Jump to content

User talk:Enric Naval: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
rm attack
Line 409: Line 409:


:I gave the article a good workout. I think I got the descriptions right, and even lay people should now understand how and why the effect happens. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval#top|talk]]) 04:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:I gave the article a good workout. I think I got the descriptions right, and even lay people should now understand how and why the effect happens. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval#top|talk]]) 04:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

== Fixing the f&p refs ==

Change all of the broken F1990 refs to:

<nowiki><ref name="FleischmannPons_1990" /></nowiki>

[[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 14:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:41, 15 June 2009



Re: meaning of "voldemort"

Hello, Enric Naval. You have new messages at Lord Opeth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: meaning of "voldemort"

Hello, Enric Naval. You have new messages at Lord Opeth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Stephanie Adams

Re: WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY

Hello, Enric Naval. You have new messages at Matthewedwards's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia–Chile relations

I'm not sure I can help you. I'm more or less a monoglot anglophone. I did a bit of searching but couldn't find anything about this in English. WilyD 20:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander the Great image

Can you please tell me what's going on there? Seems like an edit war, maybe pov pushing, but I don't understand it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Edit

Hi, I hope you don't mind I corrected a spelling in your post on the List of PS AfD, as I needed to make a dummy edit and couldn't work out how to do it without changing something. Best, Verbal chat 15:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no problemo --Enric Naval (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Removals of coat of arms of Kosovo

(Assuming good faith) Yes, I am completely aware of the Kosovo probation, but I dare say you may not be fully aware of the nature of the Kosovo dispute: this is NOT the "coat of arms of Kosovo". You've correctly asserted that I'm on a "campaign" to remove this coat of arms of the Republic of Kosovo from templates that talk about Kosovo as a whole. I do not and did not try to hide it. I merely made comments on two seperate talkpages which spiraled on into two debates.
I do not think this matter requires to be discussed on WT:MOSFLAG because it deals specifically with Kosovo. I'm not trying to establish a new "standard" or guideline, because Kosovo is a completely and incomparably unique case.

I've stated and restated my arguments over and over again on the two talkpages, but here they are again in a nutshell (please bear with me):
The reason a Coat of Arms can not be used for Kosovo is simply because Kosovo itself is not a country (see article for the current consensus definition). It is a "region" or "territory" with no coat of arms of its own. The coat of arms currently used in the template(s) is that of an entity within Kosovo itself which claims but does not have control over all of the "region". Even if that entity was not disputed at all (and boy is it!), a template referring to the entire region cannot be represented by a coat of arms of only one faction within that region. It is incorrect geographically, politically, and it is biased POV. Hence, it is against policy. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was my impression that violations of policy do not need consensus to be repaired? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're either ignoring my point or failing to give it thought. Kosovo does not have a coat of arms. "Kosovo" is not a common name for the Republic of Kosovo. "Kosovo" is a "common name" for a disputed region. If you have a proper look, you'll find that Ev agrees with my argument completely on Template:History of Kosovo. The "failure to achieve consensus" as you call it, is a vague discussion in which not a single user actually discussed the legitimate reasons I've listed. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You find my arguments "unconvincing"? First of all, forgive me if I do not consider the arguments refuted at all simply by that statement. Second, what is there to convince? The consensus on Wikipedia is that "Kosovo" is a region. If I have failed to convince you there, I repeat that you may simply have a look at the consensus on the carefully monitored Kosovo article. This region has no coat of arms. What is there to convince? This is simple logic. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You edit and reintroduce the version of the template you prefer, you avoid any proper discussion, and then "win the argument" by petitioning for a block with little or no grounds by misleading the Admin. (And you've yet to back your assertion that "there is no violation of WP:NPOV".) Now I see why you've virtually ignored my last two posts. You may want to know I've just ceased to "assume good faith". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you think I've been lying to you, and that I didn't know about that infobox? Here it is in the plainest imaginable terms: That is NOT an infobox for Kosovo itself. That is an infobox for the Republic of Kosovo. I repeat: the two are by NO MEANS the same.
You will also find there the infobox of the other of the two "entities" which exist there: the UN administration, which represents the Serbian enclaves which consider themselves within the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija administered by the UN. The Republic of Kosovo does not consider itself UN-administered, the UN does not even recognize the existence of the Republic of Kosovo. These are the two "entities" or "factions", if you like, that exist within Kosovo, which is by Wikipedia consensus a "disputed region". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 05:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, yes, I know. The matter is immensely complicated, even on the general level. As you say, the UNMIK created the Kosovar assembly. The UN controlled the region. That assembly, however, declared the new "Republic of Kosovo". This move excludes UN control by definition, and passes the power to the newly-created government. This move was in no way encouraged or endorsed by the United Nations. The UN did not recognize the declaration and the "Republic of Kosovo", thus maintaining that the region was still an autonomous province of Serbia under UN administration. The government of the Republic of Kosovo naturally rejects UN administration as it is an independent government not recognized by the UN. Hence, the Republic of Kosovo is not under UN administration. The only part of Kosovo still not rejecting UN administration are the Serbian enclaves.

"All of Kosovo is still nominally under UN administration, not just the Serbian enclaves."
Quite true, but its not that simple. All of Kosovo is "nominally" under UN administration, but you've not followed that correct assertion to its end. "Nominally" (but most of it not de facto), Kosovo is UN administered, it is "nominally" not an independent country. "Nominally", Kosovo is a UN administered autonomous province of Serbia. The situation on the ground, the de facto situation, is quite different (as you may conclude from the above paragraph). De facto, only the Serbian enclaves accept UN administration (as a part of Serbia). The Republic of Kosovo does not consider itself UN administered, and its independence from Serbia is not recognized by the United Nations.
These are the basics of the situation. I hope they'll provide an adequate insight, despite my not being a professional at politics and diplomacy. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of the proper term. It just doesn't seem right to call it "protection" in this case. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG

An Arbitration case in which you commented 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/Abd and JzG/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/Abd and JzG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GustavusPrimus

I noted that in a deletion review log dating from May 15, 2008 [1] you engaged heavily with the user GustavusPrimus and specuated that he might be a sock puppet of two other accounts involved with the debate.

I thought you might be interested in knowing that GustavusPrimus has been found to have been utilizing two sock puppet accounts [2], both of which were involved in that same debate, but not the ones you were initially considering. I've included a little bit more information on my talk page User_talk:SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy#GustavusPrimus. I will certainly be looking out for the individuals you mentioned concern with during the discussions.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied in your talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replied. Thank you.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I've replied to your message at User talk:Coppertwig#providing summaries of Abd's comments. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied further. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Congratulations on your whitelisting

I got one too! (Convenience link for seminal 1990 Pons and Fleischmann paper). I've added it to the article, we'll see what happens. --Abd (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I just added mine to Michael McKubre. I still need to go use it as a reference. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's this "whitelisting" you're talking about? Just curious. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about this whitelisting. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good points

I just wanted to say I read your response to my Abd/Jzg evidence, and you make good points. My responses won't surprise you-- basically the whole crux of my raising civility is that I think it gets at the heart of the "real" problem in these RFCs and Arbcom cases with JzG. By and large, he tends to make EXCELLENT decisions as an admin. Normally he does take the actions that a neutral, civil admin would take. It's just that sometimes he's goes about things in ways that inflame, rather than defuse, the conflict. A judge who takes a case even though he's married to the defendant is in the wrong-- even if he does render the same verdict that a truly neutral judge would have. A hostage negotiator who regularly inflames the hostage crises is still doing a lousy-- even if the criminals really are guilty of everything they're charged with.

But, both good points to make. I've corrected my evidence to make it more clear that I agree with your points and am not trying to say that the actions were, in and of themselves, wrong. Had a truly and completely uninvolved admin taken the exact same steps, neither the rfc nor the arbcom case would exist. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally right there. JzG still needs to learn more tact when putting on his admin hat. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of TL;DR

I have nominated TL;DR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 19:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiporjecrts by banned user

I guess ask Roger Davies (talk · contribs) about the Pak military one, as he owns the whole joint. I've notified him. The others could be speediable as a creation of a banned user YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ikip (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Longo Sculpture

The Iowa Barnstar
For your commendable and succinct defense of the Robert Longo sculpture in Iowa City, I hereby award you the Iowa Barnstar. Bill Whittaker (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with all the OCD folks trying to demolish legit articles and images through bureaucratic challenges is what drove me into early retirement, I appreciate your help. Bill Whittaker (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh, thank you very much :) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

Enric, you have been participating in an effort to exclude reliably-sourced material from the Cold fusion article, based on arguments that the source is fringe, specifically Storms, The science of low-energy nuclear reaction, World Scientific, 2007. World Scientific is a major publisher, and is certainly independent, not a fringe publishing house. The book is a secondary source, a major review of the field, the most complete. You also are objecting to the not-yet-asserted use of a review paper by He Jing-Tiang published in Frontiers of physics in China (Springer-Verlag)in 2007. This is a secondary source in a peer-reviewed journal. You may certainly argue that facts or assertions taken from these sources should be treated with caution, but you may not exclude them out-of-hand; to do so on the argument that these reviews are "fringe" is a violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science. While this is a formal warning against excluding material merely because it is allegedly fringe, I would much prefer to have your cooperation. Please help to use this material, and, of course, to make sure that it is balanced with other sources, keeping in mind the requirements of WP:RS with regard to science articles. --Abd (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, would you care to point out what part of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science am I violating? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Good question. Advocacy. See also Finding re ScienceApologist. Note that ArbComm has recommended mediation if further disputes arise. I've made another edit today to Cold fusion that restores the material removed last by Hipocrite, which material was quite condensed from the originally removed material over which Hipocrite initiated his poll. I added additional reliable sources to support Storms. Please don't remove this material; instead, if it makes the article out of balance, please balance it properly. It is not imbalance, however, to report notable theories, "proposed explanations," of cold fusion; and it's entirely imbalanced, per the ArbComm decision, to categorically remove such material. Without this, we had no actual proposed explanations, only dismissive and derisive quotations from weak secondary (passing mention) and teriary (Derry) sources. That was blatantly one-sided. Thanks for asking. --Abd (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You see, in the "advocacy" thing, I don't think that Storms or Jing-tang are making "conjectures that hold significant prominence", that's why I don't think that I'm violating it. I also think, and other editors think too, that these sources are not reliable, that they are fringe unreliable sources that uncritically support all non-significant non-prominent views in the field indepently of how wacky or unlikely they are. The most egregious examples of non-prominent views proposed by Storms are the biological transmutation thing or the hydrino theory thing. They are all views that have discarded by mainstream as not having solid experimental evidence that has been replicated independently, and not a good solid theorical base. As for SA, he was acting against consensus, which is what you are doing here when promoting certain sources as reliable or relevant long after there is consensus that they are not.
Sorry, but I'm tired of having to explain the same points again and again, and I'm tired of walls of text from a person who keeps refusing to accept any consensus that goes against his personal opinion. I don't know what you do at other talk pages, but at Talk:Cold fusion you have drifted over time into promoting the most fringe views on the topic, to the point that my patience is (almost) exhausted. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hum, now I don't know if I should got to mediation for a specific topic or directly to WP:RFC/U :P Abd, if I make a mediation on Storms & proposed explanations, will you agree to bind voluntarily to the result? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been following Abd's edits on the talk page of cold fusion. His edits are tendentious and his sourcing quite suspect. Long comments like the ones above are exactly the same kind of edits that were heavily criticized during the recently completed Abd & JzG ArbCom case. My advice is to report him on WP:ANI and appeal for a community topic ban. His methods - acting as a mouthpiece for the highly speculative and unestablished claims of a banned editor User:JedRothwell and wearing down good faith editors with prolonged and endless screeds of repetitive prose - are unacceptable and disruptive. In particular his essay User:Abd/Majority POV-pushing shows intent to undermine WP policies on fringe science, slowly and persistently. Mathsci (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a word, Mathsci, horseshit. It will bounce back in your face. I'm not a mouthpiece for Rothwell, period. You've got a dispute with me, follow DR. ANI isn't part of that process. --Abd (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense am I in dispute with you? This seems like a very evasive and combative way in which to respond to criticism. As far as I am aware, we do not edit any common articles. Are you referring to evidence presented in the recent ArbCom case? Your recent editing record is extremely unbalanced at the moment with multiple problems. If you continue hounding other editors and editing tendentiously, you are probably heading for a topic ban. Possibly some sense of proportion might be restored while cold fusion is locked. Mathsci (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about the walls of text, but this is a complex subject and deserves detailed examination. If this is too long, just pay attention to the article edits and respond with care.
Now, to your points:
conjectures that hold significant prominence. There are various standards for this; publication in reliable source certainly meets the standard. Sources do not fail WP:RS because they can be claimed to be fringe. Wikipedia standards for notability suggest that independent publication satisfies RS for the purpose of determining notability. Where there is conflict of sources, then relative reliability comes into play, but we don't exclude verifiable and notable material. However, in fact, we don't have conflict of sources, when it's examined closely. Hydrino theory is prominent. Have you looked at the references I just put in? However, I don't want to argue details yet. The principle is that WP:RS must be taken as an objective standard; the way you are interpreting it, it becomes subjective, and it is, then, circular. If it is fringe, no matter how reliable the source might seem otherwise, it's unreliable because it is fringe, and the subject is non-notable fringe because there is no reliable source.
It's quite clear that the "mainstream" discarded cold fusion in 1989. Look at the publication in that year from the Rothwell paper, negative papers were 2:1 against positive. However, 1990, the papers were equal positive and negative, and every year after that, though overall publication volume declined, it didn't collapse, and positive papers far outweighed negative ones. And this does not include conference papers. However, as far as mainstream opinion, what happened in the last twenty years? Nothing? By 2004, you must be aware, the DoE panel was showing very significant interest in cold fusion, and recommended further research. (When we take the "same as 1989 overall conclusion" as continued rejection, we forget that the 1989 panel also recommended further research and did not consider the matter closed. We've mistaken Huizenga for the panel.) Remember, half the 2004 panel thought the evidence for excess heat "convincing." One-third of the panel was "somewhat convinced" that the origin of the heat was nuclear. Enric, this is utterly incompatible with a judgment that cold fusion was, as of 2004, "discarded by mainstream." I'm not promoting a fringe view, I'm relying on reliable sources and reporting what is in them. There is mention of biological transmutation in reliable sources, by RS standards. That isn't at all the same as claiming that it's real. It's unconfirmed, as to specific experiments and broad verification, and there are only two mentions of it now or previously in the article. One is a See also, which seems to have been accepted, and the other was a mention (reverted) of biological transmutation as a desirable phenomenon (not asserted as real) to be explained by a theory. In other words, if there is a theory that explains cold fusion, we already know it's quite likely outside standard physics. (Though it is possible that someone will figure out a standard model theory, and there are theories which do make the claim that they are standard physics, but this is conference papers.) If something is happening that is outside standard physics, on what basis can you claim that biological transformation is beyond the pale? We really don't know. Absolutely, it seems unlikely, until you start thinking that cold fusion might actually be happening. But that's not enough for us. We don't write the encyclopedia based on "seems."
The core of this is how reliability of sources is established. My opinion is that it is relatively objective, and "fringe" isn't relevant, except if a publisher can be credibly shown to be devoted to fringe topics. Even then, publication could make a source sufficiently notable to use for attributed opinion. Here, though, that's not being asserted. World Scientific is not a fringe publisher, period. Neither is the Oxford University Press /American Chemical Society, by the way, that book is on the way, I'm told. --Abd (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abd, we have discussed this many times. What I am asking now is, if I open a mediation case so that both cases can present their arguments in an orderly fashion, then, will you abide by the result of the mediation? If I open the case, and both sides present the argument, and people comment on it, and a guy from the mediation cabal closes the case with a compromise solution. Then, are you willing to bind yourself to the result of the mediation? Even if it isn't exactly what you wanted? Even if you disagree with the result? --Enric Naval (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: question

Hello Enric Naval. You will recall that over a month ago you started an RfC section here regarding the image to be used in the article's infobox. After the discussion was automatically closed, user:Kurt Leyman restored his own preferred image on the base of a vote count. None of the arguments voiced by me and user:Johnbod (whom I contacted on his talk page on account of his interest in Byzantine art) were addressed by the other party. Has this RfC been handled according to normal procedure? To me it seems strange that the outcome should be determined by merely counting votes. At any rate, consensus has not been reached. I would appreciate to have your opinion on this. Greetings, Iblardi (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, these matters are usually quite complicated. One problem is both sides were offering opinions on what looked better, with no sources showing which are really the original colors of the items depicted (is his dress really purple? is that round thing really bright orange or is it palid red?).
Looking at the conversation, I suggest that the best course of action would be uploading [3] into wikipedia, label it as {{PD-art}}, and placing it into the article. That's because that image appears to address all coloring and light concerns raised by both sides. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a matter of accuracy in representation rather than of aesthetics. The fact that the dress is supposed to be purple, not blue, can be easily verified.[4] It is the lack of counterarguments from the other side which bothers me. Thanks for the suggestion, though. Iblardi (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

19 May Image deletions -- Impressed

Dear Enric, I just wanted to write to say that I stumbled on the Files for Deletion section for 19 May and, while I have a lower (but I think still justifiable) threshold for Fair Use of images than you, I admire the way you consider each image according to your criteria and respect the arguments of others. I hope that I can become as reasoned in my dealings on the admin side of WP as I see you being. All the best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) --Enric Naval (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Gillis

I have replied to your commentary. I think you should state your interest in keeping each image at its individual discussion so that there is no confusion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put my !votes under each image. Btw, I just noticed that, from the four covers that I ask to keep, only one is nominated. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hi, Enric. I added a section to Abd's userspace essay User:Abd/Majority POV-pushing, and I would be interested in your comments on it. I invite you to participate in discussion on the talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you may have the source, please comment on source misrepresentation claim by Mathsci.

[5].

This has gotten way out of hand. It's supposed to be simple to get something whitelisted if it's needed, and the copyright arguments could have been raised -- and were raised -- with respect to every link that you got whitelisted. As we have seen before, it isn't simple. Whitelisting doesn't mean automatic usage, and a whole site can be available for linking even if it contains some copyvio, policy is clear on that. However, Mathsci's accusation is completely beyond the pale. You may have the source, I believe, from your Talk at Mathsci. Will you look at what I posted and his accusation, check the review to see that it says what I claimed -- which was, unless I made some mistake, exact quotation -- and comment? --Abd (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This misrepresentation is argueable, so I can't really say "X is right and Y is wrong". I comment in the whitelist page. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask you to look again. I quoted from Sheldon, Mathsci responded, immediately below my comment, that I was misrepresenting the source. In context, that would not refer to something that I allegedly did elsewhere, but to the immediate preceding comment. If it referred to Talk:Cold fusion, why was this brought to a discussion of whitelisting some links, where Sheldon was mentioned purely to show notability of the web site. Yes, notability within the field." What other kind of notability would be important? How was my comment at the whitelist page "arguable" as misrepresentation? What in that comment could reasonably have been misrepresentation? You are aware, I presume, that this is almost entirely direct quote, and if it was cherry-picked, surely you could find some contrary text. --Abd (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply in whitelist page. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion mediation

I have been asked to mediate the content dispute regarding Cold fusion. I have set up a separate page for this mediation here. You have been identified as one of the involved parties. Please read through the material I have presented there. Thank you. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user

Can someone run a CU on 67.81.194.67? Appears to be NootherID. —Whig (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see below, I opened a SPI case. I'm tot 100% sure if it's the same person. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is nonsense. That's just a clueless user from New York who added a bit of information to the article, having no idea how contentious and well-guarded it is, and left a note on the talk page to make sure someone else verifies it's correct. It's obvious that the user isn't even familiar with talk page sections. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hans is right, I look again and now it looks like some guy innocently posted in the wrong place at the worst time (and, like many new users, he didn't think of giving the details for the exact source). My mistake for continuing to build the SPI case even after discovering that the IP was from a wholly different place :-( --Enric Naval (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at anon 59.96.59.100. —Whig (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one does fit with Dr.Jhingadeey. I see that Bull already tagged him --Enric Naval (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr.Jhingaadey

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr.Jhingaadey. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DrJ a troll?

I feel that DrJ is a troll intended to cause disruption and bring disrepute on homeopathy, quite frankly, and would not be surprised if he continues to turn up and act like he's never learned the rules because he's pretending to be new. —Whig (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you are right. His past history shows that this is his MO. Fortunately I doubt that any editors at the homeopathy article will let this user's behavior affect their opinions about homeopathy one way or the other. Don't worry about that. This guy is just a sad case. Such people also plague other articles on other subjects. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does not alter the opinions of the skeptics and would not be intended to if his purpose is as I described. —Whig (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's no troll, if you mean someone "pretending" to be a believer in homeopathy. No, he is a real homeopath and he doesn't intend disruption, but intends to make Wikipedia stop including content that demeans homeopathy. That ends up being disruptive, because it violates our policies in several ways. He has a website and presence on the internet as a homeopath, and he linkspammed it many times, which is what got him one of his first blocks. IOW, he's not faking it. He doesn't understand Wikipedia and doesn't seem capable of doing so, as it's been explained to him many times. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You posted the same thing on my talk and I replied there. I don't want to cut and paste myself here. —Whig (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. This was also for the sake of Enric. I have replied on your talk, and this matter seems pretty much settled. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion topic ban

Say, it looks like there are a few kinks in the markup of your AN/I request for review of the topic bans (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#need review of the topic ban of two editors from Cold Fusion). I suspect that there might be a closing bracket or two missing somewhere, but I don't want to tamper. Could you have a quick look? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Forgot to close one diff. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uruk2008

I just created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Uruk2008; it needs a second endorsement, so please endorse if you agree. Thanks, -- BenRG (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsed. Please leave me a message here when the RfC goes live. Please feel free to use any of my comments in your evidence. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think it's live now, but I'm kind of unclear on how the system works. -- BenRG (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's already listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Approved_pages_.28users.29, so it must have been approved by someone from the mediation cabal. There are people who regularly look at the list and comment on the open request, so I wold just let it run its natural course. When the RFC is closed you can then ask in ANI that Uruk2008 is banned and checkusered. Unless, of course, he finally says something, acknowledges the problem, and starts trying to use sources of better quality. You already did your part by starting a community discussion, you should only participate to endorse views, to clarify points in the talk page of the RfC, and to reply to questions that people makes you about the question before participating in the RfC. It's now up to Uruk2008 to change his behaviour, you can't force him to reply to the RfC. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I moved it there. Should I undo that edit? -- BenRG (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. I looked again at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Instructions and it doesn't make any limitation on who can move it. The RfC already has two users certifying the dispute, so it complies the criteria. If there is some problem with the certification then someone will point it out and act as necessary. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that he has blanked the message you left warning him about the RfC. According to WP:BLANKING, this amounts to an acknowledgement that he read the warning. If the RfC closes with users agreeing in that he is being uncivil, and him not changing his behaviour at all, you can simply do as I suggested above: ask in ANI that he is blocked/banned and that the other accouts are checkusered. (ask me if you need help in making the checkuser petition) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppenheimer on WR

About this, that IP that did this edit is actually someone from the Sandia National Laboratories according to this. I don't know the subject matter, but are we sure that edit by them was technically inaccurate or just left bad language use? rootology (C)(T) 03:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP only means that the edit was made by some Sandia employee, who could have or not have knowledge in nuclear physics. It could be some informatic like me, trashing around in his free time in physics articles hoping that he doesn't break too much stuff while trying to improve the articles :P
The edit removed that "[the proton] does not take part in the reaction". Why did he do that? Who knows, maybe the role of the proton is described incorrectly, and the IP decided to remove the whole thing instead of fixing it. In any case, the reaction is more complicated than that, see description in a book written by the son of the discoverer so my edits are also innacurate and the article needs way more wordsmithing.
So, *I* think that it's someone removing info instead of fixing it, a typical error that I have seen both in IPs and in registered editors. For all we know, it could even be a nuclear physicist from Sandia checking that the article was correct, and accidentally erasing part of the text without even noticing it.
And, coming from Sandia, I doubt that it's some bored vandal erasing stuff at random. Kudos for thinking of checking the origin of the IP :) I'm gonna add that description to the article and work a bit on it. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the article a good workout. I think I got the descriptions right, and even lay people should now understand how and why the effect happens. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the f&p refs

Change all of the broken F1990 refs to:

<ref name="FleischmannPons_1990" />

Hipocrite (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enric_Naval&oldid=296549357"