User talk:OMCV

NOTE: I know some people carry on conversations across two User talk pages. I find this ludicrous and unintuitive, and would much prefer to follow Wikipedia's recommendations (see How to keep a two-way conversation readable). Conversations started here will be continued here, while those I start on other users' pages will be continued there. If a user replies to a post of mine on this page, I will either cut/paste the text to their page, or (more likely) copy/paste from their page to this one and continue it here.

We can't respond!

Regarding the CF talk page, you wondered, "what CF proponents like Jed and PCarbonne will think of it." Neither of us are allowed to respond. PCarbonne has been banned for a year, and someone keeps erasing my comments.

I hope they do not track down and erase this one.

Here are some of my deleted comments:

"If you are going to discuss 'Experimental Failures' perhaps you might also mention 'Experimental Successes' and widespread replications. Just a thought.

I do not think that "Energy Comes in Bursts" is correct. It does sometimes, of course, but not always. The word "burst" is sometimes used in the literature to describe continuous high powered energy production, but it sometimes continues for long periods in stable output, so I think the term is confusing and should be avoided. "Skeptics" have sometimes asserted that bursts are always short and might be explained by endothermic chemical heat storage between bursts, but this is incorrect. Many "bursts" are far too large to be chemical, and there are no endothermic storage events. If there were, they would be even larger than the exothermic events following, because they would be shorter, and thus they would be readily observable, and also in violation of the known laws of chemistry. . . ."

- Jed Rothwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.255.197 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Jed is free to respond if he stays on the topic of improving the page, and that forms a significant part of his response. This would be helped if he got an account so that messages for him and discussions not related to improving the article could be placed there. A {{notaforum}} tag has been added to the page and I have explained this on the IP talk page, which Jed has blanked. PCarbonne has been banned by the arbcom, a link to the case is at the top of the cold fusion talk page. Verbal chat 15:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean the question about PCarbonne as an insult, I didn't yet know that he had been banned. I won't pretend not to approve of the decision. I think now might be the time to make the CF something more than a battlefield. There needs to be some way to state the situation that satisfies both sides. I think the suggested outline might help with this by compartmentalizing We both want to represent the truth. I saw your response to my question before it was deleted. I think its important to remember that Wikipedia is not the place to peer-review anything. Wikipedia can't even claim to be about the truth, its about reporting verified material with as much of a NPOV as we can muster. I implore you to get an account and learn the conventions of Wikipedia so that you can participate in editing CF constructively. You might actually want to try editing some other things to learn the protocols. You must have hobbies or other things you are knowledgeable about. I've worked on the laboratory glassware, climbing equipment, and other things to get comfortable with the whole system. Good luck with everything.--OMCV (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I Just wanted to thank you for the way you responded to my last post here. V (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I never got back to you but as I said before, WP isn't the place for peer-review. I pointed out that alloying is chemical bonding because it was something I knew about. The way you had stated that part of your assertion was obviously wrong; this makes me question the value of the assertions I know less about. I really have not interest in discussing your theory, hypothesis, or whatever you wish to call it any further. I think its important for you to learn what OR is and the significance of significance as explained in WP:Verify if you keep working on WP.--OMCV (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Rock climbing edits

Hey there. Do you have a source for any of your additions to the rock climbing article, or was that entirely original research / your own knowledge? Tan | 39 00:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll put a ref in for Mountaineering: The Freedom of the Hills and maybe some other books. As it was it was just wrong.--OMCV (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I totally agree. I'm a climber myself; moved out west from MI specifically to be closer to the good stuff. Thanks for throwing in a reference or two. Tan | 39 02:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool, at some point someone should get around to fixing Climbing styles which doesn't look good, in formating terms at the very least.--OMCV (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Rock climbing: Lead vs Free

Hi OMCV,

First, thanks for your numerous edits and general cleanup of the rock climbing pages. They've been needing that for a while.

I have a question about your usage of the terms "free climbing" vs "lead climbing". I was taught to believe that free climbing is the opposite of aid climbing, not a synonym for leading. I believe -- though I'd have to check to be sure -- that several climbing books reflect this usage. Before I go to the books to find out, could I ask what your sources were? I'd like to figure out whether this a regional difference, a universal ambiguity, or just a simple mistake on my part.

Thanks! -Clueless (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that "free climbing" involves placing gear solely as a precaution. In contrast in "aid climbing" gear is placed in order to advance. According the intro of chapter 11 in the 6th edition of Freedom of the Hills lead climbing is and aspect of "free climbing" and "aid climbing" but can also be an aspect of "non-technical scrambling". After all "aiding" definitely involves leading. I would say leading is an aspect of all partnered climbing except top roping. I expect that you would be able to find "free" and "leading" treated as synonyms, I'm not sure if its a regional issue or an especially prevalent misconception similar to "free climbing" vs "free soloing" or "bouldering" vs "scrabbling". Actually Freedom of the Hills might add to the problem since the chapters on "rock climbing" are 9. Rock-Climbing Technique 10. Rock Protection 11. Leading on Rock 12. Aid Climbing. Chapters 9-11 apply to "free climbing" while chapters 10-12 apply to "aid climbing". This just shows the overlap in technique between the two styles. I think it would be best if WP used terms in the same way as Freedom of the Hills, its a pretty solid reference. I didn't mean any offense with my comments am happy to help in any way possible.--OMCV (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled on this discussion the other day and it is now on my watch list. I am concerned that the book you use might be a US POV. I think you should take this discussion to somewhere like Talk:Climbing where you might get a more international set of viewpoints. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point Bduke. I'm happy to see another chemist interested in climbing jargon. However, I really don't think this is like our (Americans) inane predilection towards keeping kcal rather than moving to the more reasonable units of kJ. I'll be interested to see what if any documentation (or reports of oral tradition) there is for "free" = "lead". It should be noted that both Clueless and I are from the US so this specific situation is not yet an international affair. I'm going to move this to the rock climbing talk page since climbing seems a bit general.--OMCV (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

big science

I find it does not help to insult the opposition--even though your comment was certainly understandable. simply treat them as people who have not yet been enlightened, and at least try to pretend they are willing to be educated.  :) DGG (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. The way WP functions at times can be frustrating; I do however appreciate the system. Thanks for the reminder.--OMCV (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Castleton Tower

Thanks. Nice place, nice photos, nice article. I'd never be able to climb it, but I'd like to sit around in the sun contemplating it. A bit chilly and dark in the wee small hours of London :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Misc.

Thanks for your concern, but I'm fine. :) StonerDude420 (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)