Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Banedon (talk | contribs) at 04:07, 26 August 2016 (→Chess tournament). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

OMICS Publishing Group

My content was deleting from OMICS Publishing Group talk page, i am placing a response for your reply.

Hyderabad Software Enterprises Association - HYSEA, Formerly The Information Technology & Services Industry Association of Andhra Pradesh - ITsAP. Previously these award called as ITsAP Awards. Three years back the state of Andhra Pradesh has been divided into two. So previous data is not available, please refer info from . Some of the pages referred about HYSEA in Misplaced Pages B. V. R. Mohan Reddy, Valuelabs, some of the companies listed ITsAP awards Microsemi an American Company, MyBusTickets in wikipedia. So may be this awards is acceptable

OMICS is publishing about 50,000 articles and proceedings per year recent acceptable source previous The Times of India source largest selling English-language daily in the world, additionally OMICS website also furnished information with DOI links . You are right another 50% source of income is from conferences.

I hope you understand better, please reply at OMICS Publishing Group talk page if satisfied. 192.155.217.199 (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems clear that the other editors are not willing to read whatever you write: that's a third different editor that has reverted your edits. If the consensus of so many other editors is to not bother, I'm not about to argue with them. Sorry. Banedon (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

If all of our edits are removed, how/where we will report our concerns. 106.220.218.217 (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See WP:UNBAN. SmartSE (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Privileges of administrators

I want to make up my own behaviors at ITN, but is it worth it? Lately, someone deemed the comments unnecessary. I don't want to get into conflicts with him. I can't go to WT:ITN lately as everybody treated me as if I made an ass out of myself. I can't go to ANI yet as I'd be ArbCom-med. Is this issue major, minor, non-issue, or what? --George Ho (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

What follows is really only my opinion, and I am only one participant in ITN. I think you don't have to "make up" for your behavior. Most things on Misplaced Pages are voluntary, and if you don't do anything, someone else will. So you should not actually feel obliged to "help", especially if you are not familiar with protocol or if you get the feeling that you are making things worse. In this case, if it were me, I'd simply do nothing because it's not me whose post is being deleted. I would chalk this up as another case of that someone acting like a bully, though. Banedon (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll let it go this time. The section is archived anyway. Also, how did I do at the WT:ITN about some "minor" issue? George Ho (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it was a very minor issue about which you needn't have bothered: with no offense meant, worrying about something like this makes you look like a highly enthusiastic but very inexperienced editor. Is this the answer you were looking for? Banedon (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind any answer you give me. You did answer it, and I'm pleased with your honesty. Maybe I need to reflect myself before I go further there again. I did want a consensus, but I didn't know how to propose properly. I don't know whether I should have asked whether a bot would be broken if lv3-headers are used, but I guess it doesn't matter anyway. I need to rebuild my reputation before I tarnish it. George Ho (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I have one more question: must I take their responses seriously? George Ho (talk) 06:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Well you did ask for Iridescent's opinion, so if you're not going to take him / her seriously, why ask in the first place? From my interactions with Iridescent as well, (s)he is a reasonable person, whose opinion is worth considering. TRM's appearance on that page (and associated battleground behaviour to boot) is troubling though, considering it's a conversation between you and Iridescent and none of his business. I'd think about invoking WP:HOUND. Banedon (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Iridescent is a good person to have conversation, but won't matter. I'm doing my best to ignore the other person, but I don't know how far he will go. However, reporting him is too risky unless there is a strong case against him. I'm planning to leave take a break anyway once I finish Cheers (season 7). Will there be another person like him? George Ho (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the word 'risky', rather that reporting him leads to drama that you (or me for that matter) would rather not deal with right now. I do consider the case against him strong, but some people think highly of him. I suppose that's why the popular media regularly references how toxic Misplaced Pages politics are. At this point he's probably watching your (and my) every edit. You could ban him from your talk page if you've not already done so, warn him not to thank you for your edits, etc, and consider getting an IBAN if you find it troubling. Banedon (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

PS, if you speak any other languages, feel free to use them on this talk page. Banedon (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Cold Fusion, Navy SPAWAR and NASA

Hi Banedon,

As has been mentioned repeatedly there is difficulty getting published in this field, however NASA and Navy went forward to get this into the public view. The videos are undeniably from NASA and Navy SPAWAR scientists however, and probably exist on their respective government servers with public access. NASA which is continuing the effort, may publish when they have finished their grid testing of many materials in the search for even more energetic reactions,,, but they may also take the Navy route and simply try to license the technology,, as one of NASA's Tech Gateway videos suggest, same with Navy for remediation of nuke waste , on their website. Navy did end up with 23 or maybe 27 publications, at least one patent, and NASA with at least one patent. Use what you feel is appropriate. My first visits to the pages on Fleishmann and Pons struck me as not a good reflection of their important work,, work which could change the lives of billions of people. The NASA and Navy patents seem important. Thanks for any help you can provide me regarding editing and/or this topic and the researh. I'd add that the first government report had some of the hot fusion guys on it. Because electrochemistry is distant from hot fusion and particle physics main focus (hot fusion and fission), the strong force,, they are generally unimpressed and inexperienced with the weak force which is the active force in "cold fusion" electrochemical cells. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organiclies (talk • contribs) 01:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I would require evidence that NASA and the Navy actually believe in Cold Fusion as a whole, because to my knowledge they don't (only certain scientists who are affiliated with NASA and the Navy do). Also while I can appreciate the difficulty in getting published in CF, this is still Misplaced Pages, and Misplaced Pages is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If cold fusion someday becomes widely accepted, then convincing current skeptics will be a necessary step as well. If you happen upon reliable sources covering CF, then those can be added to the article. At the moment, I think the most likely additions to the article are about ongoing research, under "publications" and "conferences". Banedon (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

As the science is disputed , again by people who haven't spent decades studying it, the dispute here should at least objectively cover both sides of the argument with some balance. I refer to the main pages for cold fusion, Pons, and Fleishmann. Agree that more current research would be nice to see, but it's mostly concealed due to patent and licensing concerns (profit). It will be interesting to see how the DOD reports on this in September. They could however have reason to minimize any progress and importance. The purpose of the Navy video was to give us an hour synopsis that covered their decades of work which constituted 23 publications. All the Navy papers are available online and I think linked to on Wikis. However the critics by far prevail on the main article pages while the proponents views are stacked with doubt. Doubt usually provided by critics who explain everything away by using strong force physics, which don't apply. It would be hard to get NASA to believe "cold fusion" is real "as a whole", just as it's still hard to get people to believe in anything as a whole. An aircraft with unlimited loiter, never needing to land for fuel, would be reason enough to limit the spread of a technology. N Langley was presenting same in the slideshow. The main page articles really seem to require some balancing of argument with regard to allowing the use of strong force arguments to criticize weak force experiemnts? Thanks for your responses! Organiclies (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organiclies (talk • contribs) 10:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, the science isn't really disputed - mainstream scientists simply don't look at the field. To say the science is disputed misrepresents CF's status. I doubt current research is obscured by profit motives; that probably only applies to charlatans. One of the consequences of CF being on the fringe of science is that there are some serious scientists and some charlatans, and real scientists are desperate for peer attention. Also the reason most scientists don't bother looking at the field is because there are powerful theoretical reasons to believe it doesn't work. Goldstein's article on the topic touches on those reasons. After decades of work, cold fusion has yet to produce a device that indisputedly proves CF works, e.g. a coffee-making machine that does not need to be charged. CF remains on the fringes of science, and as long as it does, the article should say it is so, and emphasize the reasons why people don't believe in it. Banedon (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#The_Rambling_Man. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Misplaced Pages's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Amortias (T)(C) 19:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Amortias: I just added another diff involving Flyer22 Reborn . I am not pinging her nor notifying her on her talk page because of your assessment it is canvassing above. I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not to let her know something involving her was mentioned. Banedon (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Chess tournament

Your edit summary at chess tournament ("probably no longer true") is puzzling. There's absolutely no doubt that chess computers (even standard commercial programs) are stronger than any human at fast time controls. "No longer" is especially surprising, since humans haven't gotten much better at speed chess and computers have increased in strength markedly. That said, the claim wasn't cited and doesn't seem essential at that point in the article. Quale (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I mean it's no longer true in the sense that currently chess computers are stronger than any human (including world champions) at any time control. The original sentence seemed like it was written ten years ago, which makes it "no longer true" - although I suppose "oudated" is a better way to describe the sentence. Banedon (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)