User talk:209.253.120.198: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:53, 28 May 2008

Please don't make that kind of edit to Cold fusion; I tried to describe why in a few words in the edit summary. I'm not hostile to anyone's point of view, but there's a reason that we can't battle this out in tiny edits design to subtly shift the tone. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on your comment please. I have been watching this site for a year and most of what I have seen is "small, arguable edits designed to subtly shift the tone." Are you saying that that is going to stop now? 209.253.120.198 (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from Talk:Cold Fusion) I'm realizing I'm being a little bit loud on this issue; sorry about that. I'm really mostly trying to see if other people agree with this general principle, and will help me patrol the article in the future, especially in the quieter times in-between the big discussions; 209.253 didn't do anything wrong, in my book. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does it look now?

I was going back and reading the earlier comments, and I noticed you said that the Cold fusion article was clearly not a "Good article". How do you feel about it now? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is better than before you arrived, which is good. I especially like the section title changes. I still disagree with the label "Good Article" because that implies it is one of the best 10 or so physics articles. If the label was "Very Important" or "Recently Evaluated" or something like that then I would vote yes. Maybe if the article had 4 or so months of stability I would be in favor, but Pierre wanted that stamp of approval quick, so here we are.

I worry that the article has too many partisans and will not remain stable. When I first started following the article around May 2007 Pierre and his cohort wanted to replace the electrochemistry image with a Mosier-Boss image since, as one put it, "a corner had been turned." Then rude people showed up and I kept quiet. I just don't trust the people who have been on this page to be reasonable and civil. For example, what do you think of Pierre's edit of 10:29 27 May 2008, which reverted my edit of 22:02 22 May 2008? He had asked if there were any establishment statements of disbelief after 2004 and I gave him one, but he throws it out.

I hope you stick around and do what you can to make the page better. As you can tell, I think this is a very important wikipedia article because the topic is so contentious. Cold fusion is sui generis, in a class by itself, and deserves to be studied for its lessons in how science works.

Incidently, I sometimes posted using the name olorinish. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 I was going back and reading the earlier comments, and I noticed you said that the [[Cold fusion]] article was clearly not a "Good article".  How do you feel about it now? - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55#top|talk]])([[Special:Contributions/Dank55|mistakes]]) 22:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
+::The article is better than before you arrived, which is good. I especially like the section title changes. I still disagree with the label "Good Article" because that implies it is one of the best 10 or so physics articles. If the label was "Very Important" or "Recently Evaluated" or something like that then I would vote yes. Maybe if the article had 4 or so months of stability I would be in favor, but Pierre wanted that stamp of approval quick, so here we are.
+::I worry that the article has too many partisans and will not remain stable. When I first started following the article around May 2007 Pierre and his cohort wanted to replace the electrochemistry image with a Mosier-Boss image since, as one put it, "a corner had been turned." Then rude people showed up and I kept quiet. I just don't trust the people who have been on this page to be reasonable and civil. For example, what do you think of Pierre's edit of 10:29 27 May 2008, which reverted my edit of 22:02 22 May 2008? He had asked if there were any establishment statements of disbelief after 2004 and I gave him one, but he throws it out.
+::I hope you stick around and do what you can to make the page better. As you can tell, I think this is a very important wikipedia article because the topic is so contentious. Cold fusion is sui generis, in a class by itself, and deserves to be studied for its lessons in how science works.
+::Incidently, I sometimes posted using the name olorinish. [[Special:Contributions/209.253.120.198|209.253.120.198]] ([[User talk:209.253.120.198#top|talk]]) 02:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)