but it would show good faith if you would provide the bibliographical details so that I can obtain it. I don't suppose it contains anything embarrassing, but clearly the title is intriguing under current circumstances. OffTheFence (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I will see if I can find that article for you. Saying things like: wasting a lifetime believing that sugar pills cure disease, and similarly offensive value judgements that peppered all your previous ramblings, is NOT a way to inspire respect or civil responses to your requests. I would suggest you adopt a more respectful tone or I shall ignore any further attempts to dialogue. Peter morrell 09:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. OffTheFence (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Careful there, OTF. See WP:BAIT. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Noted. Thanks for visiting me in prison. I don't suppose you've baked me a cake with a file in it. OffTheFence (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Fret not, prison buddy. You've got strange bedfellows. DanaUllmanTalk 22:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The probation looked to have been abandoned, but suddenly it's back in full force. You just never know how these things will turn out. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just made a comment here where I thanked you. Really.    I hope that we can work together more once we're out of prison, now that we both have got tattoos.  DanaUllmanTalk 22:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * On your evidence, you say that a sensible page about the chemistry of potassium dichromate should never include mentions to homeopathy. However, I have to note that Potassium dichromate is not a page on chemistry of the reagent, but a page on all notable uses that have realiable sources of the reagent, and that include Heads on product.


 * What I see as really wrong is pretending to add primary source scientific studies about it's efficacy, since this should go on a page about studying the eficacy of homeopathy remedies.


 * Just saying that homeopathic really has to be mentioned on potassium dichromate, and that there is nothing wrong with that, and that the problem is just that Dana is pushing for too much level of detail on its apparition on the page --Enric Naval (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI
Hi, I thought I had better let you know that I started an ANI thread related to the current discussion at Talk:Homeopathy. You can find it at WP:ANI. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's one way to avoid dealing with the issues. Let me know when you want to tackle the matters of contention. OffTheFence (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The thread is now archived at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive404 --Enric Naval (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ThanksOffTheFence (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Final decision in Homeopathy arbitration case
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to homeopathy, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. User has been banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:MV Victoria of Wight leaving Portsmouth 31st Aug 2018.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:MV Victoria of Wight leaving Portsmouth 31st Aug 2018.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 17:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)