User talk:Pcarbonn/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Concern

Although my initial posts to the arbitration request were--hoping you'll agree--quite fair toward you, I've withdrawn the statement based upon these words of yours:

If I get banned from Wikipedia, I could certainly build up a similar attack on ScienceApologist, and I believe I could succeed. So far, I have refrained from going that route, and I believe that the ArbComm should avoid it too. I'll be happy to provide evidence, if asked, or if pushed to do it. But, what would we gain from it ?

Please note that what has been proposed against you is a topic ban, not a siteban, and no motion has been proposed that would prohibit you from interacting with ScienceApologist on any other part of the site's millions of pages. Yet your statement is not only an admission to having violated the no personal attacks policy, it treads uncomfortably close to the following.

Wikipedia:BAN#Coercion: Attempts to coerce actions of users through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite, are grounds for immediate banning.

That clause was written into policy over a year ago as a direct result of an incident in which I had been threatened. In a situation where your conduct is under scrutiny, it is a poor presentation that raises greater concerns than already exist. Please clarify your statement or amend it suitably. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 05:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing this. I agree with your analysis. Under attack, and when I drink some good wine, I sometimes loose my rationality. This is what happened yesterday. Thanks for correcting me. Pcarbonn (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I didn't alter your statement; just withdrew my own. Suggest you amend yours as well. Hope the wine was excellent, but it's best to avoid EUI. Durova^Charge! 23:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have realized that, and I have made the correction already yesterday. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion

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:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Other parties?

I've just added Kirk shanahan to the arbitration case as a party. Is there anybody else you know about who has been causing trouble at this article?

For what it's worth, I have compiled evidence related to your editing. You can probably avoid consequences by admitting any deficiencies and saying how you would avoid them in the future. Due to your very narrow experience editing mainly cold fusion, I am willing to assume good faith that you might never have been given a proper understanding of how Wikipedia works. When I first came here I had problems too. I am generally in favor of helping people rather than restricting them. I understand you've been editing in a battle zone, and that you may have been copying the behavior of others. Regrettably, it seems like others may have set a poor example. Jehochman ^Talk 20:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion#Final decision

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available here. Pcarbonn (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Cold fusion and related articles and pages for the duration of one year.

--Tznkai (talk), on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 22:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit the case pages again, as the case is closed. Daniel (talk) 10:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a clerk, acting under the direction of Newyorkbrad, an arbitrator, on this matter. See here. Daniel (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I checked your user page, and this was not clear. Anyway, please apply the same rule to all : why were these statements allowed ? Pcarbonn (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Because they were one day after the decision closed and in direct reaction to it, not 15 (!) days after it when it's well and truly over. Revert me again and I will be blocking you per the Arbitration Committee which I am authorised to represent. Daniel (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any basis for this 1-day rule, and I needed more time to prepare my posting. I posted my message on the talk page of the ArbComm case, and it does not have a banner to say that postings are forbidden once the case is closed.

PS: Doing this would be a really, really bad idea; as you know, SA got roundly admonished for doing it initially, and the edits were oversighted, and given your stated intent in that sentence, to do so would be suicide during an RfAr. Daniel (talk) 10:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention to disclose the real name of SA on wiki, as should be clear from the context of the sentence that you quote. Please note my considerate handling of the info about the University SA works for, and my other comments that we should not encourage witch-hunt. I just wanted to remind ArbComm that he did reveal my real identity. I agree that I could have found another way to say it. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You say :"SA got roundly admonished for doing [the outing]". Please provide evidence for that, as I can't find any. Here is the thread where it was discussed. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Erasing my text

In this diff you erased much of what I had written, substituting an earlier version of my text [1]. Please try not to do this in future. Merci, Mathsci (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, no harm intended. Must have been an edit conflict; I'll be more careful next time. Concerning your later comment in that thread, I was just responding to a thread you started. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments

I have nominated Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is userfied so that material in it may be considered for future use in Cold fusion or for possible restoration or incorporation in a more sophisticated article structure than we now have. Cold fusion is cramped to cover Condensed matter nuclear science, the varieties of experiments published in peer-reviewed journals, the excess heat effect, and all the issues of scientific history involved, the cold fusion affair has quite a bit of reliable source examining "pathological science," all right, the pathology not being confined to alleged "poor experimental practice," but to rejection based on incorrect assumptions, media frenzy, entrenched opinion not based on knowledge of the state of current research, and all the rest that I'm sure you know well, Pcarbonn, and that I'm only beginning to learn about as I research the topic so as to be able to help with the article. The article is at User:Abd/Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments. --Abd (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Violating the ArbCom ruling

I believe you are violating the ArbCom declaration ("Pcarbonn (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Cold fusion and related articles and pages for one year.)" by posting at the Fringe Science ArbCom discussion pages, for example here [2] and here [3]. The Fringe Science case is clearly related to cold fusion, especially since you are using your posts to continue advocating for your positions related to cold fusion. I know that Tzkai has supported your position [4], but I still say you are not complying and you know it. The honorable thing for you to do is accept the ruling and refrain from editing any articles related to cold fusion. Olorinish (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a basic problem with this opinion. Pcarbonn was commenting in a case where he was mentioned. If his action violated the sanctions, he was violating them in full view of ArbComm. He was not "editing articles related to cold fusion." In any case, it's up to ArbComm to decide what evidence and comments it wants to hear. I do not believe that the sanction was intended to prevent him from commenting on cases before ArbComm, and, should his comments become disruptive, it would be quite appropriate for an ArbComm member to so state, or for a clerk to handle it. --Abd (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, seriously!

Pierre, I stumbled across your alternapedia project, and I wanted to say I like it. I hope people find it useful. Olorinish (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, alternapedia has some real value in filling a legitimate niche. If your creation is successful it might even reduce the controversy on Wikipedia. I wish you luck in finding a way to present an authentic alternative without being taken over by the truly nutty.--OMCV (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a link! Meanwhile, today, there is a ton of reliable source in the news. Media. It's getting interesting. You get to sit back and watch. I'm jealous. --Abd (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Here is the link to Alternapedia.

Heh, I like the format that you used for the cold fusion articles. It makes specific matters much easier to understand. Let's see if you can make it good enough that we start saying ours is worse :) Personally I think that the more competence that wikipedia has, the better.

(Hey, it has already happened with the History of Homeopathy article in Citizendium, compared to Homeopathy#History, with all its shortcomings it at least manages not to leave gaping holes in its coverage, no mention of Quin for example). --Enric Naval (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Time Traveler error

Firefox gives me the following error on TimeTraveler:

Error: syntax error
Source File: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/TimeTraveller.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript
Line: 292
Source Code:
</source>

Solution?--Ipatrol (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. Unfortunately, I can't look at it now. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Cold Fusion Warning

Cold Fusion, and parts of any other articles that are substantially about cold fusion, are subject to discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on an affected article if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

The link to this decision is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Discretionary_sanctions. This is the required warning. If you need counciling on specific steps you can take to improve your editing, please feel free to ask me to a referal to a neutral respected editor who can help you out. Have a nice day! Hipocrite (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you attempt to change a section title?

You started this section (Nature Magazine finally acknowledges the possibility of low energy nuclear reactions), but a later edit summary suggests you intended to change it. Was the edit summary correct? Is the proposed new title really appropriate? Olorinish (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome back, Pcarbonn! I gather the year is up. I started editing Cold fusion within the past year, so I don't think we've crossed paths.

I'm not an administrator, but I have extensive experience editing Wikipedia, especially with trying to help resolve disputes, so if you have any questions about how things are done on Wikipedia or would like any advice, feel free to contact me on my talk page or by email; however, I'm editing less often these days so you might need to wait for a response. All the best, ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

discussion of ban extension

See WP:AN#Cold_fusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Community-imposed topic ban

By community consensus documented here, you are now topic-banned indefinitely from all contributions related to "fringe science" topics, including but not limited to Cold Fusion and related pages, their talk pages, as well as related meta-discussions. You may appeal against this ban by mail to the Arbcom's "Ban Appeal Subcommittee". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Request

Could you remove this?

User:Pcarbonn#Timeline of the cold fusion dispute

Please note that earlier you had agreed to remove the offending bits included in the timeline at the end of this discussion. The timeline is now just, seemingly, a preservation of a bit of history that is no longer relevant and simply mean.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Pcarbonn: Without commenting on individual details of the contents here, I would say that since you are now banned from commenting on the whole topic area, it would not be appropriate for you to keep expressing your views on the topic on your userpage either. I would kindly ask you to remove cold-fusion related content from your userpage next time you're around. (Otherwise, I might do it myself at some time.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That is just ridiculous. I didn't know you could do that. Wow. Free speech is dead. Kevin Baas^talk 17:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia was never intended as a platform for "free speech". Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That redirected to WP:ANARCHY, the most relevant quote from which states "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia.", but I don't see how the content in question can be construed as "interfer[ing] with creating an encyclopedia.". The section directly below it, "Wikipedia is not your web host", and the page linked to from there (user page help) seemed much more applicable. Particularly the statement "In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute." applies to some parts, such as what he wrote in his opinion section - (which IMO should have at least had been worded in response to certain actions of certain people rather than wikipedia in general). However, it only applies to some sections, which can be removed (or otherwise remedied) individually. And I can't find support for the rationale you offered in any of WP's policies. Kevin Baas^talk 17:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked over the diff of the removed content and I am curious, what of the timeline was found inaccurate, misleading, or biased? It seemed rather matter-of-fact to me. But perhaps I'm missing something. Kevin Baas^talk 17:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I didn't ask him to remove it because any particular statement in it was objectionable, but simply because (for independent reasons) he is now banned from commenting on those topics anywhere on the project. – To Pcarbonn: thank you for your prompt reaction; it's appreciated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Still curious though, regarding Guy's assertion on WP:ANI where he called it "a rather biased history" - what parts or parts does he consider misleading - but I suppose that's a question for him. (Unfortunately I haven't found him to be the easiest person to get answers out of.) Thanks. Kevin Baas^talk 13:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

i don't understand what just happened

...and perhaps nobody ever will. There are many of us who are perceptive enough to realize that were it not for your efforts, the cold fusion article would be, well, a lot shorter. Ad I would like you to know that in your strangely brief time that you were allowed to improve the cold fusion article, your contributions did not go unnoticed, or unappreciated. Kevin Baas^talk 17:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah: what happened here? I checked back here to see whether Pcarbonn had replied to my message, and found this topic ban. I don't see any diffs of recent alleged problematic edits, and I haven't had time to review Pcarbonn's contributions – one hopes the editors commenting in the discussion did – so I don't know what this topic ban is about. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If "the editors commenting in the discussion [reviewed Pcarbonn's contributions]", they certainly did not comment about it, as you've so diplomatically noted. Kevin Baas^talk 17:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

RfAr/Clarification

[5] names you as involved. It addresses your ban from Cold fusion.

I acknowledge here that you did not request this, I am solely responsible for it. --Abd (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wanted

I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 23:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Conclusion

Template:Conclusion has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. George Ho (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)