User talk:Gaeanautes

Thanks for uploading File:Diagram of natural resource flows.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gaeanautes. 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]

Hi Thanks for your interest in climate change denial. I've tweaked some of your edits and just wanted to say "more!" "more!" keep 'em coming NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @NewsAndEventsGuy: Thanks for your kind feedback. However, I don't think there's any puffery involved in describing Aaron McCright as a 'long time student of climate change denial'. I put it there as a neutral description of his credentials in the field, adding credibility to his assessment. The description is also supported by the source referenced. Please reconsider your tweak... Gaeanautes (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

decline, but if you can persuade eds at the neutrality notice board I would go along with the result. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Narh, never mind. Suit yourself. Gaeanautes (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WIT and it’s publishing arm are the subject of substantial criticism. They ar3 associated with journals and conferences that have published junk science, even including creationism. If the author is good, please find a replacement source by them with a reputable publisher. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RzG: I still have no quarrel with WIT Press. I think your crusade against alleged 'predatory' publishers is ripe with disturbing problems. Consider each problem in turn:

• You are compromising the integrity and work of reputed scholars.
• You are disrupting the free flow of information and knowledge, something WP is intended to further. Since when has it become WP policy to throw away sources on the mere suspicion that the publisher involved is 'predatory'?!
• Your advice to 'find a replacement source ... with a reputable publisher' is both anachronistic and futile. Enzo Tiezzi was an Italian physical chemist who specialised in open system thermodynamics, a field of study having close affinity with Georgescu's work. This is the reason why I included the source in the article. Tiezzi died in 2010.
• Another anachronism: Tiezzi's book was published by WIT Press in 2006, while all the controversies of 'predatory publishing' did not take off in the public before 2008. If WIT Press were indeed 'predatory' before 2008, how should Tiezzi have known about it?
• The phenomenon of 'predatory publishing' seems to be limited only to articles published in journals; but Tiezzi's book is indeed a book, so what is the relevance?
• The public controversies surrounding predatory publishing seems to be very inconclusive at present: Librarian and researcher Jeffrey Beall published his controversial list of so-called 'predatory publishers' in 2010, but this list soon attracted substantial counter-criticism. Even more, when one of the publishers on Beall's list demanded a misconduct case to be opened against him, Beall's response was to take the list offline in January 2017?! Since your own crusade appears to rely heavily on Beall's list, I suggest you get better informed about these issues. What are we left with here? In my opinion, we are left with a controversial — and now closed — list, arbitrary allegations against the dubious business practices of this and that publisher, an unsettled misconduct case, disturbing counter-criticism and a lot of confusion, that is what we are left with!

All in all, your deal here seems to be irrelevant, unjust and contrary to the general purpose of WP. According to your user talk page, you are both an experienced user and a trusted administrator at WP, so you obviously outrank me; however, I still think your stance is untenable. I hope we can sort it all out like grown-ups, as you put it yourself. I would very much like a reply to this post, thank you. Gaeanautes (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not doing any such thing. These journals have no effective peer review, so they do not meet our standards for reliable sources. It's that simple. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RzG: I would still very much like to restore Tiezzi's book in the article on Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen. According to the present content guideline on reliable sources, predatory publishing pertains only to low quality articles published in journals lacking a reliable peer review process. But Tiezzi's book is indeed a book, so the guideline obviously does not apply here. What do you say? Gaeanautes (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: I would still very much like to restore Tiezzi's book in the article on Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen. According to the present content guideline on reliable sources, predatory publishing pertains only to low quality articles published in journals lacking a reliable peer review process. But Tiezzi's book is indeed a book, so the guideline obviously does not apply here. What do you say? (I think I got your signature right this time around) Gaeanautes (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd rather you didn't. It would be, I think the only cite to that questionable press on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gaeanautes. 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]

Hello, Gaeanautes. 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]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I see you've been quite active in some things related to the above mentioned pages. I'm pinging you @Gaeanautes: directly to ask for some help. I've started 3 initiatives for these pages. If you could spare some time in the near future, could you please take a look at the proposal and voice your opinion? Of course, if you have interest, time, and energy to participate that would be amazing!

Here are the projects:

1. Talk:Philosophical_pessimism#A proposal for an overhaul of the article — this initiative is already in progress. The idea is to raise the quality of the page by switching it from a mere historical account to a more encyclopedic format.

2. Talk:Philosophical_pessimism#A proposal to split the History into a dedicated page — related to the one above. The historical account is overly detailed. It would be much better to have a dedicated page for the history of philosophical pessimism and leave only a brief history in the main page.

3. Talk:Antinatalism#A proposal to create a dedicated page for Benatar's axiological asymmetry — here, the idea is to extract the axiological asymmetry argument into a dedicated page. This way, a more detailed presentation could be given. In addition, we could expand on the various responses others philosophers made and counters from Benatar. Other pages could have a brief description and link to the details page.

I hope at least some of this will spark your interest! Fantastiera (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]