Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:49, 17 September 2009

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Is Storms RS? What about "heat dissipated into the lattice"?

Enric, I see that you have been discussing the removed material with Hipocrite. He's demanded that I not edit his Talk page for any purpose whatever, and I have no need to do so. I assume this is okay here. If not, please tell me.

However, some things should be said. First of all, Storms is RS, which doesn't automatically mean "unbiased," or "usable for fact" What independent book publication shows is notability. If RS states something, reference may be made in articles to that, it is, by definition, notable opinion; if it's controversial, it should be attributed.

ASSUME BAD FAITH

My edit was REASONABLE and CONSTRUCTIVE bc I brought up important point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.143.184 (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As to undue weight, the guideline method for determining undue weight is to use the weight as it exists in sources. If we do that, and if we require peer-reviewed reliable source on the science, we have a problem: it would, I'd agree, create undue weight, if not done properly, as to overall scientific opinion, which probably remains very skeptical of cold fusion. However, we have, as you know, a major review of the field in 2004 that showed divided opinion, not nearly as skeptical as our article has typically shown. Editors have treated "not conclusive" as if it were "rejected." The two are quite different.

In the case of N-rays, the principal experiment alleged to show the existence of N-rays was conclusively shown to be a result of improper technique (reliance on subjective observation without double-blind). The situation with the original cold fusion report is quite different: there were two basic reports: excess heat and radiation. The radiation was an error, retracted. Radiation is reported, later, at either lower levels (neutrons) or of a different kind (CR-39 detection of copious alpha radiation, though I've been hearing noises that the level of alpha radiation is lower than would be expected.)

But the excess heat findings were never successfully impeached, and we have plenty of RS that indicates that the excess heat finding is worthy of respect; start with the 2004 DoE report, where, when we know that nuclear physicists are about 90% strongly anti-cold fusion (estimate of the physicist retained by CBS), we still had fifty percent (that would be 9/18 reviewers) saying that evidence for excess heat was "convincing." I haven't done the analysis myself, but I've seen an analysis that claimed that, if the nuclear physicists are excluded, the finding would have been 2:1 in favor of excess heat being convincing. Why exclude the nuclear physicists? Just for analysis! One could then exclude the chemists and see what result is obtained: from other evidence, it appears that "belief" in cold fusion is far more common among chemists (and even more among electrochemists) than among nuclear physicists. It's a turf battle, Enric, and the physicists had the money and power. There was hundreds of millions of dollars in hot fusion research at stake.

All I'm saying is that we should tell the whole story, as reflected in reliable sources including media sources. We just need to be clear about what is what; I'm coming to the conclusion that we should fork into at least two articles, one to cover the science (peer-reviewed RS preferred, with summary of the media and other findings from the other article), and the other to cover the history (academic sources still preferred, but increased use of media reliable source.) There is a ton of source on the history: Huizenga, Taubes, many others. We tell only a tiny fraction of the story that could be told, and all this tussle over undue weight is responsible; if we were following guidelines, our content would have expanded; instead, because peer-reviewed RS on the negative side is actually thin, I suspect that, long-term, this has functioned to keep out much adequately sourced material. The encyclopedia is being damaged, compared to what it could be. In no way and in no article should it be implied that cold fusion has won general acceptance, but we should not deprive our readers of knowing what the field is about!

Now, about the lattice absorption of energy. That was a theory given early prominence; in a complete history it should defintely be there, and I do think we should give the history of CF theory, it has evolved, it is not a static thing. But I don't know anyone still asserting that Mossbauer-link absorption of recoil is somehow responsible for the missing gamma rays. The energy in the classic Mossbauer effect is far lower than the energy released by d-d -> He4 fusion, and other mechanisms must be asserted.

Storms does address the Mossbauer possibility, to quote (p.179):

Direct coupling of nuclear energy to a lattice is observed during the Mossbauer process. The amount of energy coupled to the lattice by his process is very small compared to that being released by the cold fusion reactions. No evidence exists to support the belief that this process can couple high levels of nuclear energy. Consequently, a true absence of energetic particles resulting from the reaction of interest must be demonstrated before concluding that direct energy transfer to the host lattice can occur by a similar process.

Other CF theories don't require direct coupling. For example the theory that the lattice sets up conditions to promote quadruple fusion of deuterium to form Be-8 would result in the immediate fission of Be-8 to form two He-4 nuclei at 25 MeV each; these would then transfer their energy to the environment through ordinary absorption. Now, I've been reading that these nuclei would be expected to produce X-rays as they are slowed by the milieu, and it seems the X-rays are missing. (X-rays are reported, but, again, at low levels). It's quite a theoretical puzzle; but the absence of theory is no argument against experimental results. It merely increases their ultimate significance of confirmed, at the same time as it tends to depress efforts to confirm. (If a result is considered to violate accepted theory, then it can be considered probably that there was some artifact; this early skepticism was very appropriate. However, when there are confirmations, that kind of skepticism gets quite shaky.)

The biggest problem facing CF research early on was probably the fragility of the effect. Looking only at excess heat, first, it was only found in a certain percentage of cells. That looked really suspicious. However, the experiment was far more complex and difficult to replicate than the original publicity implied. "Negative replications" were merely examples of samples that didn't show the effect, and those experiments did not reproduce the actual experimental conditions. It was many more years before forms of CF experiments were found that were reliable, that didn't need more than following clear instructions. But there was a class of experiment that got around this problem, and I've tried to assert it in the article, being opposed by your edits. That's the "association" of Helium with excess heat. The article presently says, in the "association section," your version, 4He was detected in five out of sixteen cases where electrolytic cells were producing excess heat.

That is not a description of an association, that was taken from the McKubre et al paper in a part that was about something else. To make that statement an association, an extremely strong one (making it up), it would become, in a run of 16 cells, where five produced excess heat, helium was detected in blind testing in all five cells showing excess heat, and, following the same procedures, not in any of the "dead" cells. That's a very strong piece of evidence that excess heat is connected causally with helium. The statement as it exists in the version you supported far, far weaker, and shows no association at all.

(The report seems to have been written by someone who did not understand the McKubre report.... The strong evidence in McKubre's paper was glossed over, and this weak finding (in appearance) was reported instead.)

From the McKubre paper:

The first and historically most important experiments were performed by Miles et al., to correlate the helium content of gas produced by electrolysis (D2 or H2, and O2) with the average heat excess during the interval of sampling. Because of the very low 4He concentration expected and observed (1- 10 ppb) extensive precautions were taken to ensure that samples were not substantially contaminated from the large ambient background (5.22 ppm). In an initial series of experiments, later replicated several times,55,69 eight electrolysis gas samples collected during episodes of excess heat production in two identical cells showed the presence of 4He whereas six control samples gave no evidence for 4He.

This is an association, and is substantially stronger. That was a very early experiment (I think it was 1989). Much more work was done later. Storms reports what I put in the article in this section, it is a much more comprehensive review of the literature on the topic. I gave the estimation of Miles that the (later, similar kind of) results were due to random association: 1 in 750,000. But what's even more important is the energy relationship established by comparing the energy generated per helium atom found: that's the 25 +/- 5 MeV value that would, indeed, result from d+d -> fusion. Some very careful research has supported this. When the excess heat goes up, the helium goes up, and vice versa.

If we are going to have a section on the association of excess heat and helium, we should show the claimed association of excess heat and helium, not a non-associated figure reported by some nameless bureaucrat who crafted the DoE report (that report is notable, in itself, but it wasn't "peer-reviewed." nor even subject to ordinary publication restrictions! Thanks for your consideration. --Abd (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I told Hipocrite about putting only the explanations that appear on the DOE 2004 final report, and the transfer of heat to lattice appears there (although we shouldn't it to Storms, for reasons outlined at Talk:Cold_fusion#How_much_weight_for_Storms_book.3F and Talk:Cold_fusion#Removal_of_Storms_material.). The Mossbauer effect was already rejected as an explanation in the DOE 1989, page 24 or so, in one sentence, and in Goodstein.

The problem with the DOE 2004 report is it says that the reviewers are evenly split in the evidence, but then it says that "Those reviewers who accepted the production of excess power typically suggest that the effect seen often, and under some understood conditions, is compelling" not that they found all the evidence compelling just the one meeting those conditions, and then it cites all the reasons given by the non-convinced reviewers, and then it says "Most reviewers, including those who accepted the evidence and those who did not, stated that the effects are not repeatable, the magnitude of the effect has not increased in over a decade of work, and that many of the reported experiments were not well documented.". They found a lot of problems with the evidence, and they only found it compelling under certain conditions. The final paragraph of that section cites two-thirds unconvinced that the evidence showed low energy nuclear reactions, one reviewer convinced and the rest somewhat convinced. So simply saying that they were convinced, divided or that they found the evidence compelling, is an oversimplification and it misleads the reader. (also, as for what "most scientists" or "the scientific community" thinks, I already presented RS on both the article and the talk page here and also here).

I knew already that you don't agree with the assesmente made by the reviewers, but we are supposed to write the articles by what the RS say, and according to their weight, and that "Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought", and you know that DOE 2004 had and still has tremendous weight in the how the field was is still viewed by mainstream science. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Enric, I just now saw your response to this. You've misunderstood. I agree with what most of the reviewers wrote. You have confused the summary of the reviews by an anonymous author with the reviews themselves. The DoE report is notable, for sure, but it is an unusual kind of review. The individual reviewer reports, which we have, are unreviewed secondary sources, and they are, as you should know, mixed, they do not agree with each other except in certain respects. The overall report is, itself, a secondary source, likewise unreviewed (except post-facto, outside). It's anonymous. And, as I've pointed out, in at least one case, it was dead wrong, it erroneously and very significantly misreported what was in the submitted paper by Hagelstein, showing a lack of understanding of the situation. We do not know if the writer of the conclusions was a scientist, we know nothing about his or her qualifications. But definitely this writer got it wrong about helium/excess heat correlation, and blatantly so, it's impossible to read the final report and the source, with respect to this issue, which is the most conclusive of all cold fusion evidence (except for later publication of CR-39 findings, which is still not as massively confirmed), and conclude that he or she understood it. And, from prior discussion, it's also clear that you don't understand it.

Mind you, I'm not talking about agreeing with it. I'm talking about understanding what the words mean and what is being reported, so that, if you are going to refute it, you will be doing so on the basis of understanding the issues. The particular final determination was based on a report of a single reviewer, and misrepresents even that; the reviewer also got it wrong, but not so badly. This was all documented in a section on Cold fusion talk. Thoroughly and carefully. Sometimes those "walls of text" are merely an examination, in detail, of an important topic. There is no way to present that problem with sound bites and snippy comments. The resistance to extended and careful discussion is precisely what has maintained conflict at Cold fusion for so long. --Abd (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I already gave my opinion in the matter in the relevant discussion: "If the only sources saying that DOE 2004 has errors/is unreliable are from cold fusion researchers, then it has to be attributed as a POV hold by them." Also, I add now that it has to be attributed to some reliable source, a secondary one if possible, and looking at the discussion again I don't see any such thing. I only see you quoting three primary sources (Hagelstein's preliminary report, the reviewers' comments and the final report) and making some OR with them. That simply fails WP:NOR.

That's mighty fine wikilawyering there! First of all, I mentioned the individual reviewer reports as background, and we can do all the OR we want for background, especially if it's easily verifiable. Secondly, is the DoE report "primary source." If so, why are we citing it in the article? If you will look at the discussion on the Talk page, no suggestion was made that we claim that the DoE report had errors in it. That would be WP:SYNTH. You have insisted on the summary statement by the anonymous reviewer be what we have in the article on correlation. Now, we have much stronger source on this, but you've waived it away. So, okay, suppose we keep that. It contradicts what is in the report. You could argue that this contradiction shouldn't be reported in the article, but if we do that, we are allowing a clear error -- clear to us! for you have not argued the substance, only the wikilegal technicality of WP:NOR -- to stand, when we do have *the same source* to quote from to show the error. We simply quote the DoE summary report, without synthesis the text from the report being reviewed, which text is incorporated in and is a part of the report. If part of this is RS, it all is. In fact, there are problems with all of it, it's questionable the degree to which this is a science publication, but in no way am I recommending an extreme view on this; rather that we not allow an obvious error to stand that we can balance with evidence of equal probity, without synthesis.

Remember, this quote is in a section on the *science*, not on the DoE report. Bad idea. Better it comes out and that it's replaced with sources that actually report what's being claimed in RS about heat/helium correlation, and it's not the Hagelstein paper nor is it the DoE, it's a series of reviews and publications, including Storms, the ACS Sourcebook -- which is peer-reviewed -- it's publications in EPJ-AP, peer-reviewed, and Naturwissenschaften, peer-reviewed, and it's He Jing-Tang and it's Biberian and it's others. You can denigrate some of these but they are all RS on a level higher than that of the DoE review. --Abd (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(As a side note, I also liked how you hand-wave away Clarke's paper in the following discussion which was also in Hagelstein's report, which says that all hellium samples sent to him by McKubre contained only air, and how you even say that it shouldn't have been included because it would have confused at least one reviewer, which is again your OR and not the comment from any RS). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall making a practical political comment about how the paper was presented, which is dicta and has nothing to do with the science. On the substance, this is what I wrote:

distorted Case effect results were presented by the DoE summary as if this was the strong evidence of helium correlation presented, when it wasn't. That's verifiably true. Are you really going to insist that it isn't? Putting it in the article is a separate question. My position is that we take both the distorted presentation and the contradiction then doesn't need to be there either. There is far stronger evidence of helium/heat correlation in the main body of the Hagelstein report, and we have similar evidence presented in Storms (2007) and in the ACS Sourcebook (2008) and in He Jing-Tang (2007) and I believe but don't have specific references in mind, in many other peer-reviewed or academic sources. So why would we present the weakest claim made, one which actually, on the face, contradicts correlation? (The case appendix in the Hagelstein paper actually shows, for a single cell, time correlation of helium generation and excess heat. It was a detail, a minor piece of evidence for them, which is why it was an appendix, I assume.)

Hagelstein responded in the DoE report to Clarke's criticism, which was not the paper you cite, it was an earlier paper where Clarke tried to replicate Case studies using a different protocol, according to Hagelstein (Appendix 1 of the 2004 DoE report, p. 18, footnote):

One study by Clarke did not measure any significant increase in helium levels in a mass spectrometer where levels

much smaller than 100 ppmV/V would have been easily recognized. Clarke, however, did not observe the procedures described by Case, which were in any case incomplete. Neither was Clarke able to measure any temperature effects and his geometry, which consisted of milligram single samples of “Case-type” catalyst confined with D2 or H2 in very small sealed Pb pipe sections, differed greatly from that used and recommended by Case.

Let me translate this for you, Enric: the Case results were presented by Hagelstein in Appendix B because there was one cell, not studied by Clarke, which showed time correlation of heat and helium. That's a kind of correlation, but it's only a single experiment. The powerful evidence is presented to some degree by Hagelstein in the body of his report, and by Storms independently, based on a number of published studies, and is reported as notable in other sources. Hagelstein is noting, in his footnote, that Clarke did not follow the Case protocol and didn't measure excess heat, which means that all that he may have been reporting was a cell where the nuclear active environment, for some reason, did not form. Or that he didn't set up the proper conditions, and this is all really an historical note, because later, apparently, nobody was able to get the Case effect to work.

Storms covers, briefly, the Case effect. Basically he says that he undertook to reproduce the Case effect and was unable to do it. SRI had reproduced the effect, previously, but the material was lost, according to Storms, accidentally discarded during a cleanup. Storms had tried to manufacture the material using the original specifications from United Catalyst, but, like much early cold fusion work, there were probably unknown characteristics of the catalyst that made it work with one batch and fail later. The original P-F work, with bulk palladium, was like that. It confused everyone, after all, isn't palladium palladium? Nope, the P-F effect depends on very high loading ratio, and if the palladium isn't pukka physically, i.e., if it has microcracks from how it was processed, it won't load, it leaks. It took years to figure this out, and that work was never invested in the Case material.

Clarke later published another communication on this, I think that Shanahan reproduced fragments of it on the Talk page in the discussion you cited. Enric, I can't make anything of this, and it's a primary source. What exactly, do you make of it, why would you think this important and relevant to the topic of Helium/heat correlation? He did no correlation study, because he didn't study heat. He found no anomalous helium in a few Case cells, which are a type of cell that were only studied narrowly for a little while, and we have no information about the heat behavior of those cells. What would this have to do with the substantial body of work on helium and heat correlation? --Abd (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Evidence

Hello Enric. I've just taken at look at your evidence in the Abd-William M. Connolley Arbitration case and I've noticed it is currently over 1650 words long. The maximum limit for evidence is 1000 words. Please can you cut your evidence down to the 1000 word maximum ASAP? Many thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 10:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to ask the same thing; please try to cut this down some by Sunday (I noticed you said you'd still be working on it through then). If it's still over the limit by then, I will be refactoring it to bring it below that limit, which may remove some portions of your evidence or the points you're trying to make (although I will make an effort to avoid doing so if possible). Also, keep in mind there is a limit of 100 diffs as well; while you're not there yet, you are getting close. Hersfold 14:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If necessary, I can put some of your evidence up under my name. Abd can't complain because he doesn't see anything wrong with proxying. Spartaz 15:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please, the section called "Abd has received many good faith advice, etc" would be good, because I can't really shorten it. Later today I will shorten stuff and I will add parts from the last few months just to make sure that people can't argue that the evidence doesn't cover the time period of Abd's topic ban. Pity that I can't add all the warnings and advice that he has received over many months, because that would make it clear to him that the problem was about him not interiorizing advice received from multiple editors, and that it wasn't just me being picky about length of posts.

I'll leave you a message on your talk page when I'm done, then please review the section and make sure that you agree with what it says before moving it. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool. saves me looking through their contribs to find evidence. I lost the will to live just skimming their outpourings. Spartaz 19:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

@Ryan. I got it down to 1088 words, hope that's enough. I can't really cut it more. I'll make a statement now on the talk page about what stuff I wasn't able to include due to length issues. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If necessary would you be willing to use a subpage or something? The reason I ask is I am someone that is an outsider in all of this who is trying to learn and understand this case which seems very detailed and the opinions differ greatly. I have been, though, reading your links that you are providing and links others provide. You are being a lot more detailed in your summary of things and you are also attempting to show a more rounded idea of things. I hate the fact that there is a word limit if it would prevent me from being able to form an informed opinion because the word limit prevented you from posting difs of information that would be useful for me and hopefully others that are uninvolved from seeing as many difs as possible. I would hope the arbcom members would also like to see as many difs as possible prior to them make any decision too. This case involves very active editors and should be given a full disclosure of things. Also, I am having trouble finding out so maybe you know, is there any off project conversations that uninvolved editors should be aware of? I got this hint that there could be on my talk page, a hint but not a definitive yes, that is there is outside conversations going on. Thank you in advance, I also thank you for all the time you have taken to try to show everyone what is going on. --CrohnieGal 18:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I already made one. I'll probably go and expand the envidence with more diffs (past tomorrow, because tomorrow I might be too busy), to really nail down how much advice was given to Abd over time. I'll also make a motion to expand and clarify the scope to consider Abd's overall behaviour over time, as this is giving problems in the workshop. I don't know of those off-wiki discussions, seeing who participates in your talk page it's probably about Abd asking TenOfAllTrades by private email to talk to WMC about his ban? I'll read your talk page and make some comment if necessary, and I'll notify you if I find another one while I search for diffs. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thank you, you really have found so much already so take your time. I just wonder how fast it's going to move when the arbitrators start making their comments. I knew about the comments at TenOfAllTrades which was brought to my attentions by both editors at my talk. I appreciate though when you get that together you let me know so I can read some more. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal 19:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Abd/ADHD

Noticed you referred to that - I seem to recall during a discussion he claimed he could write shorter amounts of text but didn't want to - something about losing information by being concise, words to that effect. That would somewhat contradict his claim ADHD makes him write so much. Think it was an AN/ANI thread? Minkythecat (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• undoubtedly an interminably long comment on their talk page during the JzG RFC. I lost the will to live at that point. Spartaz 19:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • See here in evidence and the subsections below it. The last diff is probable the one you are looking for. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Siberian tiger edits

Please see my comments on the talk page regarding the edits on the Amur tiger article. I created a new section instead of adding on the bottom of the "Internet hoax and "Youtube spammer" nonsense. My understanding was that the talk page already explained why some of those edits were proper but in looking at it maybe it was unclear. Anyway, I have attempted to summarize the reasoning on the talk page and ask that you review that paragraph when considering my edits. Note that I'm only actually removing one cited source (for reasons explained) and substituting another that I believe is more helpful (generally explaining that bears have been known to kill tigers rather than asserting 12 instances). I apologise if my reasoning for making the edits was unclear, hopefully the passage on the talk page is a suitable explanation. 71.248.14.64 (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Typo on ArbCom evidence page...

...I suspect you ask for time to July 27th. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Damn.... well, I fixed it. Thanks for warning me. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Controls in original cold fusion claims

Hi Enric, I know you removed it almost as soon as you asked it, maybe because it could have started a discussion that may have sidetracked your point, which was a good one. But if your question about a control experiment was intended as a serious question, I've been studying the history of cold fusion (not for Misplaced Pages; I doubt I'll ever care to get involved with that article again, but for something I'm writing in RL) and I can tell you that the question of whether Pons and Fleischmann did controls and what they found was answered in so many different contradictory ways by the researchers themselves that it's almost anyone's guess what they actually did and what they actually found. On March 28, five days after their press conference, Fleischmann was asked by researchers at Harwell if they'd done a light water control; he answered that they "hadn't had time;" in other words, his answer was no. When the paper was made available (unofficially by someone getting hold of a copy and faxing it to colleagues who faxed it to other colleagues) on March 31, it was immediately obvious to everyone who saw it that it didn't include a control experiment; neither did the final (published) paper, nor did the errata published a few weeks later mention any controls. Surely by then they must have realized that the lack of a control was a big problem, so if they did have results to report from a control experiment, you'd think they would have added them to the errata, at least. That they didn't, suggests to me that either they didn't have a control, or that they'd done a control and that the results didn't support their claim and they didn't want to publicize that.

But aside from the lack of controls reported in their published paper, there were conflicting reports about controls elsewhere within the first few weeks. On April 5, Chase Peterson, president of the University of Utah, told the press that there had been a control with light water and that it "produced no significant heat." On April 9, according to Taubes, Pons told a colleague privately that they had done a control and got excess heat with light water as well as heavy water, and that "This is the most exciting thing, this cold fusion works in light water too" but said he wasn't allowed to talk about it (presumably by the DOE). At the ACS meeting in Dallas on April 12, Pons was asked if they'd done a light water control and said yes, and then after a pause, added "Several people are looking at that right now, including ourselves... ..that sort of reaction might be interesting," but no followup questions were asked. On the same day at a conference in Sicily, Fleischmann answered the same question by saying "I'm not prepared to discuss it." There are many more examples of inconsistent and even mutually contradictory answers to the question, but that gives a flavor and I wouldn't want to swamp your talk page. A year or so later, Pons and Fleischmann published another paper which listed, according to Taubes, "fourteen control experiments, five of which had palladium electrodes in light water, and two of these, they claimed, had been done before March 23, 1989..." which begs the question, why, if they had those controls prior to March 23, they didn't publish them in their original paper. It makes no sense, and scientists were left to draw their own conclusions, which they have. Woonpton (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

diff of removal for reference.

You are right, I thought that it would just derail the discussion.

Ah, the article doesn't mention the control thing? Gotta love these controversial topics with their contradictory sources and their main characters contradicting themselves in those issues that might make them look bad.... Also, yet another important bit of info that the article lacks -.- .... I'm still angry with myself for failing to notice this problem before. God knows for how long was our article saying that it was P&F who decided to betray Jones in their own, instead of them caving in to the pressures of their university. Way to comply with WP:BLP. Misplaced Pages, Fuck Yeah!! Coming again to save the motherfucking day. Funny that supporters of cold fusion didn't notice that bit either, mind you, it reinforces my belief that nobody ever actually reads the articles, lol.

Well, I normally solve these problems by using the same strategies that I use in historic articles: I cite some secondary RS that has noticed the same problem and has made an analysis of it. I think that Simon's book has a recount of those days where this issue might appear. As a secondary source, I sort of recall that maaaaybe it makes some statement about how it's not clear how and when the controls were done, and how this helped casted doubts at a certain important moment of the process of rejection of CF, although Simon uses much more complicated words to say it. Park also makes his own conclusions out of the incident, and maybe also Huizenga. I'll have to purchase from Amazon a few of these books (simon, huizenga, park, taubes, maybe Close) so I don't have to rely in books.google.com with its non-viewable-pages-in-the-middle-of-the-section-that-I-need-to-verify. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Taubes covers this in some detail, both in the text and in a lengthy endnote, and Huizenga also gives it good attention. Simon's lack of neutrality, which I suspect is an inadvertent result of his spending too much time with cold fusion advocates and not having the scientific background to understand the thing from a scientist's perspective, rather than a deliberate promotion of the aims of cold fusion advocates, makes his book less useful as a reliable source. There's a definite POV to his portrayal of science's dismissal of cold fusion as a conspiracy to suppress good science as a way of protecting the interests of physicists; the record, and the reports of neutral secondary sources, simply don't support that. Woonpton (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have noticed that. Still, his book has restricted view at books.google.com, so I can check it out, and the others don't, or they have less pages available. Which is why I want to buy the dead tree version, so I can use 100% of all the sources. I think that other sources mention that Huiznega's book was the most influential book in the post-announcement debacle, and I have only seen from it a few quotes.

Also, Simon seems to cover the little details quite well, and it's interesting because he tries to cover the events from the philosophy of science and ethic of science viewpoints and not just from the narration point. This mean that I can use him to nail the relationship of the naked facts with the evolution of the perception of the field by the scientific community. It's not just that X said Y, it's that X said Y becasue of Z and because of R and S had just happened, and this later caused T to happen due to its influence in the thinking of U. I want to see if those other books say that too.

Also, Simon is from 2002, so it has a bit more perspective, and it can see how the field evolved years later. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm, this is so different from my perception on having read the book, that I wonder if we're talking about the same book. Bart Simon, Undead Science? If so, I think you're putting much more faith in this as a reliable neutral source than it merits. Taubes and Huizenga are both much better on supplying minute detail and context than Simon, and besides, as I said before, the "context" Simon puts everything in is a false context, that of a conspiracy against cold fusion which simply isn't supported by the facts and by an objective view of history, and what few details he chooses to include tend to be details that support that theory.

As far as the issue under discussion here, the lack of consistent information about controls coming from the researchers themselves, he provides almost no detail but simply refers to it very generally in passing, saying that Pons and Fleischmann's answers to questions about controls were "troubling," adding that scientists varied on how they viewed this evasion: "Some suggested that their hands were tied because of patent restrictions, others suggested that they did not have enough data to talk about their experiments competently." Then he goes on to say that the troubling nature of Pons and Fleischmann's replies to questions about controls was mooted by an independent replication, including controls, by Robert Huggins of Stanford; Simon's description of this research says "More importantly, Huggins also ran a series of control experiments using light instead of heavy water. The light-water cells produced no discernible excess heat..." This description fits Simon's theory, but is simply not consistent with the facts. Huggins' controls with light water gave heat approximately 1.5 degrees lower than the experiments with heavy water, which according to Chuck Martin of Texas A&M, who found the same thing, can be explained by the difference in conductivity between light and heavy water. In other words, Simon dispenses with the inconsistencies about P-F's controls or lack thereof by stating that the controls provided by Huggins were definitive and settled the question, when that's simply not the case. My impression is that Huggins' "replication" was later withdrawn entirely, but I got that from Seife and I don't seem to have made a note of it, so I can't confirm that precisely, since Seife has gone back to the library. Seife would be a good source BTW. Sun in a bottle: the strange history of fusion and the science of wishful thinking, by Charles Seife, 2008. It covers all the various discredited claims of discoveries of fusion so there is just one chapter on the Pons and Fleischmann version of cold fusion, but it's quite good.Woonpton (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I went to the library and checked out Seife again to check my vague recall that Huggins had later withdrawn his report of replication. That turned out to be not quite accurate; he didn't withdraw the report of replication, but the problems that had been found with it by other scientists had pretty much destroyed its value as a "replication of cold fusion." Woonpton (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I haven't read the other books, I can't really compare and see if Simon is selectively citing details. I assume that you are correct in that Simon does. However, Simon is a science sociologist, and as such he gives insights that other sources are just not going to give. Anyways, I'll just try to get a hold of those books, and cross-check the details in the article that are sourced to Simon to make sure that I didn't source anything incorrectly.

By the way, couldn't you add Seife's book to the article and add Huggin's experiment and cite the problems with the controls? --Enric Naval (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, I couldn't, sorry. Rather than try to explain why not, I'll just point to the email from Kirk Shanahan that Mathsci posted on the case somewhere; that echoes very well my own view about trying to edit the cold fusion page, or any page where science and superstition meet. Not that I'm an expert in cold fusion as Shanahan is, but I am very solidly grounded in science and especially in statistics and in reading, interpreting and summarizing research literature, and like Shanahan, I don't see any hope in ever getting that article to NPOV and keeping it there, nor do I see it as a good use of my time and energy to work toward that end; it would be as futile as tilting at windmills, or ploughing the sea. The cold fusion advocates will never allow it to stay neutral, and the quality of content, unless Misplaced Pages takes strong steps to curb such advocacy, will forever be compromised by their efforts.

Simon does give some good context for the aftermath, in describing the dynamics and interconnections and sense of persecution by which scientists who have marginalized themselves by hanging onto discredited science become more and more insulated and self-reinforcing, and certainly that should be part of the article. But he doesn't seem to understand enough about science to be able to understand and cover why cold fusion was so thoroughly discredited in the first place. It's really pretty simple, why scientists turned against cold fusion. For example, I was at a family reunion this week, and one of my brothers-in-law, a chemistry professor emeritus, asked me what I've been thinking about lately. I said, "Well, as a matter of fact, I've been thinking about cold fusion." He proceeded to tell me about his reaction to the cold fusion business at the time it was happening. He said that a colleague in his department brought him a pre-publication copy of the Pons and Fleischmann paper and asked his opinion. He read it over, said it was a bad paper and that some of it, like the estimate of the pressure within the lattice, was just plain wrong and the rest looked fishy; he didn't see enough data or rationale to back up their claims to make it worth his time to try to reproduce it. This was just one chemist, not in a big research university on the east coast but in a state college in the midwest. The idea that was begun by the Wall Street Journal on April 12, 1989 and quickly taken up by cold fusion advocates, that the opposition to the research came from physicists in big research labs on the east coast, is just, well, not supported by evidence. It makes a comforting excuse for their research not getting funded and so forth, but the data just don't support it. And it's instructive, I think, that Simon simply repeats that meme without questioning it, even though most of the people who criticized the research and couldn't replicate it were chemists, not physicists. At any rate, I'll leave you to your own devices; I'm sure you'll do the best for the article that you can. BTW, I haven't read the below and don't intend to; the first phrase was insulting enough that I didn't care to read any further. At any rate, one thing about Abd's writings is that they are endlessly repetitive, so I expect I've seen it all before, on the case pages of this case and the previous cold fusion case, on various user talk pages, and on the cold fusion talk page, and I haven't seen anything persuasive in any of it yet. Good luck, Woonpton (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll take care not to source scientific stuff directly from Simon (I have also seen the same critic at some places, even from CF advocates, that Simon's book was weak on the scientifc part)

Notice that the article doesn't currently say anything about chemist being more positive towards CF than physicists. That's partly because I asked Abd for a RS on that a couple of times, and he didn't give me any, he just asserted it again, using his own research as proof. The WSJ is not a good enough source because there no other sources supporting that interpretation, which is really weird because experts in philosophy of science would have gone like vultures over such a thing, and written volumes on how these two groups interpret "boundary work" in a different way, and given it names like social-epistemological, deconstructive, relativistic, methodologically-symmetryc, asymptotically-convergent, etc, and talked about how this bias affected how "closure" happens in scientific fields where both physics and chemistry are involved. There are a book in philosophy in science mentining CF and they don't say anything about this division in opinion. That means that RS that should be discussing it at length are not even giving any indication about it. So, no RS = no appearing in article.

P.D.: that WSJ article must be the one titled "Groups of physicists, releasing reams of data, dispute claims of cold fusion". --Enric Naval (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's a relief anyway, glad to hear it. I guess it's not hard to get confused about what's in the article when there is (or was, anyway) so much stuff being floated on the talk page that isn't actually in the article and shouldn't be in the article. That's very interesting information, and reassuring, thanks, to know that this myth that it's a division between physicists and chemists has no reliable sources to back it up, because it seems pretty obvious to me that it's a complete myth. To me, from what I've seen and read, it's a division between scientists, regardless of their field, who stayed grounded in the principles of what science is about and were holding their colleagues to those standards, and those who succumbed to wishful thinking to the extent that they forgot to be scientists. Actually Seife develops that idea quite a bit.

As to the Wall Street Journal, no, from the headline, that sounds like the story that would have reported the meeting of the American Physical Society in Baltimore on May 1, after most of the large groups working to replicate the effect had given up and reported negative results, and several of the important early but prematurely reported "replications" had been withdrawn as artifactual. The interesting thing is that the presentation at that meeting that seemed to be most persuasive to the attendees was not by a physicist, but by an electrochemist who, using actual data (which Pons and Fleischmann had never yet provided) effectively disputed the P-F claims, and received a standing ovation. The Wall Street Journal piece I'm talking about, to which Taubes and Seife trace the beginnings of the entrenched, self-interested physicists vs innovative, searching, new-paradigm chemists meme, was an editorial, an opinion piece rather than a news article, that ran on April 12 (strangely enough, while the jury was still out on the scientific merit of the claims, in other words, before it was reasonable to be drawing any conclusions); I don't know how its headline read. Woonpton (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Woonpton, it is a huge relief to me that you have obviously done as much research as you have. The issue of controls in CF experiments is a deep and complex one. Yes, P and F did run some controls with light water, but the results weren't what they expected, for whatever reason. It should be realized that the P and F work on excess has been confirmed by hundreds of research groups, from peer-reviewed studies (I think the count is at 153), and much more from conference papers, and some of these groups report control results with light water. It's clear that with palladium electrodes, light water controls generate far less excess heat than do heavy water experiments. P and F did not report the light water controls because they didn't function as a clean baseline; part of the problem may be that light water does normally contain some deuterium; further, it is not impossible that some level of fusion or other reaction takes place with hydrogen. (There are non-nuclear explanations proposed for the excess heat; hydrino theory would be one, that don't necessarily involve any fusion, they they do involve new physics.) Given that in the early days, most experiments showed no excess heat at all, the conditions that result in the P-F effect were very poorly understood. So it would have taken many more experiments to make some kind of consistent sense out of the light water/heavy water comparisons. In addition, Fleischmann was functioning under some severe legal constraints coming from the University of Utah, the field was hampered for years by those restrictions.

This issue of light water controls is a fascinating aspect of the history of cold fusion, and the article -- or a fork -- should cover whatever we have from reliable source on it. I do recommend Simon for general reading on the subject. It's not expensive on-line for a used copy, if you can't get one from a library. Simon researched the history with more depth than any other source we have, though he doesn't cover, obviously, the very significant developments after his publication.

One part of the story I've read in many places, but I'm not sure it was RS, is that when they ran out of the original batch of palladium, and for a time, Fleischmann and Pons were unable to replicate their own work, all the experiments were flat, no excess heat. We do have RS on the problem of experimental variations that are likely to lead to excess heat or no excess heat, including the exact palladium condition needed, but it wasn't until 2007 that we have secondary peer-reviewed source showing that some groups had reached 100% excess heat success. One of the techniques is co-deposition, which is far simpler and far more reliable and far faster than the earlier bulk palladium work, this is what the SPAWAR group has done most of their work with. Good luck with your research.--Abd (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

One more comment, Woonpton. I have Taubes, Huizenga, Hoffman, Mizuno, Simon, Storms, and the ACS LENR Sourcebook. Hoffman is fairly early, 2004, and a skeptic who is very neutral. Simon is neutral, in my opinion, and he is simply much more informed than most of the skeptics, he interviewed both "believers" and skeptics. Hoffman should be read, I'd suggest. He lays out the issues and doesn't force any conclusions on the reader. He reviews Taubes and Huizenga pretty accurately. Taubes had an agenda, which is revealed in a number of sources, and Huizenga had a huge axe to grind, but both are valuable sources as to the history. Park, which I don't have, appears to be far from neutral. Storms is generally quite accurate; obviously, he believes the effect is real, you don't devote twenty years of your career, even at the end of it, to something you think is totally bogus, and Storms is secondary RS, for the most part, and that gives us RS access to some of the conference papers, i.e., what he considers notable. The ACS sourcebook, unfortunately, is quite expensive, but it is peer-reviewed. There is another one coming out this year. Notice the publisher, not just the ACS, but Oxford University Press. Cold fusion is coming out of the cold, and being welcomed. Whatever we have of RS on this, we should not withhold from our readers, per the Fringe science arbitration. As always, it should be presented with balance and attribution where there is no clear scientific consensus; the fact is that at this point, there is no longer any clear scientific consensus on cold fusion. There is a general atmosphere of rejection, but whenever neutral experts have reviewed it, the support for the reality of low-energy nuclear reactions is significant, far above what would be expected for pathological science or even for fringe science. I'm contending that it is now emerging science, still quite controversial. .... We should follow the guidelines to determine due weight. --Abd (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment

Please learn to read timestamps. That discussion was a week old. --Stephen 09:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, for some reason I was reading one of the archives of ANI instead of ANI itself. My excuses, I need to remember to take the morning coffee before starting to edit wikipedia in the morning :) --Enric Naval (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No problems, let me know if I can ever help you with anything. --Stephen 12:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice to all users involved in Abd/WMC

This is a general notice to all users involved in the Abd/WMC arbitration case that further disruptive conduct within the case will not be tolerated and will result in blocks being issued by Clerks or Arbitrators as needed. More information is available at the announcement here; please be sure to read that post in full. Receipt of this message does not necessarily imply that you are at risk of a block or have been acting in a disruptive manner; it is a general notice to all that the Clerks and ArbCom are aware of issues in the case and will not be tolerating them any longer. If you have any questions, please post them to the linked section. Thank you. Hersfold 23:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration suggestion

TenOfAllTrade's had a good idea vis-a-vis the Abd arbitration case. Please see here Raul654 (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

188.97.8.140

188.97.8.140 (talk · contribs) is vandalising Bactria and Bactrian people articles removing sourced content without explanation, and repeats it when his edit is reverted by other users. -119.152.246.35 (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on Talk:Bactria. He (Bahrudin Bahis (talk · contribs), 188.97.8.140 (talk · contribs), 94.219.218.20 (talk · contribs), etc.) is becoming annoying and harassed me in one of the comments and keeps edit warring with several users. Claims "there is not even a single name of a Pashtun ...in Balkh" as if Bactrians were Persian/Tajik speaking? Me, you and Slgcat (talk · contribs) have reverted him but he keeps removing "Pashtun" from the article, and few other articles, against consensus, also contradictiong sources. Can you do something? -119.152.247.189 (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You have to ask for help in a noticeboard like WP:CN. Also, at the top of the talk page of the article there is a list of wikiprojects. You should click in their names, go to their talk page, and post a neutral message asking with help to solve this dispute. I will look later, but I don't understand the topic very well. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The nationalist troll had repeatedly removed the same content with references FOUR times in 2 days. (see , , , )
But I should have not asked you to neutralize the article, because it seems you are supporting the troll for vandalizing the article, and instead of neutralizing the article, you are attacking me (although the checkuser disproved you) merely for pointing out the troll to you, which you were not supposed to do. you were supposed to stop the troll from vandalism, or check him. Good regards. -119.152.246.181 (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We editors have to do what is best for the article, not what is best for us. I am still trying to find out what the best sources say because I'm not familiar with the topic. Sorry for the confusion with NisarKand. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

B-Sides

Thanks for your interest and advise. Yes, I agree that my use of the word "censorship" was incorrect and I apologized on that page. It doesn't change my opinion that it's bad to limit knowledge though. I don't want messy pages either, but the b-side info I added was not at all messy. (Cindy10000 (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)).

A small complaint about a bit of your evidence

I'd prefer to bring this here rather than in a formal response in my evidence section, I hope that's okay with you. I'm not comfortable with the way you've arranged my words in your lists of people who have been frustrated with their interactions with Abd. It's true I said that (root canal business) to Coppertwig (on my own talk page) when he approached me about participating in a discussion on Abd's talk page about "Majority POV Pushers" (and to really understand my annoyance and frustration at that particular moment, you also have to understand that I'd just spent a week reading through the miles of verbiage that surrounded the delegable proxy episode last year, and right then the very thought of reading another word of Abd's prose was aversive to me). Context is everything. To attach what that I said in that context (my own talk page, a response to an invitation I wasn't interested in accepting) to a mention of my AN/I report, as if I'd said that at AN/I, is misleading at the very best. Thanks, Woonpton (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I removed that last diff. I hadn't noticed that it could be taken like that when put besides the ANI comment. Thanks for bringing this to my talk page, the poor evidence page is already too big to fill it with more stuff that is not directly related to the matter at hand :)

(notice that the diff is still at the list of warnings received, as one of the warnings about making shorter comments). --Enric Naval (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That's all right, I guess; I just felt it was out of context being attached to the fact that I'd made a report at AN/I, as if the two things were related. I really appreciate your quick response to this, thanks. Woonpton (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Please note my reply on my talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this edit

I was ready to add this sentence http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Homeopathy&diff=304487788&oldid=304300572 to the Homeopathy article as I had proposed in the talk page but you did it for me. Thanks--JeanandJane (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Homeopathy&diff=304487788&oldid=304300572

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 27 July 2009

• From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
• Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
• Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
• Misplaced Pages Academy: Volunteers lead Misplaced Pages Academy at National Institutes of Health
• News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Assorted news coverage of Misplaced Pages
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 09:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 3 August 2009

• News and notes: WMF elections, strategy wiki, museum partnerships, and much more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Homoeopathy"

I prefer the alternative spelling "homœopathy", but can't figure out how to produce the "œ" on a keyboard. Brunton (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"Weird french letter"? We've already had complaints from homoeopaths about mentioning that sort of thing. ;) Brunton (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

lol. :D --Enric Naval (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Open to suggestions

I posted here a general request for suggestions for diffs to include as rebuttals in the subsections of my evidence. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, lol, I guess that linking to rebuttals writing elsewhere also works xD . I hadn't thought of that, I'll have to use it someday. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Replying

Re your comment "You are supporting Abd all the time even after he's been told repeatedly that he's wrong. And then you defend him all the time. That is a problem. It's not good for you. It's influencing your perceptions. Stop doing it." I try to support everyone. However, I don't support all behaviours, and I don't support all of Abd's behaviours. I disagree with Abd on some things. Just telling someone they're wrong doesn't necessarily convince me: I would want to see convincing arguments. I don't blindly do something just because someone tells me to. If you want me to change my behaviour, you'll have to convince me. However, I'm not going to start saying things I don't believe or writing "oppose" when my real opinion is "support", etc. If you think I'm perceiving some things wrongly, feel free to give me arguments and explanations to try to convince me differently. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't pay attention to the all the explanations given of why Abd is wrong when they were presented, and didn't pay attention when they were rehashed in the case, and after the comments in that section you still don't think that parts of your evidence are misrepresenting facts, then repeating it here is not going to help. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I explained at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Evidence#Suggestions for rebuttals to Coppertwig evidence? why I don't agree with points raised. If you think there are some I missed, I hope you will let me know. I don't expect we will necessarily agree; however, I've offered to put a diff link to an argument or evidence rebutting my points in each subsection of my evidence, and I only have links for a few so far, so if you think there are good rebuttals somewhere (whether comments in that section, or anything else) feel free to suggest particular links for me to put in particular subsections. If my evidence is inaccurate, as you believe, surely it would help to add such a rebuttal link, even if I myself am not convinced: the point is to convince the arbitrators. (If you do suggest such links, using my talk page is the best way to make sure I see your message. I may or may not be away for a few days.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If I see a rebuttal to one of your points, then I will tell you about it. I have already invested too much of my time into building a case that should have been a straight ban from the start, I spent heavy amounts of time into making my own evidence good and convincing, and there are evidence sections made by other editors that have worst problems than your own evidence, so I don't see that spending time in specifically searching rebuttals for your evidence is an efficient use of my time. As I said, if I see a rebuttal then I will tell you about it, but that's all.

Also, I think that arbs will already notice the problems in your evidence, and that they will also read the talk page of the workshop where some of the problems are detailed, so that's sort of covered. (And of course I still think that you need to correct the evidence instead of adding rebuttals that show that it's incorrect, I don't even understand why don't you simply fix your evidence using the information provided by the rebuttal). Anyways, we can just agree to disagree on this issue. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a statement here about your reverts at Talk:Cold fusion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly proper removals. I hope those people proxying for an arbitrator banned editor are warned. What a mess Rlvese has created. Verbal chat 17:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've also added a subsection to my evidence with a diff of a comment by you on the evidence talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha, do you seriously think that this is what I was doing? Instead of giving you good advice about taking advice from disruptive editors? Oh, well, whatever. As above, I think that I didn't do it for the reasons that you state, and I agree to disagree. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

When you use a direct imperative such as "Stop doing it", it doesn't tend to sound to me like just advice. Abd warned me about the slime mould. If there are any particular things about which you think I have warped perceptions, you're welcome to mention them to me and try to convince me otherwise. I don't change my mind just by being asked or told to change my mind, but I do change my mind at times in response to evidence and arguments. Re "disruptive editors": it's better to focus on discussing behaviour than to apply adjectives to other people. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

ok. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note: Abd-William M. Connolley

Your evidence is too long. It is currently about 2400 words, and it needs to be under 1000. Thanks, hmwitht 17:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Your evidence is fine. I have been filled in on the rest of the special situation, where they are allowing longer sections. Thank you for cooperating, and have a good one. hmwitht 21:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 10 August 2009

• Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
• News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of an ideal editing environment link?

I believe that some time ago you posted to Talk:Homeopathy a description of your view of an ideal editing environment. It included a plea to stop the battleground nonsense and a description of your experience with a similar issue on another wiki. I was reminded of this post by FloNight's proposed principle. I wanted to perhaps link it there as an example of good practices in an article where POVs run hot and heavy, but could not find it just now. Do you happen to remember when this was posted or have any other advice for finding it? It is also possible that I am entirely confused, in which case I apologize. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's at Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_37#This_is_what_editing_on_this_page_should_look_like. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly the one, thank you. My how time flies when you are having fun. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI on DanaUllman

As you have participated at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Choices, this is to notify you that I've added 2 more choices. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I already commented on them since I had just refreshed my watchlist when you added them. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit to Abd's talk page

Re this edit by you moving material on Abd's talk page: I suggest you avoid such edits in future. I believe Abd normally wishes such comments to be simply deleted. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. I allowed one comment, one time, to stay, i.e., I thanked the vandalism patroller who put it back in and reverted. The IP had put it up so many times, I wanted to make a statement, pointing out that every time he puts it up, it will remind me of what I wrote in response, and I like to be reminded of that. But once is enough. Coppertwig is right, you shouldn't have touched it, but I do assume good faith. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok, sorry about that. When I saw your reply to the IP I thought that you wanted to keep the messages visible there to show how silly they were or something (a strategy used sometimes for fighting trolls, I have used it in my own talk page a few times). Next time I'll just revert at sight. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Low-powered FM Stations

Is there really an FM Station in Metro Manila such as 100.7 The Bone Rocks? I checked its Multiply & Website.

These are the following Low-powered FM Stations:

• KISS-FM 88.7 Legazpi City
• Paradise FM 100.5 Legazpi City
• COOL107 Naga CIty
• XFM Naga City
• Ghost Radio Naga City
• Massive FM 93.5 Baguio City

Are they real or hoax?

Superastig (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If they are real, then nobody has ever heard of them, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Bone Rocks. If it really exists, they it must have very low emitting power and it must not be legally registered anywhere. And, with no sources apart from its own website it doesn't pass WP:N so it shouldn't have its own article. If you see them in a list of radio stations then remove them or put a {{fact}} tag to its side to ask for a source for its existance and notability. User:Danngarcia knows a lot more of Philippine radio stations. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Superastig (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

mistake?

hey enric, just a small note. I believe you accidently posted your comment in the wrong section hereSPLETTE :] 17:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oooops, hehe, thanks for telling me, I moved it to the correct place. -Enric Naval (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Hope the case will be over soon. It's the perfect time-wasting machine... SPLETTE :] 11:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 17 August 2009

• From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
• Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
• News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Reports of Misplaced Pages's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Your contributions on Mammary intercourse

Have the Human Sexuality Barnstar

		The Human Sexuality Barnstar
		For making the first successful positive contribution to Mammary intercourse in a long long time., Simon Speed (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Lol, actually the second one , but thanks :D --Enric Naval (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, missed that one:-) --Simon Speed (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Does the skeptical movement oppose cults?

There is some disagreement about whether the skeptical movement opposes cults in any notable way. Diff here. Discussion here. I would value your input. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I replied in the article talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev enforcement case

Kindly note that an Enforcement case has just been filed against Dilip rajeev here over his editing at the Falun Gong family of articles and elsewhere. You might like to comment. Please note that this is a permalink; any commenting should be done only after clicking on the 'Project page' tab. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Torch Relay

If you have some time please provide us with an input at this RFC on 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay article and this Merger Contest. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 24 August 2009

• News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Misplaced Pages Loves Art winners
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

I saw your comments on the Britz bibliography, you are correct, it should be listed. Small steps, little by little, we go far. Poco a poco, eh? Unless there is a big wind pushing us back after each. You may be interested in this comment]. There is, in particular, described there, a better whitelisted paper than the one you got whitelisted for usage at Martin Fleischmann, and it has now been published under peer-review, so it is less vulnerable to potshots. Good luck, I'm off to real-world involvement. --Abd (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Timewave_zero#Redirect proposal

Notice: You commented in an Article for deletion for Timewave zero , an RFC has been opened on whether this article should be replaced with a Redirect. Please comment on the above link. Lumos3 (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 31 August 2009

• Flagged protection and patrolled revisions: Misleading media storm over flagged revisions
• Flagged protection background: An extended look at how we got to flagged protection and patrolled revisions
• Wikimania: Report on Wikimania 2009
• News and notes: $2 million grant, new board members
• Misplaced Pages in the news: WikiTrust, Azerbaijan-Armenia edit wars
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 16:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Organ harvesting proposed merger

Hello. Thank you for taking the time to comment on the proposed merger of Reports of organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners to Organ harvesting in China. There are four things I would like to say. Firstly, I believe the statement in favor of merger is problematic and represents several misunderstandings or misrepresentations. Secondly, I believe the statement against merger is not quite on point, and does not cut to the heart of the issue; even though I had written some or all of it earlier, the context was different, and I will rewrite it tomorrow to properly present the argument. Thirdly, since you have given your opinion I hope that you will be willing to defend it or otherwise engage in rational argumentation based on Misplaced Pages policy on the issue—I call for that here and a little bit here (but the real stuff is in the first “here.”) Fourthly, thanks and have a good day! (or night)--Asdfg12345 04:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I made a comment in the poll page. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If the allegations were proven would you consider the page warranted? I have been so busy, I'm very sad, I will fix up the description in support of separation in some days and re-engage in discussion. For now, please answer that question.--Asdfg12345 02:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what source is asserting them as proved, and in what sources this was being reported. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Your rant at WP:RSN

permanent link to discussion as of now, I replied. I'd advise against nailing yourself to that position, holding back the tide is a thankless and ultimately futile activity, and the article will be under discretionary sanctions. I'm off to have more fun in a new activity, it's already getting very interesting, you probably won't see me here much, even after the bans expire, though Pcarbonn might or might not be back. People who have real lives move on. You may congratulate yourself on helping get WMC desysopped, for without your activity, it would not have happened. I did know what I was doing, and it would all have been resolved in the beginning of June. However, everything happens for a reason, if we can discern it. To you is the responsibility for your actions, and to me, mine. --Abd (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Good for you. I wish you luck in that cold fusion kits thing. Who knows, maybe a few years from now you will be filthy rich and you will be sending me "I'm here and you aren't" postcards from the Bahamas. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Not likely, not from the kit project. It's not about "free energy." It's about simple replication of basic experiments in the LENR field. It's fascinating the response I'm getting. Some of the prominent researchers are very encouraging, saying this should have been done years ago. (I agree; the attempt would have resolved the issue one way or another. There has been very little exact replication of experiments, it's one of the problems, one of the most legitimate of claims by skeptics.) But among two of the most notable experts, there is substantial negativity. They are worried, I think, that the kit project will fail, though the similar but more difficult far more expensive (every experimenter did serious individual work; there was some combined purchase of CR-39 chips, maybe more) Galileo Project apparently succeeded in creating a number of independent replications, all following approximately the same protocol (some very interesting results, actually, some may end up, eventually, in peer-reviewed source). No, the kit project is about engineering simple, very cheap kits to replicate some known effect (or possibly some effect that is discovered during the kit engineering process. Rothwell seems to think that $10,000 is about the minimum to do any decent experiment, but I think it can be done for far, far less than that, based on the SPAWAR protocols, or, a bit more expensively, the Arata technique. Anyway, the kit company may be for-profit, all right, and I might be personally involved and may make a little money. But, no, nobody is going to get rich from the kit company, just fair return on investment. In theory, it's possible even if cold fusion turns out to be bogus. After all, the scientific fiasco of the 20th century? "You can replicate the experiment yourself, only $200, plus a $1000 refundable deposit on the instrumentation package. See what led so many astray for so long, see what hundreds of millions of dollars was wasted on! See the supposed neutron tracks, and prove that it is chemical damage, not radiation. Get back helium results that appear to be correlated with the phenomenon's appearance, and then prove that this is due to a previously-unanticipated effect that causes selective absorption of helium from air. Show how the apparent excess heat is due to Shanahan's calibration constant shift." Wouldn't that be interesting, Enric?

Basic science, bypassing both the critics and the "they won't fund us" whine. I'd say it's worth a year of my time, Enric. After all, I have to replace my Misplaced Pages addiction with something! --Abd (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, the Bahamas? Doesn't sound bad. Maybe I can toss that into the budget, a conference in the Bahamas. Tax deductible. --Abd (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at CETI Patterson Power Cell, which was a similar project using cells with beads. The New Energy Times website should have a lot of detailed coverage, and the Institute of New Energy reviewed it and Eric Krieg (the guy of the perpetual motion machine list) offered to test one of them (*). There is another unpublished attempt of replication that was published online and that is not listed in the article.

(*) I'd say that any project like yours would get an enormous boost in credibility in skeptic's eyes if it was endorsed by this Eric Krieg guy. When/if you manage to get a kit that gives reliable results that are easy to measure, this is probably the guy to go to when you want to get an informal test. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision is available in full at the link above.

As a result of this case:

1. The cold fusion article, and parts of any other articles substantially about cold fusion, are placed under discretionary sanctions.
2. Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of three months from Misplaced Pages, and for a period of one year from the cold fusion article. These bans are to run concurrently. Additionally, Abd is prohibited from participating in discussions about disputes in which he is not one of the originating parties, including but not limited to article talk pages, user talk pages, administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution, however not including votes or comments at polls. Abd is also admonished for edit-warring on Arbitration case pages, engaging in personal attacks, and failing to support allegations of misconduct.
3. William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s administrator rights are revoked. He may apply for their reinstatement at any time via Requests for Adminship or appeal to the Committee. William C. Connolley is also admonished for edit warring on Arbitration case pages.
4. Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded not to edit war and to avoid personal attacks.
5. The community is urged to engage in a policy discussion and clarify under what circumstances, if any, an administrator may issue topic or page bans without seeking consensus for them, and how such bans may be appealed. This discussion should come to a consensus within one month of this notice.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

Hersfold 22:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish to notify you of this request for clarification. 99.27.133.215 (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ping

"ping me when the case is finished Hello, regarding Talk:Cold_fusion#New_article, I have seen your comment, and skimmed the article, but I can't really give it my attention now. When the case is finished, could you remind me of that article, so I can add to Martin Fleischmann and similar? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)"

--Please note the "New Article" piece of the CF talk page "timed out" and got archived. V (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) Let's see if I can look at it Saturday. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Fatima UFO Hypothesis

A request for comment about the Fatima UFO Hypothesis has been made. Since you have edited this article you a welcome to comment at Talk:The Fatima UFO Hypothesis. thank you Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence pages in userspace

You have one or more pages in your userspace that were used as evidence in the Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration case. All 23 of these pages are listed here. I'm proposing to move these pages to subpages of the case pages, and courtesy blank them (as has been done with the other pages in this case). Could you let me know if you object to this? I won't be doing this myself, but I will pass on any replies to whoever does deal with this. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem for me. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)