Jump to content

User talk:Geo Swan: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
DPL bot (talk | contribs)
dablink notification message (see the FAQ)
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 119: Line 119:


It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 11:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 11:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

==Thank you==
Thank you for taking the time to go through the E-Cat nonsense and reply on my talk page.
I have written the following as a response to the ban page, and doubtless will be breaking various Wikipedia rules with it, even if I'm allowed to post it.

I understand what argumentum ad hominem means. AndyTheGrump denies it, but he still has not answered the various points I brought up, in particular the referenced errors about Rossi believing nickel and hydrogen combined to form copper, the cherry picked quotation from the stale dated PopSci article and possibly libelous defamation of his character, suggesting he is a criminal and a conman. Instead he goes after the messenger saying that I am clueless, a sock puppet, have threatened others (which I haven’t), that I should “go away and learn about how science works,” asking I have some connection to Rossi or the testers (I don’t) and accusing me of using the talk page as a soapbox.
My major complaint is that the article is not neutral. Give mainstream views prominence, but at least give something from the other side. Don’t cherry pick the most negative bits from the articles quoted as was done for Featherstone’s piece, giving an erroneous view. This is not even the current article from PopSci that is much more favorable. AndyTheGrump gives much weight to LENR being fringe science, but I believe it to be emerging from this category when Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at the NASA Langley Research Center says LENR is proven beyond dispute, as does Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson and others.

There have been two independent tests of the E-Cat funded by the reputable Elforsk R&D organization. It might have been better to call them engineering tests in order to avoid the misunderstanding by some editors, who felt it should have been a scientific test to determine the physics of the reaction. The test never claimed that and was conducted properly as an engineering test, as I know from firsthand experience with scanning IR instruments. These tests showed the E-Cat worked with a high degree of confidence. A further continuous six month test to start this Summer has been funded by Elforsk.

AndyTheGrump made much of me posting a long excerpt from Engineering News. To start with, I have permission from Kenneth Creamer, CEO of Engineering News do this and secondly, like the piece I wrote myself, this was an effort to reach a compromise through discussion. I had no intention of showing Leonardo Corp’s address in the final piece, this was an attempt to show the E-Cat was real and not “fringe science.” You may indeed order a 1 MW plant from there with four months delivery and currently they are offering a 1 MW plant free to a user in Europe on the understanding it will be open to the public.
I made the mistake of posting on AndyTheGrump’s page that I apologized for ascribing Edison (talk)’s accusation of me threatening someone to him after he said I shouldn’t post there. (It is now deleted) Possibly there is some Wikipedia rule against civil discourse. I still don’t know how to reply to Edison as I don’t see any edit link. So, as of this morning I can no longer edit the E-Cat page although I have not been informed of this. I guess that the E-Cat will become accepted in six to twelve months but I won’t hold my breath to be reinstated and for AndyTheGrump to be banned instead.
Adrian Ashfield [[User:Parallel|Parallel]] ([[User talk:Parallel|talk]]) 21:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

: Parallel, I am concerned you experienced lapses from [[WP:Please do not bite the newcomers]]. It is important to protect newcomers from goading, impatience, [[WP:NPA|insults]], and failures to [[WP:Assume good faith]] for multiple reasons. Not only is doing so [[WP:CIVIL|the right thing to do]], but if we allow rogue elements of the existing contributor base to get away with subjecting newcomers to goading, impatience, insults, and failures to assume good faith we risk giving those newcomers the impression that these behaviours are OK.

: I encourage you not to follow the example of those who goaded you, and failed to assume good faith on your part.

: Can AndyTheGrump prohibit you from leaving messages on their talk page? You will note that they made a similar, but more limited demand to me. Our policies, guidelines and established conventions are so complicated I don't know, for sure, how much support their demand to me would get, if I were to continue to leave comments related to the topics they said they weren't interested in. But they didn't try to totally prohibit me from leaving comments, because there are certain circumstances where I would have an obligation to leave him a heads-up. Some people would think we had an obligation to leave AndyTheGrump a heads-up to this discussion here, since we discussed his comments.

: You haven't been blocked. I am going to ask you again to think about ''other topics'' you are interested in, particularly non-controversial topics, and make non-controversial improvements to those articles. You have less than 100 edits in your contribution history. If you were to spend a couple of weeks working on making what were clearly positive, non-controversial improvements to articles unrelated to cold fusion, I think you could get the topic-ban lifted.

: What is the best way to respond to grumpy or aggressive people who do not seem willing to extend to you the assumption of good faith, or the courtesy of civil and collegial replies? I dunno. But I do my best to try to take the high-road, and ignore the temptation to ''"respond in kind."''

: I think there were valid points made by our challengers. If you haven't read [[WP:Verifiability]] you should do so. It is one of the core, original, key policies. It says we should not aim to make the wikipedia ''"true"'', we should aim for the much less ambitious goal of making it ''"verifiable"''. This means we should be satisfied if our articles neutrally summarize what [[WP:Reliable sources]] have to say about the topic. This can be a strain if you think those third party references got it all wrong.

: When I re-read [[Talk:Energy Catalyzer]] I saw what looked like the regulars there discussing the recent reference you found. They referred to it as a primary source. Here on the wikipedia we generally prefer secondary sources to primary sources, because genuine secondary sources provide authoritative third party interpretation of raw data -- where actual primary sources don't. However, because we prefer primary sources to secondary sources some respondents stretch the definition of these terms beyond recognition so they can use questionable references, or so they can dismiss sources that really are reliable. If the reference you liked really was a primary source it really would be a reason to de-emphasize it.

: Parallel, would you consider enabling e-mail, and sending me an e-mail? I have some advice I would like to offer you in private.

: Cheers! [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan#top|talk]]) 09:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:08, 11 June 2013


If you are considering initiating an xfd on material I started

2004, 2005, 2006-01--2006-06, 2006-07--2006-10, 2006-10--2005-12, 2007-01--2007-06, 2007-07--2007-09, 2007-10--2007-12, 2008-01--2008-06, 2008-07--2008-09, 2008-10--2008-12, 2009-01--2009-03, 2009-04--2009-06, 2009-07--2009-09, 2009-10--2009-12, 2010-01, 2010-02, 2010-03, 2010-04, 2010-05, 2010-06, 2010-07, 2010-08, 2010-09, 2010-10, 2010-11, 2010-12, 2011-01, 2011-02, 2011-03, 2011-04, 2011-05, 2011-06, 2011-07, 2011-08, 2011-09, 2011-10, 2011-11, 2011-12, 2012-01, 2012-02, 2012-03, 2012-04, 2012-05, 2012-06, 2012-07, 2012-08, 2012-09, 2012-10, 2012-11, 2012-12, 2013-01, 2013-02, 2013-03, 2013-04, 2013-05, 2013-06, 2013-07, 2013-08, 2013-09, 2013-10, 2013-11, 2013-12, 2014-01, 2014-02, 2014-03, 2014-04, 2014-05, 2014-06, 2014-07, 2014-08, 2014-09, 2014-10, 2014-11, 2014-12, 2015-01, 2015-02, 2015-03, 2015-04, 2015-05, 2015-06, 2015-07, 2015-08, 2015-09, 2015-10, 2015-11, 2015-12, 2016-01, 2016-02, 2016-03, 2016-04, 2016-05, 2016-06, 2016-07, 2016-08, 2016-09, 2016-10, 2016-11, 2016-12, 2017-01, 2017-02, 2017-03, 2017-04, 2017-05, 2017-06, 2017-07, 2017-08, 2017-09, 2017-10, 2017-11, 2017-12, 2018-01, 2018-02, 2018-03, 2018-04, 2018-05, 2018-06, 2018-07, 2018-08, 2018-09, 2018-10, 2018-11, 2018-12, 2019-01, 2019-02, 2019-03, 2019-04, 2019-05, 2019-06, 2019-07, 2019-08, 2019-09, 2019-10, 2019-11, 2019-12, 2020-01, 2020-02, 2020-03, 2020-04, 2020-05, 2020-06, 2020-07, 2020-08, 2020-09, 2020-10, 2020-11, User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/list

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nick-D (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Donnie Thomas (US Army), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Welsh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:A man said to be Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, 1998.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:A man said to be Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, 1998.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Challenger's concern was over the title of the image. I think their edit summary was neither fair nor useful. When a New York Times reporter says he got the image from the Taliban photographer who took it the doubts were pro forma. I considered restoring the image but I found another non-free image, that I used instead. Geo Swan (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Sabir Khan (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. France3470 (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of deaths and dead people who become notable after death

Hello! After seeing your comments on Talk:Chandra Levy#Requested move, I would like to let you know that there is a discussion going on at WP:VPP#Notability of deaths and dead people who become notable after death that I think you may be interested in. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tarek Dergoul for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tarek Dergoul is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarek Dergoul until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ithaca (ship), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Greek and Freighter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Non-free image showing that while in US custody, Tarek Dergoul lost an arm and a big toe.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Non-free image showing that while in US custody, Tarek Dergoul lost an arm and a big toe.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geo Swan. I am deleting this file today. The fact that the man is missing and arm and toe can be adequately described with words, so this image fails our non-free content criterion # 1. -- Dianna (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isua Iron Mine, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Greenlandic, Nunatsiaq and Sermitsiaq (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of the release and transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rahmatullah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Saji Ur Rahman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Saji Ur Rahman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saji Ur Rahman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Bashir Ahmed requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I requested userification. Geo Swan (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Geo Swan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ahmad Al Halabi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Nelson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mount Dennis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of cancer victim hoaxes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of cancer victim hoaxes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancer victim hoaxes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AldezD (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches. Since you had some involvement with the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). AldezD (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Stevenson (Canadian writer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestinian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to go through the E-Cat nonsense and reply on my talk page. I have written the following as a response to the ban page, and doubtless will be breaking various Wikipedia rules with it, even if I'm allowed to post it.

I understand what argumentum ad hominem means. AndyTheGrump denies it, but he still has not answered the various points I brought up, in particular the referenced errors about Rossi believing nickel and hydrogen combined to form copper, the cherry picked quotation from the stale dated PopSci article and possibly libelous defamation of his character, suggesting he is a criminal and a conman. Instead he goes after the messenger saying that I am clueless, a sock puppet, have threatened others (which I haven’t), that I should “go away and learn about how science works,” asking I have some connection to Rossi or the testers (I don’t) and accusing me of using the talk page as a soapbox.

My major complaint is that the article is not neutral. Give mainstream views prominence, but at least give something from the other side. Don’t cherry pick the most negative bits from the articles quoted as was done for Featherstone’s piece, giving an erroneous view. This is not even the current article from PopSci that is much more favorable. AndyTheGrump gives much weight to LENR being fringe science, but I believe it to be emerging from this category when Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at the NASA Langley Research Center says LENR is proven beyond dispute, as does Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson and others.

There have been two independent tests of the E-Cat funded by the reputable Elforsk R&D organization. It might have been better to call them engineering tests in order to avoid the misunderstanding by some editors, who felt it should have been a scientific test to determine the physics of the reaction. The test never claimed that and was conducted properly as an engineering test, as I know from firsthand experience with scanning IR instruments. These tests showed the E-Cat worked with a high degree of confidence. A further continuous six month test to start this Summer has been funded by Elforsk.

AndyTheGrump made much of me posting a long excerpt from Engineering News. To start with, I have permission from Kenneth Creamer, CEO of Engineering News do this and secondly, like the piece I wrote myself, this was an effort to reach a compromise through discussion. I had no intention of showing Leonardo Corp’s address in the final piece, this was an attempt to show the E-Cat was real and not “fringe science.” You may indeed order a 1 MW plant from there with four months delivery and currently they are offering a 1 MW plant free to a user in Europe on the understanding it will be open to the public.

I made the mistake of posting on AndyTheGrump’s page that I apologized for ascribing Edison (talk)’s accusation of me threatening someone to him after he said I shouldn’t post there. (It is now deleted) Possibly there is some Wikipedia rule against civil discourse. I still don’t know how to reply to Edison as I don’t see any edit link. So, as of this morning I can no longer edit the E-Cat page although I have not been informed of this. I guess that the E-Cat will become accepted in six to twelve months but I won’t hold my breath to be reinstated and for AndyTheGrump to be banned instead. Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel, I am concerned you experienced lapses from WP:Please do not bite the newcomers. It is important to protect newcomers from goading, impatience, insults, and failures to WP:Assume good faith for multiple reasons. Not only is doing so the right thing to do, but if we allow rogue elements of the existing contributor base to get away with subjecting newcomers to goading, impatience, insults, and failures to assume good faith we risk giving those newcomers the impression that these behaviours are OK.
I encourage you not to follow the example of those who goaded you, and failed to assume good faith on your part.
Can AndyTheGrump prohibit you from leaving messages on their talk page? You will note that they made a similar, but more limited demand to me. Our policies, guidelines and established conventions are so complicated I don't know, for sure, how much support their demand to me would get, if I were to continue to leave comments related to the topics they said they weren't interested in. But they didn't try to totally prohibit me from leaving comments, because there are certain circumstances where I would have an obligation to leave him a heads-up. Some people would think we had an obligation to leave AndyTheGrump a heads-up to this discussion here, since we discussed his comments.
You haven't been blocked. I am going to ask you again to think about other topics you are interested in, particularly non-controversial topics, and make non-controversial improvements to those articles. You have less than 100 edits in your contribution history. If you were to spend a couple of weeks working on making what were clearly positive, non-controversial improvements to articles unrelated to cold fusion, I think you could get the topic-ban lifted.
What is the best way to respond to grumpy or aggressive people who do not seem willing to extend to you the assumption of good faith, or the courtesy of civil and collegial replies? I dunno. But I do my best to try to take the high-road, and ignore the temptation to "respond in kind."
I think there were valid points made by our challengers. If you haven't read WP:Verifiability you should do so. It is one of the core, original, key policies. It says we should not aim to make the wikipedia "true", we should aim for the much less ambitious goal of making it "verifiable". This means we should be satisfied if our articles neutrally summarize what WP:Reliable sources have to say about the topic. This can be a strain if you think those third party references got it all wrong.
When I re-read Talk:Energy Catalyzer I saw what looked like the regulars there discussing the recent reference you found. They referred to it as a primary source. Here on the wikipedia we generally prefer secondary sources to primary sources, because genuine secondary sources provide authoritative third party interpretation of raw data -- where actual primary sources don't. However, because we prefer primary sources to secondary sources some respondents stretch the definition of these terms beyond recognition so they can use questionable references, or so they can dismiss sources that really are reliable. If the reference you liked really was a primary source it really would be a reason to de-emphasize it.
Parallel, would you consider enabling e-mail, and sending me an e-mail? I have some advice I would like to offer you in private.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]