| Revision as of 01:00, 22 December 2011 editSolmil (talk | contribs)48 edits →Some advice...: encouragement← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:40, 22 December 2011 edit undoOlorinish (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users723 edits →Civility: another exampleNext edit → | ||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
| Using bad language is also not very civil. ] (]) 03:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC) | Using bad language is also not very civil. ] (]) 03:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
| Claiming that other editors don't have common sense is also a personal attack. Please don't that again. ] (]) 01:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == E-Cat == | == E-Cat == | ||
Revision as of 01:40, 22 December 2011
Welcome
|
nice talk page
Wow! a positive forum on Cold Fusion/LENR
Good work guys. Keep it up. Well done. Lovely reading. I'll bookmark and come back often. And thanks for the support in the jungles of www.wikipedia.com/Energy Catalyzer. Whew! there are some big demons there for sure!
Love and peace, and a Merry Happy Christmas with your loved ones.
Solmil (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Some advice...
Your comments here will not generally make you friends. You should know that admins on the English Misplaced Pages have no connection to the German Misplaced Pages, and most of us do not have accounts there ... how would we be able to verify your claims? Of course, you should also know that users who simply edit their talkpage 10 times to get themselves autoconfirmed have often been the type that receive rather quick blocks. Although I believe your sincerity in editing the English Misplaced Pages, starting off circumventing policy and acting like a bit of a WP:DICK is probably the wrong way to begin. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Citation templates
It looks like you were trying a German citation template over at Cold fusion. You seem to have figured it out, but in case it helps - the most common templates can be accessed by clicking the Cite button above the edit window, then selecting the desired template from the drop down box. The page describing the templates is at Misplaced Pages:Citation templates, and the category is Category:Citation templates. I assume de.wiki has similar, so it should be mostly familiar. Ping me at User talk:2over0 if I can help with anything. 2over0 public (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The Beast
The beast that is cold fusion tries to hide under the name of LENR or CANR or LANR or CMNS, but we know it is the beast. It cannot hide from us.
The beast tried to infiltrate our golden path of science in 1989, but we smashed the beast and cast him out.
The servants of the beast are still among us, they will take any chance to pervert our golden way once more.
The servants try to lure innocent souls into the claws of the beast with their foul lies.
But we know know their foul lies and the lies from the beast are not believed by most scientists.
Brethren, we must ever be prepared for the beast will not relent.
--POVbrigand (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Is this from a poem or something? Olorinish (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Poetry helps to air some emotions. Do you like it ? --POVbrigand (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- I like it a lot. Who wrote it? Olorinish (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- I did. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
July 2011
Welcome to Misplaced Pages and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (POVbrigand) may not meet Misplaced Pages's username policy because it may be seen as disruptive, or intending to show a disruptive intent. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account to use for editing. Thank you. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Misplaced Pages.
- with my name I express my intent to adhere to NPOV and fight POV. My impression is that that is in line with WP policy.
- I am not a native english speaker and I thought and still think "brigand" is appropriate to express "fighter" or "robber" or "bandit" as in Time Bandits.
- I put the explanation on my user page so other users can inform themselves that I do not mean it the other way around as in "fighter for POV".
--POVbrigand (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Civility
This personal attack is not very civil . Olorinish (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback, it is not my intent to attack people on their person. I do not think that criticizing the mode of discussion is a personal attack. It is my belief that there is persistent unwillingness to discuss reliability of CF-denouncing sources, whereas any CF-supporting source is regarded unreliable by selective reading of the WP-policies. It is not civil to misuse WP-policies, it is not civil to pretend being knowledgeable about a topic when one is in fact greatly ignorant. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, we should accuse this user of something to protect science from the evil that is cold fusion but I'm not sure if that div is really good enough Olorinish. It looks to me like you are spoiling everything by using such a poor div. Maybe it will still work out as a provocation I don't know but please don't let it happen again. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 06:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Olorinish, your userpage states: "Here are some editors who have been banned or blocked from the cold fusion talk page (at least temporarily): Pcarbonn, Abd, Dual Use, Jed Rothwell, and IwRnHaA." This completely exposes your entire modus operandi, I understand you are happy with the accomplish but it is suppose to be a lot of work to see the pattern of outing unwanted users. You are making people needlessly paranoia by putting this information there. The whole surprise element is gone. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 07:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Using bad language is also not very civil. Olorinish (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Claiming that other editors don't have common sense is also a personal attack. Please don't that again. Olorinish (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
E-Cat
See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:POVbrigand_reported_by_User:AndyTheGrump_.28Result:_.29 AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
RS for Bushnell quote
Greetings , thanks for removing my citation on Cold Fusion with a reference to PESN saying it is not RS. Please help me understand which sources are RS and which are not. For example, in this google search I have found 155,000 alternative references to Bushnell citing Widom-Larsen as the energy behind eCat. Which if any of these would you say is a "RS"? Thanks.
- Hi Charles,
- User:Alanf777 has done a lot of work on presenting the Bushnell quote in different versions. Only the original interview sound file is RS. I have not seen (or I don't remember) any mention in a science magazine of what Bushnell has said.
- Almost all of those links you get out of your google search are not RS. You should look for online editions of real magazines or newspapers, real publishing, not just some website.
- My feeling is that even if your line "Bushnell has speculated that the Widom-Larsen theory, published in 2006, could be the basis of the Energy Catalyzer, however Andrea Rossi has rejected that assertion." would be reliably sourced, it doesn't really need to be in the cold fusion article. It doesn't add clarity, he said this, he said that.
- The Widom Larsen theory is one possible explanation of all cold fusion phenomena, not just Rossi. What theory will be eventually win the nobel prize will take another couple of year to find out.
- Be careful with selecting your sources for fringe topics. Using non-RS is the easiest way for others editors to attack your edit. And if you want to add something that is not in a RS, than that should be a clear indication for you not to add it. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
ecat wiki : goodbye, and thanks for all the fish
I'm giving up on the eCat wiki. Good luck, if you go on with it. Alanf777 (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Alan, the ecat was never one of my favorite articles, I only tried to help to keep it from destruction by the deletionists. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Glenn Research Center
Now hosts: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/LENR_at_GRC_2011.pdf Is the GRC considered a "reliable source"? 62.30.137.128 (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- The presentation will be regarded as "self published". Self published is OK to say something about the claimant, ie "Nasa GRC did research". If the claimant is an expert in the field then a tiny bit more could be used from the presentation. It should be RS, but there isn't too much you can do with the source. What did you have in mind ? --POVbrigand (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Storms/Springerlink
Thanks for the info. Here's a link that should be considered superior (there has been some prejudice against lenr-canr links), partly because it isn't a preprint: http://www.springerlink.com/content/9522x473v80352w9/fulltext.pdf The publication info is: Naturwissenschaften, 2010, Volume 97, Number 10, Pages 861-881. I'll copy this to the CF Talk page to see what the other editors think about it. V (talk) 06:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
wp:SYNTH, wp:NOR, wp:BLP
Hi, you might be interested in reading my recent comment on my talk page User talk:DVdm#list of cold fusion researchers. As others have told you, be careful. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
hey
I was wondering,
If I look at the notability guidelines I would say the Pons and Fleischmann event should be deserving of it's own article. Pretending this content will one day seamlessly blend in with cold fusion and low energy nuclear reactions is not realistic. It wont do any of those topics justice. The issue is trying to document a historic event on the same page as current developments.
This while we obviously want a static representation of the historic event. Nothing that happened in 1989 is changing, the article shouldn't have to change either. Doing so would create a different picture.
The biggest problem the "cold fusion" article has is that it claims to cover LENR. It's been repeated often enough, any attempt to cover LENR in the same article will make cold fusion look more credible. The opposite should be true also, any attempt to cover the Pons and Fleischmann press release drama in the LENR article would make LENR look less credible. While this might be deserving it isn't neutral.
Should we perhaps try write the LENR article in stead of just our dull list? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I just found this: And this: And this:
The plot thickens :D
84.106.26.81 (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- The biggest problem is, that many editors are completely ignorant and think it is all just a bunch of junk. Many editors think the name LENR is just an attempt to avoid saying "cold fusion", because that name is "stained". Many editors think cold fusion is done by lone garage DIY inventors who are completely out of touch with science or scientific method. Many editors don't have a clue and don't want to have a clue. Many editors are pathological deniers who believe they are doing wikipedia a huge favour by fighting off and deleting anything they think "is not worth" of being in an encyclopedia.
- I do not think that we can start splitting up articles to separate old stories from new developments. Many editors will not buy into the fact that there are new developments. Many editors are seriously annoyed that there is an article about Rossi who is trying to sell a device of which they are so self assured that they have sufficient understanding of the whole situation to decide that it is all rubbish.
- I will just keep working on the cold fusion article. I have no interest in fighting off even more ignorant editors who think they are the defenders of the thruth. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but I don't care about all that. I just want everyone to agree the 3 topics can not be united into one article.
- We keep hearing we must avoid "lending unjustified credibility to cold fusion". In stead of arguing over this we should simply stop pretending it is one topic. Such article already existed, the motivations (former) editors gave for erasing the topic didn't follow normal AFD procedures. The merger clearly wasn't a success.
- Even if a LENR article lives in your userspace (until it is finished) it can already help inform other editors. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Televesion coverage
hi,
It might seem a bit odd, for the Patterson Cell the Television coverage is the note worthy media coverage. This is why the article exists. Prominent scientists reported they replicated the cell on Television. Without this there is no reason to have an article. No one would have known about about it if that didn't happen. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes the television broadcast is also very important to establish notability of the subject. That does not mean that the content of that broadcast has to be added to the article. It can be if there is something important in the broadcast. Unfortunately there is no way we can link to the google video due to copyright violation, nor the transscript due to non-RS website.
- You are drawing a lot of (negative) attention with your editing of the Patterson cell article. I think the current version is pretty good and not much has to be desperately added. Please do not put chunks of content back in that was previously deleted. If you really think something should go in, then please discuss it first on the talk page.
- Why don't you get an account ? --POVbrigand (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- The current version looks very good to me. Much better than I expected.
- The only problem was that the AFD forced me to put an unfinished version live. Maybe that was bad, but it was productive :) 84.106.26.81 (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
BLP Issue
Your large list of researchers seems to be a potential BLP issue. I have brought a discussion to the BLP noticeboard. Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Cold_Fusion_BLP_issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Next time at least copy & paste the link correctly WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Cold_Fusion_Userspace_BLP_issues --POVbrigand (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I am not able to assess the possibility of "success" of this attempt. To me it seems frivoulous at best, but wikihounding, tag-team, harrassment, griefing, gaming etc are things that I have looked into. Kindly review and let me know how I should react. I am currently trusting the Noticeboard to "rightly assess" the situation. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand your question.--SPhilbrickT 22:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for being unclear. My request is to give me some understanding or advice if the BLP complaint has any merit. And if my userspace list (work in progress) is in danger of getting deleted. And what I could/should do about it. Thanks --POVbrigand (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'd think the best way to discover if it has any merit would be to review the comments on the noticeboard. If people think it is frivolous they will say so there. causa sui (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with causa sui here. A lot of regular volunteers on WP:BLPN are well-versed in looking at these issues. While I don't know enough about the topic area to judge whether this is a BLP violation, I can at least confirm the fact that WP:BLP does apply, even though this isn't in an article. You are allowed to respond to the issues raised there--just leave a comment in the appropriate thread. Since there's not much else we can tell you, I'm marking this help request as answered, as the ultimate result will depend on what the BLPN editors say. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I am trusting the board. So far so good :-) --POVbrigand (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with causa sui here. A lot of regular volunteers on WP:BLPN are well-versed in looking at these issues. While I don't know enough about the topic area to judge whether this is a BLP violation, I can at least confirm the fact that WP:BLP does apply, even though this isn't in an article. You are allowed to respond to the issues raised there--just leave a comment in the appropriate thread. Since there's not much else we can tell you, I'm marking this help request as answered, as the ultimate result will depend on what the BLPN editors say. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'd think the best way to discover if it has any merit would be to review the comments on the noticeboard. If people think it is frivolous they will say so there. causa sui (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
no BLP issue - nobody responded to the claim --POVbrigand (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Someone did. A lack of response does not mean there is no BLP issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sure Andy replied, what a surprise. After all, you responded to his plea for help , right ? Who wouldn't support a buddy. Show me one issue where Andy doesn't take the opportunity to show me how much he DOESNTLIKE my contributions. And if you read Andy's response you will notice he didn't even comment on the BLP issue of the list, just some general LISTPEOPLE, OR, IDONTLIKEIT drivel. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
D. Gozzi, of Sapienza University of Rome, in 1998.
I found D. Gozzi here initially:
I thought the paper was a better ref.
I was thinking we should continue to use User_talk:POVbrigand/list to discuss the article. That way when it gets deleted the content isn't all over the wiki. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)