User talk:Enric Naval/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Cold fusion neutron claim date

[1]

The findings were reported in 2008. The Naturwissenschaften paper was published on-line October 1, 2008, and then in print for the January, 2009 issue.

From the first page of the paper: Naturwissenschaften (2009) 96:135–142 DOI 10.1007/s00114-008-0449-x

Received: 30 July 2008 / Revised: 3 September 2008 / Accepted: 14 September 2008 / Published online: 1 October 2008 (c) Springer-Verlag 2008

We may cite the print publication as January, 2009, but the "report" is definitely 2008. I believe this work was announced earlier at ICCF-14, as well, but I haven't checked that today. --Abd (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I sort of remember that it had been announced sooner, but I think that it didn't get repercusion in mainstream media until it was announced during the ACS meeting in the 20th anniversary of Cold Fusion? That sentence should probably read "In 2008 Mossier-Boss reported (...). It received wide media coverage when it was announced in the 20th Anniversary of CF during the 237th ACS' annual meeting." --Enric Naval (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. Except that this wasn't simply a commemoration of the 20th anniversary, it was an unprecedented extended seminar. The press release should be read. By the way, I disagree with the theory that this got coverage merely because of the 20th anniversary. Neutrons were the holy grail of the skeptics. "Where are the neutrons? If there were neutrons, we'd believe this was nuclear." Now, definitely, there are vastly too few neutrons to account for the excess heat, so there is still the problem with classical fusion theory, unless we realize that, indeed, there are other possible reactions than simple d-d fusion, but ... if there is no nuclear reaction, there should be no neutrons at all, other than the few from cosmic radiation, and the SPAWAR neutron findings are roughly ten times background, repeated in many experiments. Neutrons got attention, like nothing else has since 1989. --Abd (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

From the press release. The actual report was presented in 2009, even if the related paper was published 3-4 months before "The report, which injects new life into this controversial field, will be presented here today at the American Chemical Society’s 237th National Meeting."[2]. From the same source "It is among 30 papers on the topic that will be presented during a four-day symposium, “New Energy Technology,” March 22-25, in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the first description of cold fusion".

So, yeah, the sentence would be more accurate if instead of "announced in the 20th Anniversary (...)" it said "presented in a symposium held at the ACS' 237th annual meeting in conjuction with the 20th Anniversary".

As for being an "unprecedented extended seminar", I see that the APS already held several meetings, in 2007 having two sessions of about two hours each: Cold fusion I[3] and Cold fusion II. And the ACS also had a symposium in 2007[4]. I suppose that we could be using this source and some other to say that the interest in the field appears to be increasing in the last years, with the ACS and the APS accepting symposiums and stuff. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's continuing. There is a new Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook being prepared for publication this year. More papers are appearing in Naturwissenschaften. You mention the pop sources as the reason why the SPAWAR neutron work is in the article. Great. But what about what is supposed to be our preferred sources? Peer-reviewed secondary sources. Hipocrite was reverting out text that had two or three peer-reviewed secondary sources and one academic published secondary source behind it. And you stood and watched, and cheered when I was banned. It will fall back on you, Enric. That's the way the universe works. There will be an alternative energy sources session at the ACS meeting in San Francisco in 2010, even more cold fusion work. The Italian energy agency, ENEA, has issued a new report on cold fusion that essentially confirms that excess heat is simply a fact, there is so much evidence for it (which is quite consistent with the 2004 DoE review, the 50% "not conclusive" rejection there simply represented skepticism because of the presumed lack of theory. 50% "convincing" and 50% "not conclusive" is more than half, almost certainly, "weight of evidence favors." I today was reading the EPRI report from 1998. It considered excess heat as an established experimental fact, the only question was nuclear origin.

You should be aware that hydrino theory proposes a non-fusion cause for excess heat, right? It's a form of chemistry, if it's real, simply a very unexpected one. I don't favor that theory, but it's notable; it was in the article, and accepted, when WMC took it out while under protection. What do you think? Do you think it was proper to remove reliably sourced and balanced information from the article about notable theories which propose explanations for cold fusion, and continue to pretend that there aren't any? --Abd (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

When mainstream sources say that this these theories are accepted by the scientific community, then that will be a different situation. We already had discussions on why there were problems with those sources. That being said, no problem with adding in the article that the ACS and APS now make cold fusion meetings when they didn't make them before. I'm still a bit stuck with the patents thing. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Problems with your response, Enric.

• Wikipedia depends on WP:RS and not on subjective editorial judgment of what sources are "mainstream." We have RS secondary source coverage of the theories, from independent publishers. If they have not been widely accepted -- or even narrowly accepted -- that is a matter for how the facts are framed. If they are covered in RS, and particularly in secondary sources, they are notable. If they are notable, they belong in the project somewhere.
• The article has a section on "Proposed explanations." It is not a section on "Explanations accepted by mainstream science."
• "Cold fusion" is itself a theoretical explanation of a set of observed experimental phenomena. You wouldn't argue that we shouldn't cover cold fusion because it isn't accepted, would you?
• My position on the article has been that we should firmly stick to WP:RS, but only that we should apply it evenly; what I've seen in the last six months is that weak sources are asserted to deny cold fusion, and stronger sources are excluded. For the science, we should rely on peer-reviewed secondary sources or academic secondary sources, but it seems that if a source appears to favor cold fusion, ipso facto, it will be claimed, that's not a "mainstream source." This is long-term POV pushing.

As to patents, you should see what's pending! [5].

In my view, the material on patents has ballooned out of proportion for the article, and relies on primary sources (or secondary sources for law whose application to the article's topic is speculative). We have some very simple proposed text in the mediation. What's wrong with that? --Abd (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

See "scientific focus" at the Fringe science Arbcom case and other principles like "Relevant comparisons", "Advocacy", "Citations", etc. Other editors don't agree with your assessment of the sources.

About the patents, I'll reply to your question if you post it at the mediation page. I don't see any benefit from forking the discussion to this page, so I won't start discussing here. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(noindent) Abd knows very well that hydrino theory has been discredited, yet he continues mentioning it. He has also stated that science articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica are not written by experts. What he writes never ceases to amaze me. Mathsci (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, this is an encyclopedia, not a science textbook. I do not support hydrino theory. However, it is a notable "proposed explanation" for some of the phenomena called "cold fusion." As originally proposed, you would know, I assume, it is a non-nuclear explanation for the excess heat and lack of radiation, through there may be versions of hydrino theory that allow the alleged hydrinos to shield the coulomb effect. Do you deny there are reliable sources regarding this theory? If you do, that does indeed amaze me. It's notable enough that there is reliable source arguing against it! (Though mostly primary source.)

I don't think that I've exactly said what you claim about encyclopedias, what I do claim is that encyclopedia articles are not, in general, edited by experts. They may or may not be written by them; some experts would assign the writing to someone else anyway. Depends. What is a fact is that experts review the articles. That is often missing here, but the reverse situation, that an expert controls the article, is sometimes just as bad. With no expert review, we get inaccurate articles. With expert control, we may get unintelligible articles, or, sometimes, a POV with no extra charge, if there is any significant controversy in the field.

If you want to be useful, Mathsci, there are theories now that don't involve new physics, and conceptually I can understand them, but the math is beyond me. Perhaps you could take a look? I have a friend who is a quantum physicist working on it, but the more the merrier. Kim, Naturwissenschaften, May 2009. There is also a video available of Kim explaining his Bose-Einstein theory for LENR at a seminar sponsored by Robert Duncan (physicist) at [6], and if you would like to not be so totally ignorant of what's been going on in the field, you could look at some of the other videos as well. The math is more intense in Takahashi's latest papers. I don't know if you can get a copy of the peer-reviewed Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, published in 2008 by the American Chemical Society and Oxford University Press, those obscure fringe science advocacy groups, where Takahashi goes pretty thoroughly into the math of his Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate (TSC) theory, but there is another paper of his just published in the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, pp 33-44, which appears to cover much the same territory.

It seems to me, and I've been checking this out, that both these proposed explanations, that of Kim and that of Takahashi, are variations of each other. Takahashi's TSC appears to be a Bose-Einstein condensate. When Takahashi's theory was first mentioned at Talk:Cold fusion, the idea was pooh-poohed by assuming what would be true for free space and plasma fusion: if 2D fusion is rare, 3D fusion would be very very rare and 4D fusion utterly insanely rare. However, this isn't Kansas any more. It's a lattice, and inside the lattice, deuterium is dissociated; but at the surface, we have D2 gas, the molecular form. As I understand Takahashi's theory, if one D2 molecule becomes confined by a cubic site in the lattice, all that happens is that it dissociates and moves inward, as individual deuterons, or it escapes outwardly. If a D2 molecule and a single deuteron are confined, the same. However, if two D2 molecules become confined even transiently, the four deuterons would presumably be arranged in the most efficient packing, i.e, they would be in a tetrahedron. Similarly to the Oppenheimer-Phillips process, presumably they would be polarized, "proton ends" out, so the neutrons could approach more closely and the strong force might take over. The phenomena of Bose-Einstein condensates, specifically the behavior of the electrons, may also shield the Coulomb repulsion to some degree. What Takahashi predicts from his mathematical techniques is that, if the TSC forms, it fuses 100%, I think it takes a femtosecond or so.

I wondered why ScienceApologist thought the obscure O-P article so important that he put it first on his list of articles he was asking ArbComm for permission to edit. I think I know now. I was totally naive about it, I became interested in that article simply because I'd noticed that Enric, who means well but is clueless about the science, had rather badly mangled it. Enric, of course, did good by his efforts, by attracting correction, though it was a little iffy for a while when he reverted total nonsense back in, perhaps based on your generous opinion about my lack of knowledge, but when SA showed up, Enric sensibly disappeared for the most part. And I think we ended up with a much better article.

Enjoy. --Abd (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Remember to post that question at the mediation page. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What question? --Abd (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The question "What's wrong with [the very simple proposed text in the mediation]"[7]. Although I made later a comment at the mediation[8] that probably answered your question. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Again what Abd writes is simply wrong about the Encyclopedia Britannica or dedicated mathematical encyclopedias. Does he write this kind of thing because he believes it should be true, even if it's contradicted by the publications? There are some very serious problems here. Mathsci (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"Dedicated mathematical encyclopedias." Mathsci is welcome to describe the actual process, say for the Brittanica, but Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not one written solely for people who are already reasonably expert, and Wikipedia articles should be generally intelligible and informative. Articles aimed only at specialists don't belong here, in my opinion, but usually even a quite abstruse topic can be described sufficiently and intelligibly, with external links for more detailed and specialist information. If it's not generally intelligible, it's poor writing, no matter how "accurate" it is.

In general, we depend on how publishers function for notability decisions. Publishers designate editors, and editors edit in pursuit of the publisher's editorial policy. Writers often have different motivations, unless they are merely hacks, i.e., anonymous writers who work solely to put text together intelligibly, who frequently aren't experts in the field. The distinction between writer and editor is often lost on Wikipedia, where we call everyone an "editor," and much disruption is actually the classic cats-and-dogs relationship between writers and editors. Writers originate content, frequently from their own knowledge, and frequently can't be bothered to source everything unless forced to do so; sensibly, though, with good writers, who are quite valuable, careful sourcing will be done by an editor, in communication with the writer. "How do you know this? Is it just your own opinion? If so, shouldn't we state it as such?" Etc.)

The old saw about attorneys also applies to writers: The writer who self-publishes without independent review has a fool for an editor. And editors who don't respect writers should be fired. A good editor develops rapport with the writers and the product is thus both accurate and interesting to the intended readership. --Abd (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

AGF-related suggestions

In your 12 July Cold Fusion/Cryptic_C62 post, does this symbol represent sticking a tongue at the reader?

  ":P"            

If so, could you do me a favor and express yourself a different way? Also, could you do me a favor and avoid calling CF a damned article? Some of us have worked very hard on it. Thanks. Olorinish (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sorry, I didn't know that people would find those things offensive, I use them all the time at internet chats with no problem. I'll try to avoid those terms and that emoticon. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you fast response. Maybe I am being prickly, but considering the combat that article has seen (including sock puppetry and arbcom attention), it is probably better to stay on the safe side. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying you are as bad as this guy: [9] Olorinish (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, you are right in that the article requires extra carefulness. Btw, about the video, I love it when he says "That's okay, we can just go to the edit history and click undo". --Enric Naval (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with these papers?

Well, moi. Enric, there is plenty of reliable secondary source on charged particle radiation from cold fusion cells, it's a bit beyond me that you would think there was only primary source. Perhaps you believed people like Mathsci, ScienceApologist, Hipocrite? I stopped trying in the middle of May to put new sourced material in the article, and only later reasserted prior material, baldly reverted by Hipocrite, with additional sources. I was really seeing how far he would go with his brazen revert warring, one secondary RS should have been enough. There was one academic publication and two peer-reviewed reliable secondary sources for the Takahashi Be-8 theory by the time it was last reverted out by WMC. I'd have done the same with charged particle detection, and will, now that Hipocrite is probably out of the picture. I do still have a detail to take care of first, but I predict that won't be long. Thanks for your comments at the RfAr, they will, I predict, help encourage ArbComm to take the case, as will Mathsci's. WMC has not addressed the charges at all; JzG tried that tactic, it didn't work. I don't know if you realize what you may be calling down on yourself by making yourself a party before ArbComm. I was trying to confine this RfAr to the narrow question of admin action while involved, and you were merely an incidental part of that story, but now you are likely to be more centrally in the spotlight. Good luck.

The sources for the Be-8 theory: Independent academic publisher: Storms, 2007. Peer-reviewed secondary sources: Frontiers of Physics in China, He Jing-Tang, 2007. Mosier-Boss, the Triple Track paper, Naturwissenschaften, 2009, refers to it. Remember, all we are doing is mentioning the theory as a proposed explanation, not claiming it's valid! Charged particles, again, we would be mentioning as reported by multiple groups. This goes back to about 1990, with a Chinese paper in a PR journal that reported CR-39 evidence, which is necessarily charged particles. It didn't get a lot of attention, but it was covered by Hoffman in his Dialogue on chemically assisted nuclear reactions, which is secondary RS, in 1995. --Abd (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Frontiers of Physics in China".... haven't we talked previously about this journal? .... --Enric Naval (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure we have. It's a peer-reviewed journal, mainstream. Not terribly noticed here, to be sure. But it's Springer-Verlag and Higher Education Press. Editorial board. That we don't have an article on HEP shows how insular we can be, this is one of the top publishers in the world. I wrote a lot about the publisher, etc., in Talk:Cold fusion, back when I was doing more talking than editing the article. That's what I do when I'm learning about a subject, I research it and discuss it. You ought to try it sometime. Don't be confused by arguments over source quality that have to do with contradiction of sources. There is no contradiction of sources involved here that isn't synthesized by you. --Abd (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

My weak memory seems to recall a very long discussion in which you failed to accept the consensus that it was a new journal of unknown quality/reliability that shouldn't be taken as proof of anything. My weak memory also recalls that you kept bringing up the journal regularly saying that it was a RS, once and again and again and again and again, and that it was in that last discussion where I gave you that formal warning for bringing up the same issues again and again. And you bring it up here again, and if no other editors of the article had ever found a lot of problems with that source. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If we follow RS standards, it's RS. In any case, this will be at mediation, right? You imagine consensus because you take a position, and a few editors who take consistently anti-cold-fusion positions agree. There was no consensus, and, in the last edit warring -- which I did not participate in -- the source in question was reverted back in, not by me, and was there as protected. The only "problem with the source" is that information in it is favorable to cold fusion, I'm quite sure that if it had been negative, you and your friends would be all over it claiming it was very important. As it would be! There is hardly any peer-reviewed reliable source negating the published research in the field. What you, and others, have done, is to confuse standards that are used when there is conflict of sources with standards that are used to determine inclusion. There is no conflict of sources on this. Do you have any peer-reviewed reliable source to assert that shows the conclusions of the Chinese paper are wrong? Can you claim that the publisher is not independent? Exactly what is the basis for the rejection of this source? Be specific. And, remember, this source was only being used to show the notability of the Be-8 theory by virtue of its mention in peer-reviewed secondary source, and this was only a supporting source, additional to Storms and Mosier-Boss, and are you really going to try to challenge the reputation of Naturwissenschaften? --Abd (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't ask me to rehash the arguments for you. Go to the very long discussion that I linked above and read it yourself, in the second and fourth comments on the thread Phil153 already raises a lot of issues, I raised that it contradicted higher quality sources, OMCV raised more problems about the quantity and quality of the references used in the paper. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Contradiction" is a synthetic judgment unless it's clear. What "higher quality source" does the Chinese paper contradict? I had, as I recall, three reliable sources on the Be-8 theory. The "quantity and quality of the references" used in the paper simply indicates that it was a brief review, not a deep one, that's all. You raised "contradiction," yes, but without citing any at all. And what guidelines indicate that is, if there is contradiction in reliable source, we include it all, somewhere. Please remember what the source was being used for, it was merely to establish notability for Takahashi's TSC (Be-8) theory. All we do in the article, if we use the section that, actually, you had helped edit, Enric, is to describe the theory as a proposed explanation. Do you deny that it is a proposed explanation? Again, what contradiction?

I think I know what contradiction you have in mind, and it is a diffuse one, and it's called "POV." It appears to you to contradict your POV, which you imagine to be scientific consensus. And that's what comes out with detailed discussion. --Abd (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

First, Phil153 also told you about the contradiction, second you proposed it to show that CF was accepted as a valid phenomena which does contradict other sources, third a low quality journal does not help to show notability for the Be-8 theory (mind you, if the theory had better sources I wouldn't have a problem to add it, altough making clear that it was not accepted by mainstream as a likely explanation at all), fourth read WP:FRINGE again, fifth I don't agree with your assesments of the sources and neither did other editors, sixth you are still refusing to accept consensus, septh mediation is thataway.

Eight, notice that in all the threads I linked above above you were using it as a RS to claim that the scientific community accepted cold fusion as a valid phenomena, it was only on the last one that you said that it also cited Takahashi's Be-8 hypothesis, no wonder that the debate on that journal got polarized. If this wasn't polarized we would have just said that it was low-quality and discarded it, but you refuse to accept that. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Enric, too often you have no clue as to what sources mean, nor to what editorial comments mean. I proposed the source to show that there is some acceptance of what we call CF phenomena, and, in particular, that there is notability, which is, indeed, in this case, an incident of acceptance as worthy of comment of the Be-8 theory, by the author and by the reviewers, and this is utterly undeniable. I have not proposed, and would not propose, "general acceptance," but your comment above implies that, thus confusing the issue. The context of the article makes clear that there is no "general acceptance" of cold fusion, as it should, but it is not necessary to repeat this with every attributed statement, and to imply that the general scientific community has rejected the Be-8 theory is not only unsourced, but untrue. Mostly it is unaware of it. However, if we were to limit our consideration to those at least moderately informed about recent research, it's quite obvious that, by now, the underlying experimental observations are widely accepted, possibly even by a majority, though there is no general agreement about theoretical explanations, not even in the CF research community. RS is RS, and judging it as "low quality" is highly vulnerable to subjective POV.--Abd (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Above you imply that the paper in Frontiers of Physics in China is not reliable source. On what guideline or policy do you base this? It meets the criteria, quite clearly, for independently published peer-reviewed reliable source, and it is also a secondary source, not a primary one, and thus a candidate for being preferred for the article. The issue of contradiction of sources remains, but you do not state any contradiction above. I will review the prior discussions to see if there was any specific contradiction with specific reliable source asserted. It's quite clear that there is contradiction with POV or conclusions as expressed in many non-peer-reviewed sources.

Reasons were explained to you in the discussions I linked above. As I also stated above, other editors just plain don't agree with your assessment of the sources. Also, without being an expert myself, I find that those editors consistenly give much better and more reasoned arguments than your own arguments. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, in the first thread, when I merely reported the existence of the source and it was attacked, even though eventually it was acknowledged that there might be some possible usage for this source, you wrote this:

It's probably contradicting the 2004 DOE report and Nature[15][16], the scientific consensus as reported by several New York Times article, the university press books that I added at Martin Fleischmann describing how most scientists don't think that cold fusion has shown any definitive proof, etc., although it's hard to say without seeing the conclusions, and the list of studies to see if it's covering experiments already covered by the other sources, and if it's raising points already criticized at the other sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources:

• 15
• 16

There is no contradiction with the peer-reviewed sources from 1989, nor with the 2004 DoE report (which was not peer-reviewed, and which showed major difference of opinion in the expert community), with a secondary source reviewing the body of research in 2007, showing recent evidence. Please show a contradiction, specifically. Statements in non-peer-reviewed sources to the effect that "cold fusion has not shown any definitive proof" may have been accurate as of the time of publication, but would not negate later review with different conclusions, since the statement is time-dependent. It means "not yet." Later claim that there is such definitive "proof" -- the word evidence should be used, not proof -- doesn't contradict the earlier claim. And the earlier claims you mention were not themselves based on peer-reviewed secondary source, but were only widely-held opinions. That's what Simons shows, if you were to actually read the book instead of just cherry-picking extracts as it suits you.

To address one point specifically, one of the Nature articles attempts to set an upper bound on cold fusion taking place, but it relies upon an assumption that free-space branching ratios and therefore neutron emissions would apply to whatever was taking place in the CF cells. It's quite clear that this assumption was just that, an assumption, and the Be-8 theory is a counterexample; if the TSC forms and collapses to Be-8, as Takahashi hypothesizes (and shows that the collapse would occur if formation occurs), no direct neutron emissions would be expected. There would be low-levels of indirect neutron emissions, as are actually found. It's being argued in the CF community that, if the Be-8 hypothesis is true, neutron and gamma emissions would be higher, from secondary reactions, though I've not seen any actual quantitative calculations showing that, but whatever is actually happening as the main process, it does not normally generate neutrons, so the basis for the Nature paper was off. Basically, the cold fusion community, with vast experimental work, has confirmed the experimental observations that were the basis for the Nature paper, though not the conclusions, which were reasonable at the time, but not later. --Abd (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Claims made in bad-quality sources that contradict statements made a few years ago from very-good-quality sources. Guess what, you need sources of comparable quality to say that those statements are no longer valid. Other editors don't agree that "Frontiers of Physics in China" is a RS even after hearing your arguments, you are just refusing to accept consensus. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Temporal databases

Hi, i replied to your comment on temporal databases (basically, TSQL has nothing to do with TSQL2, despite the names) RonaldKunenborg (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied in Talk:Temporal_database#Why_end-date.3F. Thanks for the expert advice. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		Awarded to Enric Naval for quality work and incredible perseverance in the pursuit of quality across many different areas of Wikipedia. Orlady (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia: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^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 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 ^(t/a/c) 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 ^Humbug! 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 ^Humbug! 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^Talk 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^Talk 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 ^Humbug! 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)

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 ^(t/a/c) 23:55, 21 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 Wikipedia; 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. Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

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)).

Thanks for this edit

I was ready to add this sentence http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&diff=304487788&oldid=304300572

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 [10], [11], [12], [13])
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)

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)

"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)

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)

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 Wikipedia: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)

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)

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.

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[119] 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,[54] 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)

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 Wikipedia: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 :] ^{How's my driving?} 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 :] ^{How's my driving?} 11:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Enric Naval. You have new messages at Talk:Spermophagia#Health_Benefits.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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 [14], 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)

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." [15] 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 Wikipedia 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. [16] ☺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)

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)

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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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[17] and Eric Krieg (the guy of the perpetual motion machine list) offered to test one of them [18] (*). There is another unpublished attempt of replication that was published online and that is not listed in the article[19].

(*) 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)

Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, 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 ^(t/a/c) 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)

I'll need a few days more. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:35, 21 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)

AfD nomination of Spermophagia

An article that you have been involved in editing, Spermophagia, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spermophagia. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Listed IAF article for deletion

Hello. I've listed the IAF article for deletion here [20] I've noticed that you played a part in discussion at this page and would like your input. Peace and happy editing. 0nonanon0 (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Barbaro family

Good catch. I made the mistake of thinking Jky52 was blanking the information like they had the first time [21] That will teach me to post when I'm in a hurry. Thanks for correcting the error that was already in the article. I invite you to place the article on your watchlist, there's been a hoaxer trying to insert false claims for the past few years and an extra set of eyes would definitely help. Edward321 (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Jky is continuing to blank sources. Here they ax 5 English and Italian sources in1 edit. [22] Edward321 (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Project Chanology

Hey, please don't add unsourced info to articles, as you did at Project Chanology. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Skepticfall & WP Pakistan

Hi, can I ask why you are reverting edits by Skepticfall (talk · contribs) en masses, as well as removing WikiProject:Pakistan templates from talk pages? GiantSnowman 17:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's because he is a sock of Strider11, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Strider11. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, fair enough then - some of your changes showed up on my watchlist so I thought I'd just check! Regards, GiantSnowman 17:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I still need to remove some hundreds of edits, so you will see more edits. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please stop doing this and assess whether or not your tagging is beneficial to the encyclopedia? There is no need to get rid of valid information or a useful page just because a particular person made it. NW (Talk) 18:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I already gave it a little thought: Strider11 is adding the Pakistan WP tag to pages where it's dubious that it belongs. Tags should be added by active members of a wikiproject not by the sock of an indef-blocked user who keeps creating lots of wikiprojects and categories that are way too small in scope, recreates wikiprojects that were deleted in MfD, tags everything that could possibly ever have anything to do with Pakistan, let's not mention the removal of the India wikiproject tag from pages where it belongs to replace it with the Pakistan one. He's just flooding the list of pages tagged with the Pakistan WP banner until the list will stop having any meaning. The WP banners are not to automatically classify every article, but to help the wikiproject members to make their wikiproject work. Strider11 is obviously not interested in those details, and he keeps creatin useless pages.

I also have the impression that he wants to fluff up the presence of Pakistan in wikipedia by artificially creating lots of Pakistan-related pages, independently of whether they are actually useful to wikipedia or not. I noticed how he created lots of userpage categories, and then he added one userpage to every one, which causes admins to decline speedy on them. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, I tried not to roll over stuff that was actually useful, like the category of Pakistani criket captains, or things like Template:Meetup/Pakistan. I still have to speedy or send to mfd more of his pages, but I'll continue tomorrow. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. I'll try to give you a hand. Regards, NW (Talk) 19:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet allegations

I do not understand this edit or the accompanying comment. The user who created the category and the redirects in it is not mentioned on the sockpuppet investigation page you linked to; in fact, that user's account is not even blocked. Is this a mistake? (Incidentally, I think redirects of this type are generally useless and should be deleted, but that's not the issue you raised.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem. The sock (User:Skepticfall) created two or three categories that were similar to this one, and he populated them from scratch by creating new redirects. Then he placed a few redirects into others categories that he hadn't created himself[23][24]. I nominated both the categories that he had created himself and the ones that he hadn't. Sorry about that, I take care not to squash the wrong pages, but, when reviewing +500 contributions, a few always manage to slip through. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Revisions

I see you've been undoing a number of edits by the said user above. Some of these edits seem to be productive and I was wondering whether they can be redone. If so, I ask for your permission if I can personally re-do themself? Acejet (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if you see that I undid a useful edit then please revert it. Please don't restore the wikiproject banners unless you are a member of that wikiproject or one of its task forces. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I want more clarification for this. What if the wikiproject that has been tagged is relevant to the article/category (in this case, all the articles and categories that have been tagged by their wikiprojects seem relevant) ? Acejet (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The banners are used by the members of the wikiprojects to follow pages that they want to work with. If you are not a member of that wikiproject and you add a lot of pages to that wikiproject then you are filling their list with pages that maybe they are not interested with. This makes it difficult for them to follow the interesting pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Bose Products Merge

Thanks for your input into the AfD for Bose stereo speakers et. al. As you may have seen, the result was No Consensus. I have started a discussion to find consensus on merging all of these articles together. Feel free to contribute your opinions here. Thanks! SnottyWong talk 23:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bose wave systems

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bose wave systems, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose wave systems (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

• Fundraiser: Controversial "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser to start 10 November

• New pages experiment: Wikipedians test the water at new page patrol

• German controversy: German Wikipedia under fire from inclusionists

• Multimedia usability: Multimedia usability meeting concludes in Paris

• Election report: Arbitration Committee candidate nominations open 10 November

• Book review: Review of Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures: Cybercultures in Online Learning

• News and notes: Ant images, public outreach, and more

• In the news: Beefeater vandalism, interview, and more

• Sister projects: Meta-wiki interview

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Schedule deleted

Why did you delete the construction scheduling page. I can assure you this a relevant topic to an encyclopedia as well as the topic of many researchers in addition to professionals. I think your decision to delete was hasty, based on opinion, and did not consult anyone that had any knowledge of the topic. Please restore the page Granite07 (talk)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_3#Schedule_.28Construction.29_.E2.86.92_Primavera_P3

You probably want to leave a message at User talk:VegaDark, since this was the administrator who performed the actual deletion. Just claiming that the topic is encyclopedic is not enough, you need to find some reliable sources showing how Scheduling (construction) is a specific enclyclopedic topic different from Scheduling (production processes) or from the other types of scheduling. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

hallo from Uwe Kils

can you please vote again on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uwe_Kils_(3rd_nomination). Best wishes Uwe Kils 10:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page

Hello. I agree with you, that guy's post was out of hand, but that talk page has been kinda ridiculous for a while now and probably always will be. It seems unreasonable to really remove anything from the talk page given the nature of the subject. In any case the talk page accumulates messages so quickly that his post will be archived in a week or two. Beach drifter (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Then the archives get full of those messages.... But maybe we should make like Talk:Republic of Macedonia, where any thread about the name is speedily archived. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

• Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections

• News and notes: Mapping geotagged articles language, import sources enabled, 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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Form B resignation

There is a new message for you on the Form B resignation page and the Wikipedia Law Project page. Please leave your comments under either one. Thanks. Morning277 (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

• Election report: ArbCom election result announced

• News and notes: Fundraiser update, milestones and more

• In the news: Accusation of bias, misreported death, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: my talk

Thanks I appreciate the assist; I'm only ever more confused and overwhelmed by the panoply of options and policies on Wikipedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again For following up. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Confusion on Luo Gan issue

Hey, sorry for the late reply. Hours ago I wrote something but didn't save it, and because I had too many tabs open my Firefox crashed and I lost it all. This kind of thing happens. Firstly, I didn't realise I had put the thing back like four times already--though I note that it was under different circumstances. The first time the complaint was about the source, so I got a better source (the point of dispute changed). Anyway, that's good to know, so I'll pay more attention to that next time. What I'm going to do next is find all the instances where this connection is noted in sources, and other relevant information, and present them on the talk page. If there is still not agreement—i.e., that if after it's shown clearly how this information has been conveyed in sources there are still some editors who think it should be excluded from the pages—then we can take to a NPOV noticeboard or other forum, and see what others think. I think the information is sourced and relevant, and helpful for readers to get an idea of the background, as well as what sources have said about this. And yes, absolutely, it's about sources saying that He's critiques were not isolated. If this stuff was in good sources, I don't see any problem--since it's a minor thing, it shouldn't take up much space. Another option may be explore the use of explanatory footnotes, but I'm sure what precedent there is for this on wiki; footnotes would have to be verifiable too, and couldn't become a channel for any old claims, just things that don't smoothly fit into the text. Anyway, my contention is that the information is noted in several sources, and that it should be available to the reader. Sorry to write a lot. This topic is complex; somehow the pages need to communicate that complexity without being bogged down in irrelevant details. But significant detail is helpful. Anyway, two cents, let's see how it goes.--Asdfg12345 02:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(link to warning for reference[25]) I'll reply in Talk:Falun_Gong#Luo_Gan. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I responded. I think the issue is how would those sources be discredited, or I mean, what would make them unworthy of weighing in on this? That's what I don't get. Anyway, we can discuss it there. If you have some convincing argument and we can't agree, then we can take it to one of the boards. I'd like to see the arguments for their unreliability first though, I guess.--Asdfg12345 14:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Arthur L. Williams, Jr.

Please refrain from describing the ALW system as a "pyramid scheme". That term is a derisive suggestion that ALW was illegal. Further, unless you actually go forth to EVERY article about every MLM on the Wiki (Herbalife, Shaklee, Amway, MaryKay, Tupperware, etc.) and call those "pyramid schemes" also, you are being biased here. Suffice it to say, while it is indeed true that the ALW system left many people - primarily former agents and competitors - very unhappy, it simply is NOT true that ALW was a "pyramid schme". Please stop saying that. It's not true, and even if some sources contend it, it's POV to state it as an uncontested fact. Additionally, the Art WIlliams article is NOT the place to debate of the merits/flaws of the ALW system. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with leaving it at Multi-level marketing --Enric Naval (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

sock?

I'm curious to know how something like this claim (quote taken from the cold fusion discussion page): "99.27.134.160 (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026)" is proved to be true? V (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Is proved by similarities in behaviour, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nrcprm2026. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, in general I agree that the technique can work, but one needs to be careful. Because in general if there is a group of people with the same POV, most of the members of that group will push very similar arguments ("Set A"). Someone who does it badly and gets banned casts a shadow on the others, because it becomes easy for someone pushing the opposite POV with Set B arguments, to now claim that any new user pushing Set A is the banned person, when there is the chance that it might actually be a new member of the original POV group (who of course will have basically the same arguments). In this particular case I hadn't visited that page you linked for a while, thinking it had been closed without reaching a conclusion. Also, it has appeared to me that Hipocrite had behaved more badly than 99.27.134.160; I didn't notice the number-person making undiscussed edits or arbitrarily reversing edits without adequate explanation, while Hipocrite leaped at the opportunity to start a witch-hunt. Since I'm fully aware that the most despicable tactic in an argument is to try to shut up an opponent, instead of actually engaging in discussion, it logically follows that Hipocrite has indeed behaved badly. I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss various matters with him in detail, but the evidence so far suggests avoidance-at-all-costs (especially the "cost" of trying to ban other users) on his part. And you are free to tell him I said so. V (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss matters, but only those related to wikipedia articles. I will not engage in discussion about Cold Fusion and the next great new experiment, which is what you are consistantly trying to do. That's why I ignore most of what you write - because you're using wikipedia as a forum. James S. is banned from wikipedia per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium#James_S._placed_on_general_probation and [26]. If he wants to be unbanned, he knows how to ask - and socking on Cold Fusion and Gulf-War Syndrome is not the way to do it. If you have any serious belief that any given IP is not James S., I'm happy to entertain that, but I'm going to ask that you actually do the research to determine why people think these IP addresses are all James S. before you ask me to justify any IP address - the first time, for example, you ask me to justify one that so patently obvious as 99.27.134.160, I'll go back to ignoring you. Hipocrite (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice of you to drop by, Hipocrite. I was not particularly arguing against the particular sock-possibility discussed above, so much as wanting to know more about procedures and how much care is taken when a claim is processed by those procedures. It is important that the result be rather accurate, after all. Next, regarding discussions on the CF talk page, it is impossible to discuss an edit without including reasons why or why not a particular edit should be done. If you want to call the presentation of those reasons "using the page as a forum", then, since you are totally wrong, you should completely excuse yourself from doing any sorts of edits there. Here's a specific example. You wrote (more than once): "Mentioning this one paper provides undue weight to a fringe theory." --without explaining why or how that could be true, or even identifying the particular fringe theory. That is an inadequate basis for denying an edit --your statement could be an outright lie, without such explanatory support. That is, why should anyone believe your claim to be true, if you don't explain it? 17:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Another example, which possibly even Enric would fault you for, is the utterly false claim you made when requesting the investigation of the number-person, regarding "pushing the same fringe sources". In actual fact most of the sources cited were not fringe at all, and your mere worthless claim that a source such as Naturwissenschaften is "fringe" doesn't make it fringe. It is all the worse of you to say such a thing after participating in the mediation discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion/Mediation, where that Source in particular was decided to be mainstream; the fact that you act as if you learned nothing from that mediation implies you are stuck in a mental rut, resisting acquiring any new information that contradicts your preexisting opinions. Therefore, since it is a fact that the experimental data from the cold fusion field is beginning to solidly tip toward the kind of reproduce-ability required by the mainstream, it logically follows that any editor who acts as if the field must always be fringe simply because it has been fringe in the past...that editor should no longer be editing the article, in any manner whatsoever. V (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

• News and notes: Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news

• In the news: Criticism from climate change sceptic, decade in review

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Balkan population vandal is back

See 78.83.249.8 (talk · contribs) and C philev (talk · contribs). Keeps inflating Bulgarian and Bosniak numbers, while decreasing all other ethnic group numbers (without a source of course).

He is very, very obviously a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked user, C filev (talk · contribs).

This huge vandalism of his on Bosniaks remains unreverted. 58.166.162.94 (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I filed a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/C_filev, but it might take a while before they are blocked. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)