User talk:Abd

Notice to IP and newly-registered editors

IP and newly registered editors: due to vandalism, it has become necessary that this page be semiprotected, which may prevent you from leaving a message here. If you cannot edit this page, please leave me messages at User talk:Abd/IP.

WELCOME TO Abd TALK

File:Brain 090407.jpg

Before reading User talk:Abd

WARNING: Reading the screeds, tomes, or rants of Abd has been known to cause serious damage to mental health. One editor, a long-time Wikipedian, in spite of warnings from a real-life organization dedicated to protecting the planet from the likes of Abd, actually read Abd's comments and thought he understood them.

After reading User talk:Abd

After reading, his behavior became erratic. He proposed WP:PRX and insisted on promoting it. Continuing after he was unblocked, and in spite of his extensive experience, with many thousands of edits,he created a hoax article and actually made a joke in mainspace. When he was unblocked from that, he created a non-notable article on Easter Bunny Hotline, and was finally considered banned. What had really happened? His brain had turned to Slime mold (see illustration).

Caution is advised.

MgATP cyclotron

Have you considered adding this information from the biological transmutation article to the adenosine triphosphate or cyclotron article?

Solomon Goldfein who noted that MgATP (Magnesium-Adenosine Triphosphate) had the configuration of a cyclotron on a molecular scale. Report 2247 (May 1978), "Energy Development from Elemental Transmutations in Biological Systems" for the U.S. Army Mobility Equipment Research and Development Command, Ft. Belvoir, Va. Goldfein

Why waste all you insight on cold fusion.--OMCV (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I didn't write that article and, while that report may possibly be relevant there in the article on biological transmutation (not if you ask me, on the face, but then, I haven't read the source and don't know the context, etc.), it's not of sufficient notability -- or cogency -- to put in the other articles. Now, OCMV, if you have any serious business, related to improving the encyclopedia, you are welcome to post here. Otherwise, please stay away and don't waste my time. --Abd (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Re discussion on Newyorkbrad's talk page

Re your comment here [1]: I hope you don't mind if I make a few suggestions.

I suggest deleting or striking out "speak of the devil": I think it could be interpreted in a negative way, and that we need to be extra-careful to avoid these possibilities in an online context (where we don't have tone of voice etc.) and especially with regard to people we're in conflict with or are likely to be perceived as being in conflict with. In other words, I think JzG is likely to take that phrase the wrong way, and not as the harmless humour that I think you intend it to be.

I suggest editing "Recusal rules require abstaining from action while involved." to insert the word "administrative" before "action". Otherwise: this may be precisely the sort of reason why JzG has gotten the idea that you are asking him to avoid editor actions. ("abstaining from actions", without specifying, taken literally could be misinterpreted as abstaining from all actions including editor actions.) I never thought you were asking him to avoid editing the article, only asking him to avoid related administrative actions, but now that it's clear there's a misunderstanding about that, I think it's important to use more precise language about it from now on. "Tools" can also be interpreted to include editing tools, though it's often used to mean just admin tools.

Re "JzG is now largely irrelevant with respect to the blacklistings.": Could you re-word this somehow or delete it? It sounds undiplomatic. The following sentence is also rather uncomplimentary. My main problem with the first sentence is the way it sounds if one stops reading after the first 5 words.

It's good that you stated clearly that "JzG is welcome to edit Cold fusion", clearing up that misunderstanding. However, there's another issue: JzG apparently also got the impression that you were asking him not to express opinions in certain blacklisting discussions. That seems to me to be another misunderstanding that needs to be cleared up. I'm guessing (and I could be wrong) that your position is that JzG should state, in those discussions, that any admin may reverse his action; and that he can then also give his opinion just like any other editor. To argue in favour of blacklisting, without making a recusal statement, can be seen as, in effect, an act of continuing to use his admin tools (supporting his original action, and requiring other admins to refrain from wheelwarring unless there's a clear consensus). Or, maybe your position is that he is free to comment, period. Whatever your position is on this, I think it needs to be clarified to JzG: for example, you could state that you are not asking him to refrain from commenting in the blacklisting discussions.

All the best, ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, since this was Sunday, Mother's Day, in honor of all mothers everywhere, I decided to listen to advice, just to spite those who claim I never do. So I edited the post to remove the rough edges pointed out (which were indeed not intended to be read as negatively as you pointed out they might be). But being unable to remove my stripes, I still expressed my opinion and experience. I have a big problem when anyone is prevented from expressing their opinion. I consider it necessary to channel opinion through appropriate means; for example, the opinion of COI editors shouldn't be expressed with article edits! But they are welcome -- or should be -- to express their opinions on article Talk, for, indeed, they are typically experts on some aspect of the topic. If we listen to them and check out what they say, we may avoid embarrassingly incorrect text. We should try to satisfy them if we can, without violating NPOV and the other content policies.

We seem to have the idea that those who espouse fringe theories are necessarily fanatics, unwilling to listen to reason. They, of course, may think the same of the rest of us! Generally, though, people on the fringe are quite aware that they are on the fringe! Most of them want nothing more than a fair representation of what they believe, and they can be led, if they aren't there already, into an understanding of how Wikipedia is based on verifiability rather than truth, and technical notability rather than abstract importance. Our policies are correct and proper, and I speak as an expert in certain areas, quite frustrated personally that I can't put into articles what I know and what is common knowledge in the field, because the only sources I could assert are mailing lists where these matters are discussed, and dissent would be rare. I.e., there is consensus out there. But that kind of consensus doesn't necessarily translate into formal publication, there can be a huge inertia. There are possible ways around this, but they would involve, actually, outside-world changes, more rapid means of developing and verifying broad consensus, and I have limited power over that. If any. It's also conceivable that we could develop expert-consultation mechanisms that would create reliable peer-reviewed source as needed, but we don't have it in place and it could take years to develop it. So, for now, Wikipedia is "conservative." It represents not what is currently human knowledge, but what it was in the past. For matters routinely covered as hot news, the time-to-publish is very short, but when we are talking about science, it can become a long process. With Cold fusion, we are largely stuck in decisions and a developed general consensus twenty years ago; the foundations of this consensus are blatantly defective from a scientific point of view, as shown by the two DoE reviews, the second of which, in 2004, shows clearly that the "controversy" is not over, and, looking back, it was never over, one side merely got the upper hand and heavily suppressed the other. It's remarkable to read Huizenga, a major player in this, and see how he interpreted every fact in such a way as to construe it negatively, particularly since we now have twenty years of hindsight and can see the natural explanations for the experimental reports he considered proof of junk science. Huizenga is a rich source, as is Taubes, and we aren't utilizing them to a proper extent. Just as we aren't utilizing the sources on the pro-cold fusion side. You would never know from our article that there are 153 peer-review published papers confirming excess heat in the palladium deuteride system, while statements made in the 1990s that Fleischmann's work was never confirmed are routinely repeated in the media and often are assumed by our text, or the claim that experimental work confirming excess heat or other phenomena was all poorly done. That's in direct contradiction to Hoffman (1995), a highly knowledgeable skeptic, a true skeptic, i.e, an equal-opportunity skeptic who does not accept changes to accepted theory without proof, but also does not reject new experimental data as artifact without proof. He simply leaves it as unexplained, awaiting confirmation or proof of error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 20:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You do listen to advice. You've done it before. That's one reason I bothered taking the time to make these suggestions. Thanks for refactoring. I only had a time for a quick look (I would have had to play around with the diffs to really see what you had changed) but from what I saw it looks very much improved: you seem to have fixed very nicely everything I pointed out.

Oh, by the way, though: re discussions of processes: the West Bank placename guidelines where I mentioned a suggestion of yours are currently in limbo because most of the participants may be about to be topic-banned, but there are two more processes others have started, coming out of the same arbcom case, that you might be interested in looking at since you're interested in processes:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Placename guidelines
• Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Content dispute resolution

E you in a few days! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether I've overstayed your propensity to heedconsider advice yet, but here's another suggestion just in case: [2] maybe the bit about not having a negative opinion of JzG at that time could be reworded so it doesn't sound as if you do now. You could, for example, say instead that you had no opinion at all about JzG at that time, or that you had no opinion that JzG had been using tools while involved. Or something. Just a suggestion.

Mind if I boast a little? I kindof don't know any Spanish (I've had only one (1) lesson in it, for example) but I nevertheless somehow managed to communicate in it here. I used automatic translation, but I checked and modified the results: I was able to sort-of check pretty well every word somehow, either with Wiktionary, from titles and labels on relevant Wikipedia thingies, or by recognizing cognates in other languages. (Perhaps only one letter in the whole thing, the "o" in "hablo", is from my own miniscule knowledge of the language). And it worked! Based on the response [3], apparently I was actually able to persuade. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for refactoring again. Well done. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Mills

You consider Mills to be serious? You know I think he's a fraud, but enough about me. I honestly want to know what you think of millsian. How can you take this serious? Passing off these virtual legos as computational chemistry is blatant lie. This isn't a knee jerk, I downloaded the software and followed the instructions. I can personally verify this software as fraudulent. Furthermore, physicists say his other theories are fraudulent. Looks like fraud all around.--OMCV (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on Mills, beyond general suspicion. It appears that you do. Why would you want me to evaluate bad software? And then form a conclusion about the physics of someone involved with it? --Abd (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I glanced at your last post and saw that you mentioned Blacklight again. I don't read all of your posts since you tend to post an excessive amount of text. I assumed you supported Mills since you support Storm and Storm supports hydrino theory, to quote you "the hydrino theory that Storms seems to favor". Hydrino theory is Mills' theory and the core of his fraud; Storm's support of hydrino theory, even a modified version, taints his work. Any reasonable argument for CF is going to be free from hydrino, Blacklight, Mills, biological transmutation, and Borckris at the very least.--OMCV (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You assume a lot. I don't "support Storms," it's not personal. Storms is reliable source of a kind that requires caution: he is clearly affiliated with cold fusion research. However, who should write a book on the topic? Someone who has no experience with it? Storms isn't simply editorializing, expressing his opinions, he shows the basis for those opinions with meticulously referenced text. As with any review of the field, he cites research according to his opinion of what is relevant, and this, then, gives us a guide to what is notable in the field. There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers on cold fusion, and even more -- much more -- if we allow conference papers. He can use conference papers, we can't, but if he cites them, that makes them sufficiently notable for our reference. Because of the position of the field as to "general opinion" -- very unclearly defined -- we have to present everything in the field as controversial, including what is quite well-established, such as excess heat. If you don't think excess heat is reasonably well-established, you should read the 2004 DoE review again, and I could cite reliable sources that the work is sound. The claim that it's all junk research, quite simply, can't be supported from any solid source, only from what are, really, tertiary sources as Hipocrite is now using at the article, in place of the much stronger Storms reference, which is a secondary source. It's like the media reports that Fleischmann's work was never replicated.

In fact, the core claim, that excess heat was found when setting up highly-loaded palladium deuteride, has been confirmed over and over. The original radiation claims were bogus. The research finding neutrons at moderate levels was bogus, artifact and error. The claim that the origin is nuclear, and in particular that it is "fusion," is unproven. In other words, OCMV, I'm quite with the 2004 DOE review, except that the field has shifted since then, the evidence for nuclear effect is stronger, a clear and consistent pattern has emerged from a review of all the research, such that negative replications typically, now, can be seen as confirmations of a general hypothesis forming, but no clear proof that the basic process is fusion.

For example, the SPAWAR group shows energetic neutrons. The work is solid and published. Aspects of it have been confirmed, and I am, indeed, assuming that there will be more confirmation; their work, over almost twenty years, has been quite solid and conservative, they've done proper controls, etc. The levels, however, are very low, and this kind of phenomenon has always been used as an argument against cold fusion: there are all these apparently contradictory experiments. I was just reading yesterday one protest that "all these experiments produce different amounts of heat, how come there is no consistency?" "So what if you find neutrons, this is inconsistent with the reported heat."

Actually, it isn't. What that shows is that neutrons aren't involved in whatever is generating the heat, but that the energy source, what I call the black box, is capable of creating conditions where a little hot fusion takes place. For example, take the Be-8 hypothesis. That will generate energetic alphas at 23.8 MeV. These can cause some hot fusion to take place at a low level, indeed, it would be expected. The alphas are found, confirmed, Miles et al's work showed, way back, that helium generation is correlated with excess heat. No excess heat, no helium. Excess heat, helium, in an amount proportional to the excess heat, and the ration is at 25 +/- 5 MeV, as reported by Storms and others. Krivit thinks this is a bogus figure, but I'm not convinced that Krivit understands the problem. If you don't capture all the helium, you will get a higher figure, and that is, indeed, what is found, but with some experiments, great care has been exercised to detect all the helium, and that gets us tightly toward the expected figure from d-d helium fusion, 23.8 MeV.

One writer put this way: Fleischmann didn't just discover some isolated island, that could be specified by simple coordinates, he found an entire continent, and those who try to find the island find different things, their reports vary all over the map, literally. We do not know to what extent low-energy nuclear reactions are possible. Storms details a list of observations that it would be desirable for a CF theory to explain. This does not mean that he thinks all these findings are artifact-free.

Elemental transformation under conditions that produce the excess heat phenomena is now quite well confirmed, overall. The field suffers from a lack of highly specific confirmation; this results from the conditions under which the work has been done. Researchers don't want to, at this point, waste their time doing exactly what everyone else has done, they want to try different approaches. For years the holy grail was an experimental design that produces excess heat 100% of the time. Garwin said that he'd be satisfied with 50%. Asked recently, his goal became 100%. 100% is now being reported by various groups, including, I think, the SPAWAR group, using co-deposition. Excess heat and other phenomena are generated immediately, without the weeks or months of deuterium loading necessary for a P-F cell.

This shifting of the goalposts by Garwin is typical of response to the field. When Garwin said "50%," he was dead certain that this goal wouldn't be reached. But the fact is that he'd dead certain that cold fusion is bogus, and he will quite likely be dead before he revises his opinion. If then! It's fascinating to read Huizenga with the benefit of almost twenty years of hindsight. What he asserts as evidence that the cold fusion work is total junk is actually the opposite, he simply couldn't understand it, and put together a picture that fit his beliefs. Everybody was looking for neutrons, at first, but, in fact, neutrons were only present at very low levels, and so, indeed, as controls and rigor improved, the results went away, mostly. Thus the common claim that "as experiments got stronger, results disappeared." But that was the case with neutrons. Not with excess heat. And not with alpha radiation. And not with a truly low level of neutrons. (10 neutron tracks on a piece of CR-37 after weeks of cell operation may seem like a low level, one can imagine all sorts of artifacts, but the background in these experiments is about 1 track. The excess tracks aren't present with controls, only with active CF cells. There is a reason Naturwissenschaften published this work. There are actually real scientists still reviewing papers, and publications which don't prejudge experimental reports by the results, but rely on their reviewers.)

Now, if we can arrange a metal lattice such that some environment is created at the surface that catalyzes or causes low-level nuclear reactions, could proteins, which can catalyze many different kinds of reactions, manage it? It is truly easy to knee-jerk reject the possibility, it seems preposterous. However, as you know, Vyosotskii has reported just that, with some quite solid experimental design; the fly in the ointment is that nobody has replicated his work, to my knowledge. And it's obvious why! It's because of the knee-jerk reaction! The paper Hipocrite targeted with his silly poll was not one that could be cited, but there are others that could, because of mention in Storms. However, the work in that paper was over a reported acceleration in radioactive decay cause, apparently, by certain bacteria. Is this possible? Easy to say, no, for someone not expert in the field. However, it's known that chemical configurations can, indeed, reduce the half-life of elements, that actually isn't controversial. That doesn't translate to proof!!! It merely means that the idea is not as preposterous as it might seem at first glance.

There is no evidence I've been able to find that anyone has tried to replicate Vyosotskii's work; getting some of the radiation-resistant bacteria that he used and a Mossbauer spectrograph wouldn't be difficult, and CF conferences welcome negative reports as well as positive ones, and some CF researchers would breathe a sigh of relief if the Vyosotskii results were shown to be artifact. They would prefer not to be associated with such fringe science! --Abd (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So does Storm base a significant portion of his ideas of the fraudulent hydrino theories that originated with Mills? Incorporation of such ideas is indicative of poor judgment on Storm's part. While you don't necessarily support Storm you do support his judgment, right? Also, the predicted limits on how a) chemical catalysis can influence chemical rates and the predicted limits on b) the extent to which chemical configurations can influence radio active half-lives are very different. Equivocating them is ridiculous or at least science fiction. Thanks for proving my point about your propensity of providing a lot of verbage; I know your probably being funny. Have a good one.--OMCV (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

So does Storm base a significant portion of his ideas of the fraudulent hydrino theories that originated with Mills?

Short answer: No. I think you should read the last material reverted out by Hipocrite et al. Storms says that no theory accounts for all the observed phenomena and satisfies all the conditions he states. The book is not about "Storms' ideas." It's about the state of research into what appear to be low energy nuclear reactions. Overall, it's quite objective. Storms, when he speculates, states that, i.e., it's easy to tell the difference between his reports of research results and his speculations. I don't consider Storms, necessarily, as an unbiased source, but neither is he a blatantly POV source. He's fairly reporting the theoretical problems, and so forth.

Do you have reliable source for your claims that the hydrino theories are fraudulent? They may be, certainly I'm suspicious but, as you know, we require sources, and for science, we require strong sources, not mere speculation. I assume you are aware of peer-reviewed publication of those theories? I believe that we should cover the theories (as we do, to some extent, at Blacklight Power.) Do you have peer-reviewed material to balance this?

Millsian this should be more than enough to indicate that significant portion of Mills work is fraudulent.--OMCV (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

[4]. Summary of objection to Millsian: It correctly predicts a set of heats of formation, where classical theory falls down. And this can be suspected to be salting the mine: they simply optimized the software to match those particular outputs. However, what happens when someone applies it to something not on the list. Let's see.... how about palladium deuteride? More seriously, don't you think such a scam would eventually become obvious? From the mailing list discussion, it's not obvious yet. --Abd (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

To some the failings of a water fuelled car other still think Stanley Meyer had something. Even if Millsian has faked the energies they have not faked the geometries for which Millsian does nothing to predict. Its not a matter of this becoming obvious, the mainstream computation chemistry people have complete ignored this work. Its not worth their time to debunk. The only people who give it any time are folks on the internet.--OMCV (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

While you don't necessarily support Storm you do support his judgment, right?

His judgment about what? It's not my opinion of his judgment that counts, it's the judgment of an independent publisher of scientific texts, World Scientific, that counts. That publication indicates notability, not matter what you or I might personally think. I don't know Storms, and I think his idea about spontaneous human combustion possibly being connected with some biological fusion reaction -- which is clearly stated as a kind of "what if" speculation -- showed poor judgment, politically. Scientifically, on the topic of the book, he seems to know his stuff, and he should, with his qualifications and experience. One of the problems with cold fusion research that Simon notes: because you and your entire field of research has been ostracized, you become reluctant to ostracize others, to reject anything out of hand, since that is what is being done with you and your work.

Also, the predicted limits on how a) chemical catalysis can influence chemical rates and the predicted limits on b) the extent to which chemical configurations can influence radio active half-lives are very different.

Storms did not make the point, about influence over half-life, as I recall, I did. Tell me, is science about assuming that "predicted limits" are accurate, or is it about testing them? If the view that low energy nuclear reactions are impossible is "scientific," how could it be falsified? As it happens, we know it's false, because of muon-catalyzed fusion. Is some other form of catalysis or reaction possible? You seem to have the view that no other form is possible. Do you have reliable source on that, or did you make it up? Where is the proof?

Your comment seems somewhat incoherent, I'm not sure what you intended to say, was there a typo? The point about "chemical" influence on radioactive half-lives is that the Vyosotskii work that was being examined was about that, not about cold fusion, Hipocrite apparently had no idea what he was dealing with. You are supporting, OCMV, ignorance over knowledge. Basically, you assume that your own ignorance, what you don't know, is knowledge, that what you do not know is adequate proof of the absence of what you don't understand. While that may make you more comfortable, it is not the basis for the encyclopedia, which is human knowledge, not human ignorance. Got reliable source on it, you can put it in and you can make it part of the basis for a judgment of due weight.

My point on limits is that it keeps us from wasting our time trying to create things that can't be created. It also keeps us from wasting time and resources by repeating work. I've argued over a lot of electrolysis based perpetual motion machines on Wikipedia. If folks understood the limits of the situation better there might have been no need to argue. But your arguing the nature of limits here which means that we are losing common ground. My understanding is that limits are usually ground in a lot of empirical evidence. The Laws of Thermodynamics have no great theoretical underpinning, they are substantiated because we have never seen them contradicted. When I said there is a predicted limit to how much chemical configurations can effect half-life, I meant to say not only have we never seen a radioactive half-life influenced more than a few percent this magnitude of influence is also substantiated by our best theory. Sorry about my grammar.--OMCV (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems you confuse efficiency with proof; that is, holding certain established principles as not to be question creates a kind of efficiency, it avoids wasting time investigating every wacko report, or, for that matter, sober experimental claims that are probably artifacts. But the latter are really a door into the possible expansion of what is known. Something so well-established as the laws of thermodynamics, for example, may be the most common case, but there may exist special cases (and, indeed there do, but they are almost certainly not practically exploitable). However, cold fusion and other low energy nuclear phenomena do not "violate" what is well-known, for what is well-known is not actually positive knowledge, it is ignorance. Ignorance of exception is never proof that there is no exception. Rather, it is simply a guide to efficient work. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; what has been missed, though, is that this isn't a proof; i.e., if "extraordinary evidence" is missing, it is no proof of error in the claim. It is merely the absence of evidence sufficient to justify investigation by most. When, however, this rational and natural skepticism extends to the point that evidence is ignored by all, except those who do investigate and confirm, and then the majority reject the entire body of research on the basis of the "extraordinary evidence" principle, efficiency has become, bluntly , fascism. It's circular. It's rejected because there is no convincing evidence, and there is no convincing evidence because claims of evidence continue to be rejected because of the extraordinary principle.

By 2004, it was clear, and is shown in the DoE report that year, that the evidence for low-energy nuclear reactions was considerable. Absolutely, at that point it could not be claimed to be "conclusive." However, neither could it be claimed to be "rejected." Rather, the panel recommended further research to resolve the questions. Some of that research has been done, and some of it had already been done, in fact, and the claim that it wasn't adequately considered by the panel is reasonable. The panel worked under close time restraints, unlike the normal scientific review process, which takes considerable time and involves very close and detailed consideration of claims. Fringe issues are not considered fully resolved until the reasons for artifact are shown, preferably with strong evidence, not a mere suspicion (such as suspicion that excess heat is due to, say, failure to stir, or calibration constant shift, or reporting bias, etc.). The error of the scientific community, and it's your error as well, was to confuse absence of conclusive evidence as evidence of absence. As to our article, the reason we are having this discussion, if we simply follow RS guidelines and apply them neutrally, not affiliating with either side, we'll be fine. We need pay special attention to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, which was a sound decision as far as it goes; the only problems I see with it is that "mainstream" isn't defined and there are certain unresolved contradictions. AC does not anticipate conflicts, and only resolves a portion of what comes before it, preferring that the community resolve issues through normal consensus process, i.e., dispute resolution; when this is done, the issues are mature and ready for a conclusive determination.

Many have confused the overall statement in the review, which did not come from the reviewers, that the overall conclusions were similar to 1989 with some kind of rejection, and that's because the perception is widespread that the 1989 review was exactly such a rejection, and that perception is heavily influenced by Huizenga's personal views, as published. But that summary statement is about the actual recommendations, not the science. Cold fusion may never be useful as a practical source of energy, and this has little to do with the basic scientific facts; and, in fact, the lack of that cold fusion home hot water heater is considerable evidence of impracticality, but no evidence at all of the lack of low energy nuclear reactions. There isn't a muon-catalyzed fusion hot water heater" either, and, indeed, I think that muon-catalyzed fusion hasn't even produce detectable heat (unless, somehow, muons are involved in P-F cold fusion and the like, which is unlikely. Thus the conclusion that, absent stronger evidence that the effect is real, and possibly some clues as to how to scale it up and make it reliable, remains reasonable. Some think, and I agree, that we've passed the tipping point on evidence, and that, even if commercial practicality is unlikely, is a long shot, it would be worth greatly expanded funding of basic research on this. One of the fundamental goals of such research would be to prove that the effects are artifacts, and this should be vigorously attempted. Are you beginning to see the problem, OMCV, or am I wasting my time by replying to you?

Thanks for proving my point about your propensity of providing a lot of verbage; I know your probably being funny. Have a good one.

OMCV, you have insulted your host. This amounts to harassment, it is not intended to find consensus, but to ridicule. So, go away, don't come back to this Talk page unless you are prepared to apologize. --Abd (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I thought you were being funny. Thanks for addressing my concerns directly.--OMCV (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Then, you are welcome. Have some tea. --Abd (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Now, to the substance: [5]. If this is a scam, they sure know how to talk. Here is what the cold fusion affair is teaching us: on the one hand, the most commonly-repeated claim for the improbability of cold fusion, the reason to disregard the experimental results, is that there is supposedly no coherent theory that explains the results. Here comes a theory that purports to explain the results, and it purports to predict and explain other experimental results. Now, is the theory true or false? To find out, one has to do real science, not simply sputter that it's impossible, and we couldn't have been wrong for eighty years. It's being claimed that QM is "exact." I sat with Feynman, as I think you know. QM is not exact, not in a practical sense, the math is impossibly complex when it runs into multibody problems, I learned that from Feyman, I must have been about seventeen or eighteen years old. So while I'm not qualified to judge the details, I do have friends who would be, and who also have open minds, and whom, I think, I will ask. What I can tell is that the argumentation is that of someone with a clearer overall perspective on science and on how it should work, and on the history of QM. Fraud? Maybe. One very, very skilled con artist, I'd say. --Abd (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of University of Atlanta

An editor has nominated University of Atlanta, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Atlanta and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I got there too late to comment, but I certainly would not have !voted to delete. That was one silly AfD. Now, I'm trying to get A. Mithani to come out of the closet and openly help. It would be a lot more effective than the charade. If Mistro12 isn't A. Mithani, it's still highly likely from lots of clues that the editor is close to Mithani. I suspect Mistro12 is a role account, more than one person using it. That explains the drastic differences in coherence between editing sessions. Not surprising, no big deal, we just need to address it and bring the user into line. My view is that we should strongly encourage people like A. Mithani to advise us on the Talk page, but openly so, not pretending to be someone neutral. If someone reasonably claims to be A. Mithani (and it would be easy to check), I'd certainly take whatever the man says seriously, and would do what I could to accommodate reasonable requests. A lot of trouble could have been avoided if they had actually called me back when I contacted them. I suspect they'd have a better article, not everything they want, but closer to it than what they have. --Abd (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Good greetings, Abd. How goes the wiki? I see stuff has been happening.

Do you mind if I completely rewrite your essay User:Abd/Majority POV-pushing (if I have time)? You can always revert if you don't like my version. Alternatively, I could post my version on the talk page or somewhere else.

I saw the polls about whether Storms is a reliable source etc. However, I haven't read Storms and don't really have any information on which to base an opinion about that. (How come the poll doesn't provide links to such information, even in the form of discussion and Wikipedian opinion?) So I may not have anything to say. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to rewrite as completely as you wish. We can then look at alternate versions.

As to Storms, this is a book that, if not for the claims that he is "fringe," would routinely be accepted as reliable source. The publisher is a major scientific publisher, World Scientific. It's not a home of the wild and woolly. The book is carefully documented, meticulously cited. What a group of editors have done is to mistake considerations that apply when we have conflict of sources for absolute ones. If there is a conflict between Storms and other reliable source, then we would have to compare the "quality" of the source. Because it's still reasonable to assume that the reality of Cold fusion is a minority view, even though there isn't objective reliable source on it, anything controversial from Storms should be attributed and not stated as fact without attribution. But where Storms is reporting, for example, that a particular theory has been advanced, there is no reasonable doubt that it was actually advanced! We use publication by an independent publisher as evidence of notability, this is being missed by some. We have an article on Cold fusion, we have a review of the field by a scientist, published by an independent publisher, the most complete review of the contemporary situation, I think, and we are supposed to disregard it and not allow anything from it in the article? There were three polls; one of them I put up, and it simply asked editors to compare versions and state which version or versions were preferable, overall, as progress in the article. The other polls asked absolute, non-comparative questions. The first poll committed a classic deliberative error, following a common device of polemic: ask two questions together, with the major presenting question being an invitation to agree, then the other question one perhaps considered less important. The section with extensive material from Storms was out of balance. There was no disagreement with this, nobody supported the position that it was balanced, not even myself. However, mixed with this was another clause, stating that Storms wasn't reliable. If someone agreed with the statement, to what extent did that indicate agreement with the claim of unreliability? What if the balance issue were addressed, as it then was, by reducing greatly the amount of material? Anyway, the whole thing was a provocation, I expect it will be resolved fairly soon. --Abd (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Laughlin Award & Academy of American Poets

I just wanted to thank you for your constructive intervention with these articles. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd suggest doing the same thing with all the other awards, or, better, having a single page that is a list of all awards. The older award that the Laughlin award replaced should also be shown. Notability does not expire, and that we don't have internet-accessible sources from the 1930s 1950s is only a technical barrier, making research and verification more difficult. I find it rather difficult to believe that there would be no newspaper mention of these older awards! It might be local news, to be sure, and so we'd need to recruit volunteers to check newspaper archives, but .... the fact of the award is probably fairly accessible. --Abd (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

[6] lists the winners of the Lamont Poetry Prize from 1954 on. --Abd (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The Lamont winners are listed at the Academy's website; they're the ones listed as "Laughlin" winners before about 1995! The NY Times often published a notice of the winning poet and volume in earlier years, before the number of prizes had multiplied so much; see NY Times Lamont Poetry Selection search hits. I can track some of this down if needed - I just wasn't sure that it is. cheers, Easchiff (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've started putting in links verifying individual winners from other RS, and I put in a link to the publisher's page on the 2008 winner, and that could be done with other winners.

It makes sense to me that there should be one page as a list of winners of these prizes from the Academy, categorized by each prize. The old articles on the individual prizes will then be redirected to sections of that page.

It's not necessary that every winner, of course, have independent references, but it does make the whole thing more bulletproof, and, as well, useful. For example, there is no article on the 2008 winner. Why not? Right there, standing next to the redlink, there are two links to help get started with an article, there is a bio from the publisher, a university press. My opinion is that winning one of these prizes makes one, ipso facto, notable enough for an article, even if it's only a stub.

The idea that there weren't reliable sources about the prizes and about the Academy was preposterous, very sloppy, biased thinking based on a weird assumption that the web site was somehow like a vanity press.

Yeah, a vanity press that gives poets a $100,000 prize. This is little short of amazing in the poetry field. (Of course, they aren't a press at all, though they do arrange for the publication of some work.) --Abd (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

An overdue thanks

I get the impression that it's common for some Wikipedians to become better editors by having an influential experience with an uncommonly friendly, positive, and neutral editor. An editor for whom civil is a bare minimum. You have been one of those editors for me. My ability to navigate conflict resolution has been made infinitely better by watching how you interacted with others in the Global Warming articles, many months ago. In particular you helped me realize the real meaning and significance of wp:agf, which is that almost everyone is here trying to do what they believe is right. Treating them with grace, patience, and a sincere respect for their good intentions is like a bit of magic. Well done.

This probably seems a bit out of the blue. It's just that I've gotten some compliments on my civility/neutrality lately, and it occurred to me that you deserved some credit for that, because I'm definitely emulating what I saw you do. Thanks. Mishlai (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

About forty years ago, I taught myself Sanskrit, (though I did have a little help from a very kind Sanskrit scholar, Jagannath, at the University of California at Berkeley), and did a translation of the Heart Sutra, from a copy of a palm-leaf manuscript, designed for ritual use, i.e., with chantable rhythm (which can aid in internalization). I sent a copy of it to Edward Conze, the scholar whose translation of the Sutra I had consulted; there was one sentence where I found his meaning unnecessarily obscure, from an experiential point of view. I was, of course, a rank amateur with no academic training at all; Conze was, I found out later, famous for gruff treatment of students whose work was not rigorous. He wrote back, telling me that he had translated the line in question not following the Sanskrit, but rather the Chinese version, and he told me that he was passing on my work to the Buddhist Society in London, to my recollection. And he added, "It is for people like you that we have undertaken all these scholarly labours."

I'm just passing it on. As, apparently, are you. --Abd (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What a great story. Taught yourself Sanskrit? That's pretty remarkable, and it must have felt great to receive such a personal validation from someone so notable and so prone to be gruff. Mishlai (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, like a lot of things I've done, it was pretty easy, it only seems difficult to people who haven't tried it, or who have certain ... emotional blocks to learning. Sanskrit is an Indo-European language, same family as English. Further, I didn't need to learn it so as to be able to really read it, I was translating a short sutra, and I could look up every word and review the grammar. I needed to be able to read the script; plus I had multiple other translations to look at. Arabic was harder. Different language family. I'd try reading a grammar and would be left with nothing. With Arabic I went much deeper, but still can't really read a newspaper; again, my interest was a specific (and much longer) text, the Qur'an. In that case, though, I memorized maybe a tenth of the book. (It was then easier to read a grammar and get something; I had example text.) I was much older; had I begun when I was fooling around with Sanskrit, I'd probably know the whole Qur'an and I'd be able to read any classical text with facility. I have a friend who started about that age, and he's well known as a Muslim scholar. Still, you want hard? Try raising seven kids. Hats off to moms everywhere. (I'm 64 and still working on the last two: ages 5 and 7, adopted. Why did I do this? Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Life. Don't leave home without it.)

As to personal validation, I didn't have any ambitions about that, I was simply interested. I only learned about the gruff part much later, when I talked with people who had known him. I didn't think in terms of being validated, I simply thought it was a very nice response from him, and I was struck with this image of a prominent scholar who thought of himself as a servant of those who would use his work. Okay, it felt good to me that I'd identified a weakness in his translation; what he had done was to miss a meaning of the original and substitute a later pious interpretation. Now, how did I know the meaning? Isn't that an interesting question? Maybe I should try to find a copy of my translation; it was later published by Omen magazine, with notes. --Abd (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There are some real advantages to raising children late in life. I'm 34 myself, and already I shudder to think at how inept I might have been if I'd started raising children at 20. I've learned so much about the fundamentals of life and living in recent years that I feel like I'm just beginning to understand things that should be foundational to any child's upbringing. Undoubtedly at 64, with a personality that appears to be rich in curiosity and a lifetime of experience from that, you will have a great deal to offer those little ones. Mishlai (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Me too. I mean, like you, Mishlai, following Abd's example, I've expanded my ability to AGF, listen to others and work towards compromise. On an online system where we can't see others smile etc., we really have to make an effort to treat others with respect and really connect with people. When we do, the results can be very rewarding. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

RFAR/Abd and JzG

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished not to use his administrative tools in any situation in which he is involved nor to use them to further his position in a dispute. Abd (talk · contribs) is urged to avoid prolonging disputes by using unproductive methods and advised to clearly and succinctly document previous and current attempts at dispute resolution before escalating to the next stage. Abd is also advised to heed good-faith feedback when handling disputes and to incorporate that feedback.

For the Arbitration Committee, hmwithτ 17:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Good advice, don't you think? I read it like this: don't wait so frigging long before filing an RfC. I intend to heed that feedback, should an occasion arise. --Abd (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Joyfully, all of that is at an end. Tea?  :) Fritzpoll (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Tea? If I wasn't a Muslim, it would be time to break out the champagne! Certain people were predicting that I'd be topic banned from anything to do with Cold fusion or User:JzG, but, wisely, I think, ArbComm didn't go there. (Which is pretty much what I asked; if I misbehave at the article or anywhere else, I have not been given a carte blanche, but I didn't want one.) ArbComm affirmed the policies on blacklist usage and administrative recusal, admonishing JzG for violating recusal policy, so my basic intentions were realized.

But, yes, tea. With cream, thanks. Actually this is my place. So what would you like? --Abd (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I baked some scones yesterday, so perhaps a clotted cream tea. Nonetheless - delighted that we can get back to doing other things. Talk to you soon Fritzpoll (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's looking at you, kid!---PJHaseldine (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy to see this is over! Do you have a cup for me? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, special brand, Virtual Re-Alley, it's called. Always enough for everyone. --Abd (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's yet another ArbCom decision with some general principles, a few admonishments and urgings, but no actual binding sanctions against anybody; in future disputes, people will try to cite parts of it to support their side, but like the Bible or Koran or Talmud or Book of Mormon or The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Atlas Shrugged (take your pick depending on your faith, or pick a different holy or unholy book of your choice), it will be able to be twisted to mean whatever anybody is trying to make it mean, so the arguments won't stop. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the term that was used by one admin in private conversation was that JzG is now on a "short leash." The apparent leniency was explained by him as due to JzG's yeoman work with OTRS, most of which isn't visible to the community. And that his loss of patience (that's why he used tools when involved and why he'd become grossly uncivil before that) was due to burnout. Look at it from my perspective, Dtobias. The crowd was screaming for my head, and claiming that I was "ignoring consensus." What I'd been saying was quietly confirmed. The apparent criticism of my approach? Parsed carefully, I was told that I took too long to confront the problem. I'm going to take that as encouragement. I was told by some -- friends! -- that I was probably going to be topic-banned if I went ahead with this. Given that I was more concerned about the principle of recusal than about any specific topic, or even than my own personal right to contribute to Wikipedia, I wasn't deterred. And there was no whisper of this from ArbComm, just wild claims from certain editors, who have made themselves very visible now.

As part of investigating and dealing with the blacklisting issues, I discovered the not uncommon use of content arguments in blacklisting. It's complicated, because there are some legitimate places for that; but ArbComm has now, as far as I know for the first time, made a statement that can be seen as limiting the ways in which the blacklist is to be used, confirming the existing guidelines that were being ignored, and it is now possible to challenge problem blacklistings under Arbitration Enforcement, not that I expect this to be common. Beetstra, my friend over on the sofa, will, I'm sure, be assisting with the setup of procedures whereby the community will advise the blacklisting process, making it more efficient, not less. He has already begun to implement bot reversion of problem web sites as an alternative to blacklisting, in a way that minimizes possible harm, and makes blacklisting less necessary in marginal cases. Time spent debating with editors who want to use links in articles, for purposes that are at least arguably legitimate, is mostly wasted time. In the end, Dtobias, I think more good will come from this whole shebang than was consumed in editorial time. As arbitration cases go, it seems to me to have been relatively simple and expeditiously decided, and I suspect my efforts to keep it that way, though it looked as if they were failing at one point, may have actually helped. And I want to thank you, as well, for restraining yourself to the extent that you did.

This was my first user RfC and my first ArbComm case as a party. I've developed, I suspect, skills that may be useful in the future, as well as better connections in the community. I met, for the first time, another Wikipedian, an administrator, face-to-face, and I've developed closer relationships with quite a few others. I'm still primarily interested, though, in developing methods of finding consensus on article issues where there are entrenched controversies, and will probably be working on Cold fusion in that respect. But there are many other projects which have presented themselves to me, out of this sequence. It feels like the work has begun. --Abd (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I never dreamt this would take half a year, but here we have it:

“ Blacklisting is not to be used to enforce content decisions. ” — Purpose of the spam blacklist

Thank you for the hard work you put into this. There are some wikipedians who would go all this way to defend their point-of-view. Very few would do it to defend a principle. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

+ barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For helping ArbComm affirm the policies on blacklist usage. Petri Krohn (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

Note that I mentioned you briefly in my statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 06:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Abd, I have added your username to the linked above ArbCom as you have had problems with scuro for a longer period of time than I and were involved on the admin noticeboard. If you would like to submit evidence and make a statement please feel free to do so. You can submit the same diff links that you submited to the admin noticeboard if you have nothing additional to add. That is what I did.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

University of Atlanta - the continuing story

Hi. I start to wonder if they should ask for a second rename, into University of Atlantis (maybe that will finally solve it).

I established via email and the unblock email list who Mistro12 is, and that he is not involved directly with DETC or UofA, but with different organisations (two independent email addresses). I have hence unblocked him believing his story. Now he started editing, and trying the suggested split, and I helped him with that, we encounter MASSIVE opposition. Would you mind shining a light, and see if you can think of a reasonable solution out of this mess? I kinda agree with both sides: it is true, Barrington University = University of Atlanta, but a negative past does not have to give the majority feeling on the article, which (IMHO unreasonably) makes the new, fresh, start neglected (a bit 'once a thief, always a thief'), but then they did start themselves by trying to advertise, but then we don't punish for past behaviour, and I do believe that Mistro12 is not the original account that started the advertising, but he may have been involved in that, but again we don't punish for that past behaviour either ... (has your brain turned into a yellow mush yet ;-) ). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Meanwhile, help Mistro12 understand that he should slow down. My brain won't turn to dog vomit slime mold, I'm immune to it, or, perhaps, it turned long ago and just figured out how to interconnect sufficiently to appear functional.

Yeah, there was a contingent involved with the article for quite some time that had, shall we say, an attitude, an axe to grind, an "anti-diploma-mill" POV. If you will recall, there was serious effort to keep "accredited" out of the article, attempted impeachment of DETC, etc. We can fix that, I think. But it takes patience to do it non-disruptively. We'll get there. I've got to go right now, please point Mistro12 to this. I will assist. --Abd (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2009

Hmm, it looks indeed that way. I am thinking about a proposal in line with WP:BLP (WP:DEO, Wikipedia:Descriptions of Existing Organisations ??). BLP's should be kept neutral, even if there are very positive or very negative things ("Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."). Here I would say, it should be the same (but that is not done, it is even heavily objected to). I don't think it should be a problem to cut out the bad part, give it an own article under the name of the previous organisation, and keep the main article neutral (but don't completely remove the link).... problem may be, is there enough left. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There's enough left. Remember, I cut the article back to a stub, and that's all that is needed. My opinion is that DETC accreditation is sufficient to make a school notable; but other forms of recognition help, and the DANTES recognition is fine. Basically, what's inappropriate is that articles about Barrington are being interpreted as applying to UofA, when the application is secondary. Yes, the UofA article should contain a brief description of Barrington in summary style, and the reverse, i.e., the Barrington article, should note that the school was sold to the new owners. The Barrington article won't even mention accreditation, except for what's in reliable source, i.e., diploma mill charges, unless some reliable source is found that discusses a Barrington application for accreditation from DETC, that might exist. (There is at least one on-line forum mention of this, but that's not enough, in my opinion.) In which case, if the application is described, then the ultimate resolution should be as well, but it would not imply that Barrington qualified, it didn't. Massive changes had to be made. Some stuff can be sourced to the UofA web site, particularly stuff that isn't controversial, especially if it can be corroborated in some way. --Abd (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

formal warning for cold fusion talk page

Consider [7] a formal warning for your behavior in Talk:Cold fusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you will need to be much more specific than that. I'm prepared to defend what I've done. Did I miss something? If so, I'll redact immediately. --Abd (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hum, I have been replying in Talk:Cold fusion and in my talk page, since you asked me not to edit this page. I'll continue to reply at those places. (I also left a comment on WP:AN3, in case you didn't notice). --Enric Naval (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess you deserve a final final warnig

My talk page is not for you. You are to get someone else to contact me if you feel the need to use my talk page. I am aware of every policy and every arbitration decision so I do not need reminders of anything before you take whatever action you want. Stop posting on my talk page. Period. Hipocrite (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Formal 3RR warnings, which that was, are an exception to the rule that I don't post to talk pages when requested not to do so. So, now, go away yourself. You've made it very clear that you won't negotiate, and, while regrettable, that makes it simple for me. I will ask for a block if you cross the bright red line of 3RR after having been warned. --Abd (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Early warning

Hi Abd - this is not a fun social call. I'm sure you of all people are aware that if a user requests you to leave their page, you should do so. Per the apparently legitimate request at User_talk:Fritzpoll#Abd, I must ask you to cease using Hipocrite's page, and be advised that further use may result in blocking by another administrator. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please respond at WP:AN3

You seem to have made four reverts within 24 hours at Cold fusion. To avoid possible sanctions for a WP:3RR violation, please respond at WP:AN3. Expressing the willingness to undo your last action might cure the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I will respond there as soon as possible, I have to take the kids to a violin lesson immediately. However, I will refrain from editing Cold fusion until I retract this notice here, so as to allay concerns about possible continued edit warring, and I will not edit that article in any contentious way for at least 24 hours from this time stamp. I did not hit 4RR, unless I counted wrong. It is likely that my first edit, which was not a revert, is being counted. Nor were the other edits bald reverts, though I was facing bald reversions. Each edit was an attempt to satisfy concerns expressed on Talk by other editors, each edit -- except possibly one -- compromised to the extent possible. The source used previously had been questioned, so I added a peer-reviewed review paper to substantiate claims, and other sources for the hydrino theory. Note that the hydrino references were accepted, last I looked. --Abd (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Four reverts. Not that 3 reverts is an entitlement, nor does the relative "baldness" of a revert carry much weight when you hit the electric fence. But if you're going to stop (and it sounds like Hipocrite is as well) then the matter is basically resolved. MastCell ^Talk 21:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with MastCell that the problem is resolved for now. Note that if you read WP:3RR the term 'baldness' does not occur. When adding up to four, all reverts count the same whether or not they are bald, whether or not they are well-intentioned or they are done in a spirit of compromise. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. This may sometimes cause editors to be penalized for edits that might be considered helpful, but are nonetheless reverts. Nothing prevents you from waiting past 24 hours when you are already up to three reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I read the guidelines differently. What's the basis for considering my first edit today a "revert"? Prior content had been objected to on two different grounds, the first was undue weight. So I boiled it down to essentials and put it back (some time ago). It was then taken out because it was allegedly sourced from an unreliable source. Now, the source I cited meets WP:RS without any reasonable doubt, to me, but I definitely recognize that there are other editors who feel differently. So, okay, this morning I put it back with additional sources, various ones. This was not a revert. It was directly an attempt to satisfy what might be reasonable about objections.

If I put a statement in an article, with no source, and it is taken out because it has no source, and I put it back in with a source, that isn't a revert, it is an attempt to satisfy the objection of other editors. I followed up on the definition of revert, only a brief summary is on WP:3RR, and I think it's been interpreted over-literally. My edits weren't bald reverts, but I was aware that there were three edits which might be considered reverts today. I was actually quite surprised to see the charge of four. It looks to me like this situation was set up to make it seem that way. I'll be dealing with it.

"Bald revert" isn't mentioned in WP:3RR, to be sure. However the definition of revert, on that page, is not nuanced, and, interpreted literally, would practically prohibit negotiating through progressive edits. Consider that example of an unsourced sentence. The removal of the material is a revert. Is replacing it with satisfaction of the objection a revert? I'd say, no, it's an original edit. It's not edit warring, it is respecting the objections of other editors and attempting to satisfy them, as long as there appears to be a good faith attempt to satisfy the objections.

I added the note here about not editing the page further with anything that might possibly be controversial, not because I thought I had done something wrong, but because, obviously, someone thought I had, and that should be respected. (I had not seen the AN3 page at that point.) I don't consider article content on this level to be an emergency, and that I (possibly) hit the limit today is quite unusual. I can't recall the last time, it may have been in 2007, when I was briefly blocked and unblocked immediately when the admin realized that I was dealing with sock puppets who thought they owned an article. 2RR is actually rare for me. --Abd (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

However the definition of revert, on that page, is not nuanced, and, interpreted literally, would practically prohibit negotiating through progressive edits. Yes. That's literally true, and that is the current policy! If it were nuanced, it would be very hard to check for violations. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I would never interpret an edit which appears to be negotiating consensus as a revert, I have always considered the term to refer to repetitive assertion of content or repetitive removal of content, without such accommodating efforts. Your interpretation, Ed, looks to me to be bureaucratic wikilawyering, i.e., damaging consensus process in favor of ease of "enforcement." I don't read it that way. The policy page:

This refers to a definition at Help:Reverting. What's there?

Reverting means returning an article to an earlier version. Now, words in a policy should be defined clearly. The definition goes on to say, More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of others. Revert vandalism on sight, but revert a good faith edit only as a last resort. Which applies, the narrow version or the broader one? Don't worry, I'm not wikilawyering, rather, I'm seeking the substance here. I was facing, at Cold fusion, bald reverts. That's the basic definition, what is first given, total reversal of edits to return the article to an earlier state. So claiming that bald reverts aren't mentioned is shallow. Bald reverts of good faith edits are strongly discouraged.

It is particularly important to provide a valid and informative explanation when you perform a reversion. A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the identified problem. The result will be an improved article and a more knowledgeable editor.[8]

Note that by the "strict" definition of revert you are proposing, Ed, the process lauded here would consist of the "reverted editor" then reverting with the correction. That's preposterous. That correction is not a revert, because it is an introduction of new material satisfying the objection. There is a reason why we restrict reverts, and it does not apply to edits that are seeking consensus by satisfying objections. None of the edits I made today were "a complete rejection of the work of another editor," rather, that is what I had been facing for weeks at this article.

Anyway, glad you asked, glad to get that clear. You may not be the only editor laboring under this misconception. --Abd (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read the "nutshell" that you yourself cited. The first sentence says: "Edit warring is harmful." You were edit-warring. Well, and wikilawyering about the definition of your 4th revert, which is covered at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Characteristics of problem editors. If you think you were "negotiating through progressive edits" rather than edit-warring in the sequence in question, I would describe that as a misconception. MastCell ^Talk 03:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

MastCell, as to edit warring, there is a time for everything, that's why we have WP:IAR. I think that the last time I hit 3RR was in 2007. I dislike 2RR. But I had been discussing this stuff on Talk for weeks. Hipocrite would revert out everything, no matter how well sourced, and was steadily dismantling an article consensus that had been built for a long time. Please read the history I gave at [[WP:AN3]. An extreme position with regard to sources was being asserted, with bald reverts and no attempt to seek consensus, but only to assert the position that cold fusion and everything associated with it was "garbage." It's a blatant violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, provoked by an editor who clearly has contempt for ArbComm and that ruling specifically. We ended up, because I insisted, with a better article. I'd been saying all along that the way to deal with undue weight caused by reliably sourced material that is allegedly one-sided is to balance it with other reliably-sourced material. Today, Hipocrite didn't just take out material sourced to (1) a book published by World Scientific, not a fringe publisher, and (2) a peer-reviewed journal, Frontiers of Physics in China (Springer-Verlag), he also took out material sourced to other sources of high reliability: The Guardian, New York Times, and a peer-reviewed publication, Fusion Technology (which mostly deals with hot fusion). After two bald reverts, he finally accepted that section with the extra sources, and did what he should have done with all of it: balanced it, if there is anything in reliable source to balance it with. You are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. --Abd (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As you have previously positioned yourself as an evangelist for WP:DR, surely you could have addressed this dispute by means other than edit-warring? Surely if Hipocrite is violating an ArbCom sanction, the appropriate action is to visit WP:AE rather than engage in rapid-fire reverting? MastCell ^Talk 04:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, MastCell, why didn't I think of that? See you there!

(But I will note that a couple of reverts took a couple of minutes, whereas filing before ArbComm can take days. The reverts were intended to establish the issues. I'll note that one of the issues disappeared, since Hipocrite accepted the sourced material, leaving only a narrower issue. Efficiency. Don't leave home without it.)

By the way, MastCell, it looks to me like you were filing the WP:AN3 report practically immediately. Coincidence? How did that happen? And, please, why did you consider the first edit a revert? After that, we have two editors each running 3RR, why did you report me and not Hipocrite? If you look back, since May 1, you will see quite a bit of nascent edit warring, frequent bald reverts by Hipocrite, and I always backed off. Could it have anything to do with the alignment of the stars, or of editors on the ArbComm/Abd and JzG issues? --Abd (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, edit-warring is generally faster than pursuing dispute resolution. If you believe that this was a victory for "efficiency", then I'm not going to expend the effort to convince you otherwise.

As to your insinuations: I have User Talk:Hipocrite watchlisted. I noticed that you warned him about 3RR. I was curious what was going on, so I looked at the recent history of cold fusion. Curiously, it appeared that you had racked up 4 reverts of your own while threatening another editor with a block for edit-warring. I felt that your warning aggravated the situation somewhat, as it showed a certain lack of self-awareness, compounded now by your wikilawyering about "bald" reverts the "efficiency" of edit-warring.

I consider myself unable to exercise administrative functions from a position of neutrality where your editing is concerned. I therefore filed a report at WP:AN3, which I believe is the prescribed action and one open to any Wikipedia editor, and left it to the whim of the next (uninvolved) admin to come along. As it turned out, the page was protected. I think is a reasonable outcome, provided that the edit-warring does not resume after the protection expires.

I find it curious that you believe I minimized Hipocrite's role. I explicitly called the reviewing admin's attention to Hipocrite, noting that he was at 3RR. Why not drop the insinuations for a minute, especially since they don't match the diffs, and be direct: Do you think I acted improperly here? If so, how? MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that I never answered this, I apologize, MastCell. Yes, I believe you acted properly. I disagree that the first edit was a revert, but that's a question that should properly be resolved, at this point, at the guideline itself. The question of efficiency is raised not to disparage dispute resolution, but escalated dispute resolution can waste a lot of time, and a certain level of reversion with local negotiation can cut through mountains of crap. "Partial reversions" that aren't bald reverts can very efficiently find consensus. By efficiency, I don't mean "beating the opposition into submission," I mean not wasting a lot of time in what may be unnecessary discussion if consensus can be found more quickly by making actual edits. And that should be respected. Page protection was reasonable, and I sincerely thanked the protecting admin for it. However, it's unfortunate that additional attention was not invested in the longer-term situation, which had been extended use of bald reverts as an editorial tool by Hipocrite, and not by me, beyond one or two that one day. While the article was protected, the remaining changes I'd asserted were discussed in Talk, and apparent consensus was found, and a few days after protection came off, I made those edits, following what had been discussed. Bald revert from Hipocrite. I did not respond with any reverts, but others did, and Hipocrite actually hit 3RR, then reverted himself, went to RfPP and requested protection, then, within minutes, made a major edit to the lead -- which he must have had prepared, if I recall the timing correction -- implementing what he *really* wanted to say in the article, much more important to him than the details he'd edit warred over, without consensus at all, knowing that this would be against consensus (easily shown by later actions), tagged the article with a pile of citation tags, and sat quite happy with the article protected into this state. He'd given up a little and had gained a lot, frozen for two weeks, to stop edit warring that he started. And enough people have seen this now, and have done nothing, such that I really wonder what this place is about.... Don't worry, I know. Then along came WMC and moved the article back to May 14, contrary to expressed consensus on Talk, thus implementing even more the Hipocrite agenda, and then banned both Hipocrite and I from Cold fusion and Talk Cold fusion, for no stated reason. Cool, eh? Fun? Maybe, I'd rather be working on the article, frankly, I bought a lot of sources (positive and negative, balanced), and took five months to learn about the topic, and I'd finally come up to speed.... on the other hand, duty calls. Thanks for stopping by, sorry for any implication of impropriety above. I get a bit tetchy sometimes, because there are a few admins out to get me. (Fortunately, many others who support me, when necessary. I try not to make too much trouble.) --Abd (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

AN3

Please don't use AN3 as a talk page [9]. The only issue remaining is whether your 4th revert was an accident or not. If you care to address that issue it would be good for your reputation, and if you it in a single sentence you could work towards losing your reputation for verbosity William M. Connolley (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

mmmmm, I already answered that, and clearly and simply. Sure, I made a mistake. I signed an article edit. Since you had resolved the immediate problem with article protection, good move, by the way, the only question remaining was my reputation, and that required explaining what had happened. Sure, yesterday crossed into edit warring. But I was faced with an editor who had been edit warring for almost a month, and who edit warred, pure, bald reverts, against anything that doesn't make cold fusion sound like garbage, and who was claiming that new edits, edited to add new reliable sources, were "blind reverts." You might notice that after two attempts, he finally noticed that there were lots of sources in one section he was reflexively taking out, and accepted it. I'll look and see if anything else needs to be said, I'd thought not. --Abd (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Had that been clear at the time, I would have simply blocked you for 3RR rather than protecting William M. Connolley (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Even though it would have been clear from a review of my contributions, at that point, that no additional controversial edits were going to be made, short-term? Do I detect the stench of punishment? And any echo of our history, which hasn't always been so cordial? I'd still like an explanation of why the first edit was a revert, rather than new content. If old content is reverted out -- blind revert -- with a comment that it was inadequately sourced, and additional reliable source is then added, days later, is this a "revert"? Not as I read the policy and guidelines. Do you read them differently? Note that some of this additional content was accepted by Hipocrite. I did wonder at your protection a bit, because both editors had said they weren't going to continue (I said it first, at Cold fusion Talk, but Hipocrite matched that), but think it's fine for a week. --Abd (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This [10] is a revert, because of [11]. WP:REVERT will furnish you with any information you are missing William M. Connolley (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Above, at User_talk:Abd#Please_respond_at_WP:AN3, I examine the text of that help page, in detail. I don't read it, apparently, the way that you do. How do you suggest we resolve this dispute? This could affect other editors, and almost certainly has, because I was familiar with these guidelines and policies and did not believe that the first edit was a revert. The others were, to some degree or other. There was, however, I will acknowledge, one small section in the first edit where I didn't add other sources, since it was an opinion attributed to Storms, it was simply to give some context to the theories then presented. An utterly non-controversial context, by the way, in itself, nobody has claimed conflict of sources on this, and this was being reverted out, repeatedly, without explanation of why we can't source an opinion about cold fusion theories to the most recent reputable major publication on low-energy nuclear reactions. In substance, my edit was new, answering all previous expressed objections. It was all taken out, as it had been before. If you are concerned about the degree to which I was edit warring there, you are like a police officer who arrests a citizen who was just robbed, for jaywalking. After all, jaywalking is against the law. Where is the concern about the long-term edit warring that should have been made obvious by all this? Not with you, apparently. And I must say, I'm not surprised, from our history. Now, if you have more business here, other than a suggestion as to how we could resolve this dispute over the definition of "revert," please state it, otherwise, please go away. This is wasting time I can't afford. --Abd (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Abd. If you accidentally did a few edits without logging in (4 edits?), it might be a good idea to go back and sign those posts with your username, e.g. [12] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Damn autologout! There is no warning, usually, and if I don't look at the edit carefully, I don't notice the IP sig. Don't mind my IP being visible, but were I using sock puppets, I'd be terrified of this glitch! That's how Fredrick day was nailed.

Speaking of undoing, let me explain about that alleged revert.

I'm just going on what I've gathered from the discussion in this thread. Apparently someone deleted some material as unsourced, and you restored the material while adding sources, and were surprised when that was counted as a revert.

Whether something counts as a revert or not is in some cases open to interpretation, and I consider that it's up to the discretion of the admin responding at the editwarring noticeboard to decide in such cases. If you re-added the same or essentially the same words, phrases, sentences or ideas, then it can count as a revert. If your addition of sources solved the complaint of the person who originally deleted the material, I suppose the admin might decide not to count it as a revert. However, I would think that usually they would still count it as a revert. Whether material is correct or an improvement is not part of the definition of whether it's a revert. The theory is that if it's really all that much of an improvement then it should be easy to find another editor to (re-)insert it. One further aspect of this situation is: the editor who removed the material might or might not agree that the sources that were removed were adequate, and might also have had other reasons in mind for removing them but only bothered to mention one of the reasons. So that editor still might not be satisfied with your edit but might consider the material "poorly sourced" or inappropriate for some other reason. If you had discussed it with that editor and the editor indicated satisfaction, fine: then it may be appropriate material but may still count as a revert. If you had asked the other editor to restore it and they did, then it wouldn't have counted towards the number of reverts you did.

It's my understanding that sometimes the definition of "revert" involves meaning, for example if someone re-inserts not the same contentious word but a synonym then it can still count as a revert; however, that more usually, the definition of "revert" is rather mechanistic and pretty much ignores meaning or appropriateness. (Except that changing little words such as "and" in different places is probably not going to be counted as a revert, unless that's really what people are fighting over.) So re-adding material, plus sources, is still a re-adding of the material and still counts as a revert.

When you think you've done 3 reverts and someone criticizes you for doing 4, arguing that one of them wasn't a revert comes across as wikilawyering. Three reverts is not an entitlement. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm very aware of that. Used to be that people weren't blocked for breaking 3RR unless they were warned first. It was actually a requirement of the process, an essential. In other words, if I thought that I hadn't broken 3RR and someone else thought I had, I would have the opportunity of being warned before being blocked to continue. I should pay some attention to that page.

I wasn't blocked, though. And since I very rarely go beyond 1RR, this whole thing is probably moot. These weren't merely repetitive removals, though, except maybe one of the edits.

I'm sorry, though, that first edit wasn't a revert, for sure. The content was removed because it depended only on one source, a source that the editor challenged. After some days, I found more sources and added them. I really don't see that as a revert, I see that as ordinary editorial process, proceeding toward article improvement. It was not undoing the work of another editor; the other editor actually hadn't done any work, and didn't, apparently, actually examine the edits to notice that additional sources had been supplied. In the end, part of what I'd done was accepted by that editor, and balanced, which is what the editor should have done in the first place.

The "re-addition" of material was material that was removed because, it was alleged, it was inadequately sourced. So adding additional reliable sources was addressing the specific objection, and I had every reason to expect that it would resolve the issue if I assumed good faith. --Abd (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Abd. A few things. Re the definition of revert that we were discussing above: you seem to be working on the assumption that if something is an improvement or supported by consensus or likely to be approved by the editor who removed it etc. then it isn't a "revert". I don't see it that way and I don't think most people do. A revert can be good. It can involve only part of the material from another edit. It can restore the material and also fix things so the material is acceptable. It's still a revert. If you re-add unsourced material but add sources, you're still re-adding the material and it's still a revert. That doesn't mean it's a bad edit. But you're still limited to no more than 3 per 24-hour period. The reason for the simple definition is that that way it's easier for everyone to agree on what is or isn't a revert: it avoids value judgements.

Re your comment to Verbal on MastCell's talk page a few days ago: I believe that making remarks about someone's mental health is generally considered socially unacceptable.

Re GoRight: I don't see why you criticized GoRight for suggesting a version of the page. There's nothing wrong with making a proposal, per se.

With deep respect, ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Complicated. I poured over the definitions in the guideline. The question is whether or not an edit made after a lapse of days or weeks, restoring earlier material, but modified according to satisfying objections, is a "revert," and it's not an empty question, an abstract concern, but we are talking about the definitions used in the "bright red line," WP:3RR. If we look at the *purpose* of the bright line, I suggest, it's not a revert. It's a responsive edit. There are problems with 3RR. If I make a pile of edits at once, that's 1RR *at most*. If I split them up, working on them one at a time, trying to make them acceptable, that could be 1RR, 2RR, 3RR, or 4RR, or more, depending on the rest of the activity at the time. The same content change, really, by the definition given here, someone could be considered to be breaking 3RR even if there were no activity that we would call edit warring.

Something is wrong here. If the definition proposed (whether or not it's the "real" definition is actually difficult to determine without a lot of research into discussion behind the guideline text, and our software doesn't make that easy -- hint: it should) is operational, we would leave alone an editor who makes that single edit, even if all that had been previously rejected, and it was a pure revert from before, or sanction an editor who makes the same edit spread out interspersed with irrelevant edits, or, worse, sanction an editor for 3RR violation where the editor has actually presented four original edits that happened to include some previously removed material, having satisfied -- or at least reasonably think this -- the objections. With no edit warring, nobody else objecting. No, I conclude, an original edit that is not a mere repetition with no reasonable attempt at satisfying objections, isn't a revert, and 3RR, based on 24 hour activity, should not include that.

My opinion is that it would be proper to block an editor for apparent 3RR violation, but upon presentation of evidence that the intention was not edit warring, but efficient seeking of consensus, the block should be quickly lifted with an edit summary that recognizes the possibility of good faith editing. It should carry no opprobrium.

Hence, in my analysis of edit warring that is in User:Abd/GoRight (prepared for the RfC), I did not include any original edits that were not bald reverts nor did I include original bald reverts. If you read the concerns behind WP:3RR, you will see that the purpose is to encourage cooperative editing, to encourage negotiation of consensus in Talk and edits which attempt to make compromises. Any edit which satisfies objections, or at least reasonably attempts to, should not be considered a revert. There will be an exception to every rule, and that's why, ultimately, it's WP:IAR, which is no license to disregard guidelines, but I would certainly urge caution in interpreting first edits in a day to be reverts merely because part of the content was old.

The worst reverts are those which remove content without any attempt to seek consensus, where some modification of the content would be acceptible, and this is what WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR are concerned about. Or which repetitively add content, on the other side, without attempt to seek consensus by alteration of it the text to incorporate parts of it, or to add balance. If text is reprehensible in some way, and it would take time to negotiate acceptable text, then copying the text to Talk and beginning to discuss it would show intention to seek consensus.

WP:3RR is a bright line because it must be easy to enforce, but a finding that an edit was a revert when it was the first edit in a substantial period, not merely the extension of the previous day's edit warring, actually requires complex judgment. That bright line should always be applied with caution, and editors should not be blocked if there is a reasonable interpretation that the editor was seeking consensus. An admin who blocks on an appearance of 3RR violation should be ready to clook at claims of proper intention, and lift the block if this becomes reasonably likely and lifting the block not likely to result in real edit warring; to hold otherwise is to make blocking into a punitive and not preventative action.

The edit war at Talk:Cold fusion, in spite of the obvious problem, had salutary effects: it forced Hipocrite to do the right thing, by balancing the hydrino section instead of bald reverting it, or he'd have passed 3RR. Nothing would have prevented him from taking it out later, but, then, his purpose would have been obvious. WMC's action, by the way, removed that. The Talk page was unanimous that the May 31 edit was acceptable, it should be restored immediately, with incorporation of the reasonable changes made, or the individual changes between the current version and May 31 should be implemented. Further, some of the changes the next day were effectively accepted. All that was improvement to the article, and it should be restored. Otherwise, the edit warrior, the one who repeatedly used bald revert for a month, gets exactly what he intended, at the expense of article balance.

If you look at the GoRight evidence page ref'd above, you can see tag-teaming in action, and you will recognize editors recently active at Cold fusion. Enjoy. WMC's annoyance with me began at this time, I believe, I'd had no contact with him before, I should check out the histories. --Abd (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting ideas, Abd. I would separate these two concepts: (1) someone making a bunch of restorations of old material, interspersed with irrelevant edits by someone else; these could be considered one edit, as they would be if no edits intervened. (could be, not have to be. Much is left to the discretion of the admin enforcing 3RR.) and (2) someone restoring material but modifying it in a way that satisfies the objections. Could be considered not a revert. I would tend to call it a revert, consider that the person had violated 3RR but not do anything about it. The trouble with saying it isn't a revert is that the person might feel they are entitled to do that, and then when differences of opinion arise over whether the changes satisfy (or are seen as reasonably trying to satisfy) the objections, then the person could be blocked. OK, not a big deal, they can get unblocked again by saying they won't revert any more. Or maybe it is a big deal.

One advantage of a simple definition: it makes it less work for those enforcing it. Another advantage: the enforcers don't have to make judgements about content so much. Putting content judgements into the hands of a smaller group (admins) risks POV bias.

There might be a way to come up with a simple definition that would allow case (1) to pass. How about this: if it could have been done in a single edit, then it counts as a single edit. So if the sequence is: add A, remove A, add B, remove B, add C, remove C, then the removals could not have been done as a single edit (and still remove the material as quickly as it was removed). But if the sequence is add A, add B, add C, remove A, remove B, remove C, then the person could have removed ABC at the time of removing A and achieved their purpose (or more, removing it even faster). So it could be called a single revert even if there are interspersed edits. That's just an idea for the definition; and if an admin I might apply alternative definitions such as this in order to decide not to block someone for technically violating 3RR under the technical definition; I'm not claiming that's the actual definition. (2) is more problematic in terms of developing an objective definition, but consideration of intent etc. can still very well be applied. There was a case of a heavily edited article (topic in the news) where someone was reverting many small changes by many editors, many of them newbies. They were criticized for doing 6 reverts in 24 hours; but they and many others said that shouldn't count as a 3RR violation, it was just "maintenance". I don't see how "maintenance" can be distinguished without possibly introducing POV bias. Maybe it can. Interesting case. Anyway, the person wasn't blocked but was asked to stop doing so many reverts. They were annoyed about that and quit editing the article at all, feeling unappreciated. How can you distinguish "good" edits in order to not classify them as reverts? Not everyone will agree on what is good. Ah, I know: it's a matter of being good at guessing what edits would have broad community acceptance if the question were put to the community. Same skill that's used to decide whether to edit a controversial article directly or make a suggestion on the talk page first. If one is good at guessing, one doesn't have to take up the time of the community actually discussing the question. I can feel this conversation leading somewhere familiar ... ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and re making it easy to find the talk page discussions for particular sections of a page: for a step in that direction (but having to be maintained manually) see Talk:Circumcision/Archive guide. How could that be done with software? When people open threads, they could be asked to use certain keywords or click on certain links that automatically indicate that the new thread relates to a certain section of the page. Then a bot could collect the links to the threads into the archive guide. They could include the name of the section of the page they're discussing as part of the name of the talk page section. (I gotta learn to write bots.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black

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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 17:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Restoring information not backed up by source

Please do not restore information not backed up by a source, as you did at the WP:BLP article Keith Henson, here [13]. The source you added does not back up the information in the sentence. Please actually check to make sure the sources you add back up the cited information, before adding them, per WP:BURDEN. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please take a deep breathe and don't become obsessed about inconsequential details. The information was harmless at worst, and was, indeed, backed up by the source. The only date with marginal source is the marriage date, and I should put a cn tag on that, and that would have been your best approach. (It can be sourced to a Meinel interview, but that source wasn't as strong as the source supporting the divorce date.) The divorce date was backed by the source I cited. I did check both dates, but I'm not about to go to the records office for Tucson and check the dates out against primary source. The number of children they had is well-known. I see that you put fact tags on the article. That's fine. That's what you should have done with whatever you doubted about this information. --Abd (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Response: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Cirt (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, spoken like a true wikilawyer, citing policies to users who just may understand those policies better than you do, to justify action against improvement of the text and in support of damage to it. These are not controversial facts, they don't have BLP legal implications. The facts are verifiable, but there is a process by which articles become fully verifiable, and there is no requirement that facts be immediately verifiable. It must merely be possible. You removed, in any case, a fact that was both verifiable and sourced to reliable source, which is stronger than WP:V actually requires. Next time do some research, and don't apply WP:V mindlessly, which it seems you are doing. I don't know the history here, how is it that you became so seriously concerned about this article? --Abd (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd, from your comments above, you seem more concerned with what you think is the "truth", because of your acknowledged personal association with the subject matter in real-life, instead of over and above concern for having everything sourced in an article that is a WP:BLP. Re-adding unsourced material in a WP:BLP, with the cavalier attitude that we'll just source it "later", is seriously inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, I did review the relevant policies. I don't think you understand them. No problem, lots of people don't. Sure, everything (with few exceptions) should be sourced, but, the question is, what is the most efficient and least harmful way of getting there? There is a reason for special insistence on reliable source in BLPs, and it doesn't apply in this case, rather, with the particular matters involved, the article is more like an ordinary article. Now, be nice, and don't edit war. --Abd (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The most efficient way, would be to move the unsourced info in this WP:BLP to a subpage of your userspace or the article's talk page, and not adopt a cavalier attitude towards having unsourced info in a WP:BLP, and per WP:BURDEN, only add it back in, once it is sourced appropriately. Cirt (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not. The most efficient way, with information which is not defamatory and which is probably correct, is to cn tag it so that any one of many editors who see it might source it to improve the article. If the cn tag sits for too long, several months is often considered proper, then the material can be removed. That's what's efficient. If I were to move it to my user space, it's pretty likely that it's simply gone. There is a reason for cn tags. They work. People look at them and they grate, and so, if the person is aware of a source -- such as Henson, or Meinel, or one of the daughters, or someone else with some possible motivation or evidence handy -- they can cite the source. We can use primary sources for a marriage date, anyone could go to the records office in Tucson, for example, find the divorce decree which would show the marriage date, and source it. Yes, there are daughters. Very noisy, very visible daughters, outspoken like Keith himself. He should be proud of them, though, I'm sure, a tad embarrassed as well. And I won't say why here, after all, BLP applies here as well as anywhere in the project. If there were a BLP problem there, your suggestion wouldn't solve it at all! --Abd (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No. It highly inappropriate to sanction having unsourced material in a WP:BLP article for the length of time of "several months" as you suggest. Cirt (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Disengaging

I am going to disengage from the article for a while, please work on sourcing the unsourced material. We may have differing views, but hopefully you can understand that WP:BLPs should not have unsourced information. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. In any case, I sourced what I had restored, and then some. One of the problems is that much of the source for "four daughters" is also a source for a lot of "other stuff" that we don't want to mention here. The divorce records in Tucson would have all that, though, so someone in Tucson could check. However, quite simply, there isn't any doubt about it. There is email from Carolyn Meinel confirming the daughters. The divorce date she gives as 1982, however. He was married to Ariel Lucas by 1982, or so it seems, but the only source that is RS has the 1981 date. I was out of direct contact with them after around 1980. I did speak briefly with Henson by phone sometime around the late 1980s or maybe early 19902 or so, I think it was, he was living in California by then. Look, knowing Henson helped me to sort through stuff, and, frankly, I have no policy of removing, myself, unsourced stuff that I know to be true, and usually I don't remove stuff that is possibly verifiable, as long as it isn't harmful if left.

The comment above about "highly inappropriate" ignores the fact that most information in most BLPs isn't sourced. Sure, we should change this, but hacking away at articles without discrimination isn't the way. Putting a cn tag on unsourced information is a service. Removing it, if it's harmless at worst, is damage. And I'll stand with that. In high-traffic articles, a shorter time than several months would be appropriate, but articles that are less seen will take longer. --Abd (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientology case

Hey, regarding your post [14]. You may also wish to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Proposed decision, and the discussion on its talk page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Proposed decision. Cirt (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still trying to figure out WTF happened. Keith is minding his own business, and suddenly, out of the blue, he's a named party in an arbitration that has been open for six months? With a finding of fact making charges that wouldn't stand up at AN/I? Sure, push comes to shove, technical violation of WP:COI, but we allow COI editors to make minor non-controversial changes, and lots of them even get hot and involved and little or nothing is done except a warning to stop. There are so many articles under the scientology umbrella that maybe he did edit something somewhere, somehow, but it sure doesn't stand out!

Not that it matters a lot. Henson isn't some teenager who feels like committing suicide if Wikipedia editing goes badly. Maybe there was a purpose to it, but if ArbComm is going to do things secretly, why not do them secretly? Ah well, I suppose we get what we pay for. --Abd (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Posting upside down

Hi, Abd, on the University of Atlanta talk page, you're posting in between my comments and someone else's response which is putting things out of order.

Normally we indent

Like this

continuing the conversation

from top to bottom. I'm pretty sloppy and un-indent frequently because I hate getting squeezed too much but it would help the conversational flow if you could maintain this custom. Thanks, Drawn Some (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. But I'm responding just to you, not to the person below you so, it's like this:

Comment by Drawn Some

Comment by Beetstra

which becomes:

Comment by Drawn Some

Response to Drawn Some by Abd

Comment by Beetstra

Response to Beetstra by Drawn Some

Response to Drawn Some by Abd

This is pretty common. I didn't make it up. What you would have me do is to respond to something you said way up the page, but way down the page, totally disconnected, so I'd have to quote you, which then makes it redundant and even more confusing. Do remember, the comments are all dated, so anyone can see, at least if they are reasonably short, the sequence. Sometimes I'll indent an interspersed comment an extra colon. And when I unindent I always state (unindent), some people say (dedent). There are no hard and fast rules, to my knowledge. --Abd (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not the indentation I'm concened about, it's the order from top to bottom. By wedging in between my comment and Beestra's response, it makes it seem that yours came before his which isn't the case and also divorces his response from my comment which is what you say you're trying to avoid with your comment. It's almost like breaking in line after the fact. But if you don't think that's important or if it is a common way of formatting, then okay by me. Drawn Some (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd, of course you want your own comment to come as close as possible to the comment you're replying to – but then so does everybody else! I think many people follow the convention that when replying to a comment, they put their comment after any comments that are replying to the same comment they're replying to. Otherwise their own comment (and any replies to it) push the other reply further from the original comment (which isn't fair because the other one got there first (schoolyard ethics?)). I violate this rule only when my own comment is very short and/or [usually and] I feel I have an unusually strong reason for making my own comment follow very closely the one I'm replying to. (About as often as I'll jump to the front of the line at the grocery store, e.g. to ask the cashier a quick question.) Actually, I usually do the opposite and put my reply at the end of the whole thread, indented one more space than the one I'm replying to, which is sometimes much further up; but occasionally I'll put mine further up, but almost always after all the ones replying to the same one I'm replying to. (And yes, the rare times I do put my comment between a comment and a reply to it, recently I tend to indent two more colons that the one I'm replying to, as in your example.) Perhaps you could invent an improved hypertext system for threaded comments and suggest it to the developers? I've seen at least one other person complaining about the same thing before. Good greetings, ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, normally you are the soul of clarity, and, of course, you are excellent at summarizing my own verbosity. However, above .... my summary: it depends. In the case in point, much discussion had elapsed. I will often use an extra indent to make sure it's really clear that this is an interjection. I wish we could do indented collapse boxes. Can we? Actually, I think so, but I don't know how. --Abd (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think if you can do indented tables, then you can mock up indented collapse boxes. How do you do indented tables?

It's not enough for it to be clear that it's an interjection. You also need to be able to predict that your comment and all replies to it (and etc.) will be shorter than whatever would be coming between the original post and wherever else you would put the reply; or an urgent reason. Otherwise, you're taking an advantage for your own comment while removing that same advantage from someone else's. Violates the golden rule or something. (Do we have that here?) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand the problem. The contrary problem: if I want to reply to A, and B replied to A and C replied to B and D replied to C, and I don't want to reply to B, C, D, where do I put my reply? If I put it below D, people reading my reply won't see A. On the other hand, if I write a tome, the earlier replies are similarly cut off. You mentioned "brief." That's where the idea of a collapse would make sense. I'd use it if my interjection was more than very short. But if the collapse went all the way to the left, it would be jarring (I've seen this.) I'd really like the collapse to be indented to match the threading.

As to the Golden Rule, it seems our defacto form is, Do undo them as they did undo you, but first pray for article protection, just before saving. --Abd (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Re the Golden Rule, I quoted you off-wiki and got some chuckles. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Motivation?

Might I convince you to tweak your comment over at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#lenr-canr.org (3)? I actually care fairly deeply about issues of (un)fair use and the ability of intellectual property producers (e.g. me) to control via a designated intermediary the presentation and use of their work. While I personally might be thrilled if my entire scientific oeuvre were being reposted at and read on popular internet sites, Wikipedia editors absolutely do not have the right to assume the same attitude by other authors. If the stated copyright concerns are as frivolous as you seem to imply, the correct course would seem to be de-blacklisting. On the assumption that the site is listed appropriately (and I concur that I do not like their content would not be a valid reason to name a site verboten), I see no reason to whitelist any part of it or go outside of standard citation processes. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at it and refactor if needed. Done with [15]. The motivation issue didn't apply to you, I accepted your apparent motivation at face value. If you were to read the voluminous discussion on it, you would see that lenr-canr does claim author and publisher permission, and the claim is credible and highly likely to be true, aside from possible occasional error. People do make mistakes, and we are at no legal hazard if we happen to link to one of those mistakes, unless we knew it was a mistake!

It was not listed appropriately. It was listed, originally, here, by an admin who was later admonished by ArbComm for that action, and if not for his history of prior service -- very strong history -- he'd almost certainly have been desysopped. The current blacklisting is at meta, and exists for reasons that, if they were used locally, would clearly be violating the ArbComm decision, which also addressed the usage of the blacklist. What happened is that the admin -- I don't want to keep mentioning his name, but you can find this recent decision and his name is prominent in it, with mine -- blacklisted here. It was challenged and my opinion is that it would have been delisted, or if the listing had been confirmed, it would have been appealed quickly through DR and would have then been delisted. There was no valid reason for blacklisting, even though a whole series of reasons were presented, they all vanished when examined in detail. The real reason was, quite clearly, "I do not like their content." ArbComm didn't decide that, because they were not asked to decide it; had they been asked, probably he'd have been topic-banned as well.

While the delisting was being discussed here, the admin went to meta and requested global blacklisting, and it was routinely granted. He's an active blacklist admin and was highly trusted. We were not informed of the global attempt until our discussion here was closed as moot because of it. That was clear forum-shopping.

It is now discussed at the whitelisting page the reasons behind the delisting denial, and those reasons, if given here, would be in contradiction to the recent ArbComm decision, but ArbComm has no authority over meta. Meta process suggests that we examine the site here and decide whether or not links to the site are useful. If they are found useful, delisting is likely. There is already enough to go there and make the request, but I prefer minimum disruption, which suggests making the issue very clear here before going back to meta. All the links requested are convenience links, for references already accepted by consensus, making the issue very simple. One would think!

A link has now been posted to the whitelisting discussion, under a new section subheader, that addresses the copyvio issue quite clearly and shows how the community has a consensus on the matter. No copyvio problem. --Abd (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That comment is still a little confrontational, but I suppose that I can understand such a tone in a long-running dispute which seems to have arrived at am impasse. Thank you for refactoring. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Dispute at Fleischmann article

Hi, Abd. I was posting on Verbal's talk page and happened to notice a dispute there. When carrying out dispute resolution, the first step is discussion on user talk, but for it to be effective it has to be carried out in a friendly manner. If someone deletes your comment, you can just quietly assume they've read it. If you have more to say you can add it, but I don't think it helps to talk about the fact that they removed the comment: it makes it sound as if you're implying they shouldn't have.

From an earlier thread here, I got the impression that you and Verbal had been at odds and had recently started to get along better. However, it can take a lot of effort to maintain a friendly manner if there's been tension. It can be worthwhile running your comments by a third party before posting, to help remove any slight nuances of wording that might escalate into shouting matches.

I suggest striking out the part of your post from "You are presenting rationalizations..." to "...Are we done?".

From the thread on Verbal's talk page, I get the impression that Verbal removed a link due to an opinion that it wasn't reliable, not due to copyright concerns. I suggest focussing on discussion of content issues for now, as far as that dispute is concerned. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Coppertwig. The history at Martin Fleischmann is only a piece of it, but here it is:

• 19:20, 28 April 2009 Verbal (Conference proceedings: rm unverified link per WP:EL and talk)
  • There is discussion in Talk.[16]. The concern raised by Verbal was over the "unverified reprint" note that had been added as a compromise. I had reverted the removal shown above; as you know, the usage of that link had been reviewed six ways till Sunday, so Verbal was reversing a settled consensus, apparently based on transient language in the policy.
• 13:49, 19 May 2009 Verbal (Reverted 1 edit by Abd; Removing link to paper hosted on a poor site with possible copyright problems. (TW))
  • Now, were this the only incident, that would be one thing. But it isn't. What's happened with these links is that one argument is presented with a removal. When that is reversed and not sustained, then the next argument is presented. At some point it becomes obvious that removal is the goal, not each individual argument presented.

There is now discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#lenr-canr.org (3) over whitelisting more links, and Verbal has been active there, pushing the almost-dead-horse copyright argument, at the same time as starting to edit war over this link at Martin Fleischmann. Verbal has also been active, cooperating with Hipocrite, in a number of areas related to the whole anti-fringe can of worms that was opened when I looked at JzG's actions in January. Hipocrite nominated Robert Duncan (physicist) for deletion, and Verbal immediately !voted. You can look at their comments in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG.

So I warned Verbal.[17] That was not a friendly notice, Coppertwig. It was formal, intended to show seriousness and intention to follow up if necessary. This was beyond the earlier kinds of discussions that are what might be called pre-dispute resolution. This is stage one of formal dispute resolution. Stage two was accomplished, possibly sufficiently, with the intervention of Hans Adler, who had been a neutral party in the earlier negotiations at Talk:Martin Fleischmann. There is more discussion at the Spam-whitelist page.

"Almost dead horse," WTF? Well, discussion brought out, more clearly, the issue of Elsevier. This had been raised long ago, by JzG, and was generally rejected, and Hans Adler explained why. Basically, no solid evidence behind it. However, it is not impossible that Rothwell has somehow misinterpreted the Elsevier guidelines for their authors, which do allow preprints to be maintained, plus they allow edited preprints to be maintained, i.e, edited to match the final peer-reviewed and finally edited version. Which is astonishingly liberal, actually. However, they do not allow the exact copy to be reproduced. It appears that lenr-canr.org does in a few cases host the exact copy. Was this with explicit permission from Elsevier? I don't know. Rothwell has claimed general permission. Hence I will ask Rothwell.

He's cantankerous as hell, and I can't predict his response; even though we are quite cordial, he also thinks Wikipedia is a pile of poop, though he hasn't used that exact language (:-). I don't blame him, really, given the history, but he's also famously caustic. I'd like to see him unblocked, but also cringe at the prospect a little. He calls a spade a spade; he's usually right, as to the substance, but, as you might know, calling a spade a spade can get you blocked if (1) it isn't necessary, and (2) you can't prove it to the mob. It's actually a common problem with experts of a certain personality class. It's even encouraged, to some extent, in some educational contexts. I have Caltech in mind, where "dork" and "warm body" peppered ordinary friendly discussions and nobody thought twice about it. (The definition of "warm body" was someone who can tell the difference between light and dark. But nothing else.)

So, suggestion: if you think there is some misunderstanding between Verbal and I, try to negotiate it to a resolution. This will have two alternate salutary effects: either it resolves the dispute and the attendant disruption (best) or you become someone able to certify an RfC either for me or him, or, I've not seen it, but it could be both. What I was warning Verbal about was how I anticipate ArbComm would view his actions, looked at in total. I could be wrong, of course, but I do have a little experience with this.

There is also the possibility of formal mediation. I'm not planning on going there, myself, but I'd agree to it. Rather, I've taken to heart ArbComm's "advice." I will be escalating disputes much more quickly, to resolve them more quickly and efficiently. The problem with the slower approach is that discussion multiplies, in various alternate fora.

And that's the problem with this copyright issue. It's been discussed in many different places, but still at a relatively low level; ArbComm did not choose to comment on it. However, they have ruled on two related issues: in WP:RfAr Fringe science, they ruled that content couldn't be excluded simply on the argument that it was fringe -- and this isn't being enforced, yet, hence the very real possibility that I will soon be filing one or more AE requests -- and that the blacklist was not to be used to control content, but only to prevent linkspam. (They didn't go into detail, but there is an exception, where content issues can and should be considered, which is where there is linkspam, but a link is allegedly needed. To judge need is a content decision. My argument has been, with Beetstra, and will be before ArbComm if it needs to go there, that it should be enough that an ordinary editor in good standing, autoconfirmed, requests whitelisting, and, absent strong reason, it should be granted. Whitelisting merely allows the editor to assert the edit, it doesn't prevent others from removing it; and if whitelisting becomes easy (it isn't), then the acceptance of a whitelisting is no argument at all for inclusion, it merely permits it, validating that an editor in good standing has requested it.

That's why the specific argument over links at the whitelist page is really out of place. The whole site should be whitelisted, because there is no credible evidence that copyvio is normal there, only a possible condition for a few lenr-canr.org pages. Which will be resolved.

When newenergytimes was delisted, much easier because it was never globally blacklisted at meta, I went "Goody! Now I get to link to the crucial Mosier-Boss paper!" I had been assuming that the situation was the same with NET as with lenr-canr.org. I was immediately reverted, and, after a moment of umbrage elevation, checked. Oops! NET claims "fair use." Not permission. They host entire papers. Now, given their position as a nonprofit, this means, probably, that the publisher can demand they take it down, they take it down, and it's over. In other words, they aren't much exposed to prosecution or penalties, if I've got it right. But the page is copyvio, for our purposes. While we would not incur legal liability, probably, if we link -- there is no precedent for a situation like ours, but only for much more blatant and clear attempt to evade copyright -- linking would still violate our policy, which sets a stricter boundary. We can still link to NET overall, and to other pages, but not to anything hosted there under a claim of fair use. And this points out how whitelisting establishes no presumption for a specific page, unless that specific page was whitelisted under current process, which does apply specific attention to the page, and we can assume that administrators won't whitelist a page that violates our policies.

And, again, thanks. Your perspective is always valued, even more so when you disagree with me. --Abd (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

The gift by Oxford University Press of this book to you is an honour as well as a benefit. [18] You deserve it, for the extensive work you've done working on the cold fusion articles, providing information and helping work towards consensus. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was certainly nice. I now have a small conflict of interest. If interest in cold fusion ramps up, I might be able to sell the book for more than if it falls on its face. Right now, best competing price on Amazon is about $139.90 for new, but my kids might spill food on it.... Fortunately, Wikipedia won't cause this to go one way or the other! So I can still edit the article!

Actually, the new ones seem to be disappearing. Some new copies are being offered for over $200, and the only used copies are being offered for $385.00. Pretty steep for a book with a list price of $175. Does this indicate rising interest in the field? I'd say so! Probably better than any other indicator at this moment. I looked at it a little while ago and it didn't look like this. OUP says that the book is in stock, $180.50 with shipping.

Maybe you could file a notice on the COI Noticeboard, so I might be forced to sell it to remove the COI. What do you think?

Honestly, Coppertwig, I have a mind that accepts no a priori boundaries. Mention a bank robbery to me, and I'll start thinking about ways to get away with it. I don't do those things, but not because I couldn't. It's because they are wrong. Socrates could have left town, but his philosophy had involved accepting consensus and order, even if he disagreed with it. Bob Dylan: To live outside the law you must be honest. --Abd (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking that Krivit might loan me a copy, I wasn't expecting a gift. This should really be credited to him; he asked for it to be sent, and publishers do that kind of thing for authors. --Abd (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Amazon says, Only 4 left in stock--order soon (more on the way). at $149.99. Flipkart.com, out of stock. Powells.com, out of stock. --Abd (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

And I look forward to seeing proposed article content based on the book. At the seminar yesterday someone said there were usually about 1 or 2 thousand hits on the Wikipedia cold fusion article per day, but they went up after certain media events etc. If the book is hard to get, it will be a service to readers to provide highlights of the information. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I did put the table of contents on Talk, and offered to help anyone with questions. You might take a look at the response. I'd say you have some work to do, as do I. The content of that book is dynamite. It's reliable source, mainstream published, and most of it is secondary source, and it's recent, and it tells a very different story than we've been hearing as synthesized by our anti-fringe contingent, who seem to think that evidence about scientific consensus twenty years ago, and then shallow media repetition of that over the years, is authoritative about what it is now. It can still be supported that there is plenty of resistance to the cold fusion idea, but I think the transition from fringe to emerging science has already taken place, and is visible in recent sources. We have two major scientific publishers who issued reviews of the field: World Scientific for Storms, which is pure review, i.e., secondary source, for almost all of it, and Oxford University Press/American Chemical Society for the Sourcebook. There is nothing comparable on the other side, since about 2002 (Park, Voodoo Science, which isn't an academic work,if I'm correct, but I don't have it.) I have never seen this level of mainstream interest for a supposed pseudoscience which allegedly was dead and buried twenty years ago. We have the media taking this quite seriously, with all the reports about the March ACS seminar on LENR, this wasn't merely that it was the twenty-year anniversary, as Shanahan has claimed. Some media reports repeated the old canard that Fleischmann's work was never replicated, which simply shows that they didn't fact check but relied on old reports that, in fact, were never accurate even as of the end of 1989. So the Mosier-Boss results, in those articles, were presented as if this was some big new shocking discovery. It wasn't a shock to anyone in the field. There had long been reports of neutrons at very low levels, Mosier-Boss merely demonstrated it in a way that iced (in my opinion) the objections about background and other artifact, and she made a few other advances in terms of details.

The Sourcebook is also largely secondary source, but it includes what may be original research reports as well. I was very interested to see that McKubre did a precise replication of the Energetics Technologies work. One of the problems with cold fusion research has been that researchers were constantly looking for ways to improve the incidence of cells that showed excess heat, as well as the level of heat generated, so they kept trying different things; thus each experiment was a bit different and results less simple to correlate. In this case, McKubre deliberately abstained from any improvements, and saw the same results, essentially. Once he'd completed the pure replication, he then did his own independent analysis using other analytical techniques, same experimental data.

History of science people will be quite interested, I'd think, to figure out why it took so long for people in the field to realize that this kind of work was needed. My guess is that the holy grail of fabulous wealth if you could figure out how to get commercial levels of energy with reliability took its toll. There wasn't the pure science funding that would normally support such plodding work. --Abd (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ditto the congrats, Abd. I have not been actively wikipedia'ing for a while but I like to keep an eye on what's going on here and there. Your work to keep things balanced, while obviously not appreciated by all, is certainly appreciated by many! --GoRight (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

0rr

If you will topic ban yourself, then I will do the same on Cold Fusion. If you limit yourself to 0rr on content that anyone aside from me creates and 1rr on content I create on the article, I will limit myself to the same (IE, either of us could enforce the status quo on the other). This offer is contingent on your agreement to return to the most recent quasi-consensus version linked here or here, depending on your preference. There are liklely other revisions I would accept.

Again, summary of agreement:

1. You are limited to 1rr on content I create.
2. You are limited to 0rr on all other content. (Excluding blatent vandalism)
3. I am limited to 1rr on content you create
4. I am limited to 0rr on all other content. (Excluding blatent vandalism)
5. We come to bilateral agreement on a version of the article we accept as the status quo to work from and request unprotection on that version. Hipocrite (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I accept the offer of a mutual ban on editing Cold fusion, pending resolution. It is simpler to recognize and enforce. I will not make a fuss over spelling corrections, and I'd expect the same, so the ban should be the same as any topic ban, i.e., interpreted sensibly and intended to avoid edit warring, not harmless or helpful edits that should not be controversial, like spelling corrections.

This does not prohibit discussion on the Talk:Cold fusion.

As a simple suggestion, previously cleared by an arbitrator for usage with involuntary topic bans, either one of us may make any desired edit to the article if we note, with the edit summary, "will self-revert," and then follow that up with a self-revert. (The notice allows someone else to revert non-contentiously if for some reason we fail to accomplish the intention.) This would allow us both to make more extensive "proposals" of edits, quickly and efficiently, without creating work for other editors; any other editor may then take responsibility for that edit by reverting it back in.) To be explicit, I don't think this self-reversion is necessary for truly noncontroversial edits, which includes reversion of blatant vandalism.

Given this, and if we request unprotection or it is otherwise granted, both of us remain able to participate in forming consensus in Talk, but neither one of us can personally pursue an agenda with the article itself.

The topic ban is revocable, unless made more permanent by any administrator, upon 24 hour notice to the other party and to the administrator who has unprotected the article. I.e., the ban expires 24 hours after the provision of that notice.

The ban does not expire automatically with the block or ban of either editor, notice to the other party and the unprotecting admin must still be provided.

The ban may be enforced by any administrator through appropriate blocks. The ban may be logged in the list of community bans, as voluntary, with the 24-hour notice provision, and after the lapse of 24 hours from notice, the ban may be removed from the list by the withdrawing party or anyone else.

The ban thus is not dependent upon negotiation of agreement on where to take the article when it is unprotected. It is simple and straightforward.

This, however, does not prejudice further action by either one of us over disruptive behavior or POV-pushing. It resolves the immediate issue, and allows the rest of the community to deal with the article without the hindrance of article protection.

This mutual agreement takes effect upon acceptance by both parties of a common text, which is proposed by my response here, and which can be done merely by Hipocrite's response here accepting, or it takes effect upon the imposition of this agreement by any administrator, who would then, if different from the unprotecting administrator, become an additional party to whom notice of withdrawal must be provided to withdraw.

Do you accept, Hipocrite?

Cold fusion

I don't have time (or interest) to mediate this dispute. I only have time to protect the article and block obvious edit warriors. For more involved mediation, please consider appealing to WP:MEDCOM. Thanks, --causa sui ^talk 22:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't asked you to mediate, Ryan. Both editors appear to have agreed on a mutual topic ban, see above, which, I would think, you would agree would immediately remove the need for protection. Are you declining to unprotect? If so, I can go to RfPP, but I'd think that, with you also being familiar with what caused the protection, your decision would be more efficient. Okay? --Abd (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ryan did not respond, though he was very active with routine stuff, so I went to RfPP and requested review and unprotection.[19] It's a bit of a shame, because Ryan could have very quickly resolved this, and there is no telling what someone new will do. I'm a little peeved that he would protect an article which is actively being worked on, with quite a bit of cooperation, and which then gets protected for two weeks by an admin who allowed himself to be gamed and then won't then spend a few minutes to realize that the hazard has been effectively removed by an act of cooperation between the complainant at RfPP and the editor he most complained about. But that's Wikipedia, it's often about what can be done in thirty seconds or less. Content suffers. We'll see what happens. --Abd (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'd suggest you look into formal mediation and report future edit warring to WP:AN/EW. Best of luck in getting this sorted out. --causa sui ^talk 04:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan, I appreciate the suggestion. This won't go to mediation, it will go, probably, to Arbitration enforcement, since the dispute is covered by a prior arbitration which is being violated, probably deliberately, by Hipocrite, just as Hipocrite, by his behavior in edit warring, then requesting protection, then immediately making a major edit to the lead, much worse than anything he'd done earlier in the day, was probably trolling to be blocked. (He's following ScienceApologist, who did similar stuff; the block is then used to claim that Wikipedia is biased and unfair). I offered to accept a topic ban on myself (and that's still open to Hipocrite to confirm he accepts, following up on his own proposal above) because this is not about a personal dispute between me and Hipocrite, it is about long-term POV-pushing that ArbComm has already addressed. My goal at this point is to keep total disruption to a minimum, and I'd thought what I asked you to do would accomplish that, quite immediately and effectively, allowing the other editors at Cold fusion to clean up the mess you froze into place, which I believe they would. I'm sorry you could not recognize that, but, that's the way the cookie crumbles. --Abd (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Re User talk:Kirk shanahan

Abd, in case you haven't been following stuff on Shanahan's talk page, you might find the stuff at the bottom of it interesting. Start with "Requested Idiot's Guide to the Calibration Constant Shift", try to read through to the bottom of the "Convenience Break" section, then skip for the finale in the "Continuing with V’s Intransigence" section. If you like what you see, maybe others will, too (Rothwell?). V (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I follow the page. But if I'm long-winded, well, I've met my match. I certainly hope I'm more coherent. It seems that more than half of what he writes is ad-hominem. I think I have a pretty good idea of what CCS is, and I should make sure that User:Abd/Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments is understandable and correct. V, you might like to look at that page; if we can up the quality and make sure it's NPOV, we may want to move it back into mainspace and link to it; naturally, we would see consensus at Cold fusion first, but we should have, somewhere, coverage of CCS, and, if Shanahan wasn't so obstinate, we'd probably already have it. My opinion is that it's notable, because others have responded to it in peer-reviewed journals. That they responded to demolish it (perhaps) doesn't change that. We can cover the matter in detail at the calorimetry article.

It should be understood that Shanahan is claiming that the P-F effect is real, there is some anomalous behavior there (since we would not expect the kind of major localized heat that is necessary to shift calibration enough to have the effect on results that Shanahan claims), but what he claims is that it is possible that some unknown phenomenon involving recombination of deuterium and oxygen, localized, would explain some of the experimental results. Having then, he thinks, impeached a major chunk of the calorimetry as inconclusive, he seems to extrapolate to the rest of the results. As you know, I find that a stretch, for lots of reasons, but my "finding" is, of course, original research and we can't base articles on it, just as we can't base articles on Shanahan's point of view and arguments here. The bottom line is that Shanahan was published in a peer-reviewed journal (same journal as Flieschmann originally published in on this topic), and there was some back and forth, Shanahan has been cited, as in the Hagelstein paper presented at the 2004 DoE review, so it should be adequately covered. It will run into undue weight in the main cold fusion article if it is anything other than a very brief mention, but adequate coverage can be in the calorimetry article.

I have quite a bit of RS on calorimetry in cold fusion experiments on my desk, from CF advocates (Storms, the ACS Sourcebook, Mizuno), from critics (Taubes, Huizenga), and one very important neutral (skeptical, but clearly neutral) writer: Hoffman (1995). Hoffman is great because his position is that of a realistic true skeptic, he lays out the cogent criticisms, and, in the end (maybe not what his publisher wanted) he presents the situation as unresolved. When Brian Josephson spoke about "Pathological Disbelief," it wasn't about people like Hoffman, it was about dedicated skeptics who believe that cold fusion is bogus, it became, for some of them, practically a religious crusade, and every new apparent fact or assertion is rationalized into the belief structure, just as happens with religious belief. Josephson was right; Feynman wrote about similar phenomena.

Shanahan's behavior itself is worse than what Rothwell was doing when banned, and Rothwell's behavior is difficult to reconcile with WP behavioral standards regarding civility. Rothwell makes gratuitous personal criticisms or provocative general criticisms of Wikipedia; I think that most of them are in some sense correct, i.e., pointing to real problems, but we need to be careful about that. If I think an editor is obtuse or pursuing some repressive agenda, I'll refrain from saying it unless it's necessary and I'm prepared to prove it. Rothwell just says it. If Rothwell is to be unbanned, it would probably have to be with a mentor, someone prepared and willing to deal with the dross, or it would be entirely too disruptive. As matters stand, I think I have some kind of general trust from Rothwell, but he's pretty stubborn and not likely to readily go for restraints. For both of them, losing them as advisors on Talk has been or would be a shame. Shanahan is generally familiar with the critical work or unpublished criticisms on, say, Iwamura, so he, if he stops the silly diversions and personal rants, can point us to possible sources. As I think you know, we have much more discretion as editors than some think, and there is a reason why WP:IAR is Rule Number One. If we can find consensus on just about anything, provided that consensus is broad enough, we can do it, and the local consensus we see at Cold fusion is not representative of the broader community, provided that disputes are presented fairly and with clarity (which isn't easy to arrange, which is why it took me over four months to deal with the abusive blacklisting, plus toss in my ADHD, which leads to procrastination and postponement (believe it or not, I was quite loathe to file a user RfC, I don't like setting up firing squads or anything like it, and I knew how disruptive it would be, I really had to be pushed into it, it's a huge amount of work that only has an indirect and long-term effect on text). WP:V is the policy that is "non-negotiable," but there are many ways that facts can be verified, especially if the "fact" is accurately presented so that it is undeniably and verifiably true, such as "Storms (2007) lists ...." --Abd (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

V, the discussion at the talk page mentioned is so incoherent, chopped up, basically unreadable without a program, that I wouldn't recommend anyone read it. Because I'm familiar with the issues and positions, I can make some kind of sense about it, but very little is accomplished. We should work on User:Abd/Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments and the attached Talk page, but this is in my user space, and I would not permit that kind of massively diverted, confusing, and mostly irrelevant discussion, not relevant even for background.

Having said that, some of your objection to Shanahan is off-based. It's true that he's fringe, in that his position is widely rejected by the cold fusion community and largely unknown outside it, so it's the fringe of the fringe (maybe the "inside," i.e., toward the mainstream, but the mainstream has not validated it).

Shanahan postulates an effect, not clearly understood, probably resulting from recombination at specific sites on CF cathodes, such that there is a temperature differential created that can shift the calibration of the calorimeter. I don't doubt that this could happen. It doesn't happen every time -- which parallels the claim that CF doesn't happen every time with a PF attempted replication. That, then, easily counters your objection to "why doesn't it happen with the "dead" electrodes." I.e., "dead electrodes" are the ones where the P-F effect doesn't show up.

But the real question is how in the world this CCS effect, and the P-F phenomenon behind it (anomalous recombination in his view), could then correlate with helium measurements. I can come up with a hypothesis, but it's quite a stretch, and that's the point, isn't it? And then the CR-39 measurements, why do they also correlate? Again, Shanahan has an answer, though I don't think he's favored us with it here except to dismissively note that there is doubt. He hypothesized that the recombination, happening with bubble formation of deuterium at the surface of the electrode, burns the plastic.

Problem is, that wouldn't explain neutron triple-tracks, it wouldn't explain tracks on the backside of the plastic, and it wouldn't explain the tracks on the detector when it's outside the cell, behind a thin plastic window. It wouldn't explain the reduction in tracks, inside the cell, from a thin plastic layer, as expected from normal deacceleration of alpha particles -- that's a way that they are using to estimate the energy of the particles. And, of course, it wouldn't explain helium, elemental transformation, and all the rest. He has to postulate each one of these as some other experimental error, and that the ultimate cause of this other error is the same as for the calorimetry error. I find only one even preposterous explanation: heavy expectation bias on the part of experimenters that leads to biased reporting, and that is a very serious accusation, and with the wide replication, and so many different reports that only fall into place in hindsight, so unlikely that I do call it preposterous.

If there are discussions with Shanahan in my user space, I'll act to keep them focused and organized. That's what I can do in user space, but not so easily in other Talk. My goal, for his contributions here, would be that his points are made, not that they are repressed. He does a lousy job of that, by himself. He's not an editor. I am, I've done it professionally. Don't think from my long posts that I can't edit, I can, but ... I'd expect to be paid or for there to be other valuable consideration, such as polemic necessity. --Abd (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in repressing Shanhan's CCS notion; I'm only interested in exposing it as seriously incomplete/flawed. Let us ignore the helium and CR-39 questions for the moment. If CCS is the real explanation for the CF effect, then there must be an explanation for both how it happens, AND for how it does not happen, in basically identical CF cells. Kirk focussed on the former and forgot the latter; everything he says about how CCS happens in the former applies to the latter (by definition if the cells are basically identical and are operated for the same length of time). Yet only some cells end up with CCS/CF-effect. Such opposite results in the cells mean that the hypothesis is not rational enough yet ("seriously incomplete/flawed"), I say. It might be interesting to replace electrodes in the cells, and see which cells now have CCS (would some calorimeters suffer from it some times and not others? why?). And any article containing talk about CCS should say it is logically flawed, too. V (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Geeze, Abd

Just a quick note to say hi.

I try to stop in every once in a while to see how things are going, but this Cold Fusion feud just keeps going on and on and on ...

The Global Warming articles are also a bit like that, but they have been fairly stable for some time and I am trying harder to ignore the small stuff as not really worth fighting about. I had considered getting more involved in the Cold Fusion article but to be honest I would have to do more reading than I have time for to contribute in a meaningful way so I am leaving it to the rest of you to sort out.  :)

Stick to your guns on the things that matter, though, pushing back is usually a good thing in terms of getting the line drawn where it should be. Wish I could be of more assistance on this, but you seem to be holding your own. Later. --GoRight (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You really screwed things up with that suggestion at Cold fusion. That version was much worse, it takes out quite a bit of work, by many editors. Do you know why it was stable for five days? It's because Hipocrite had been reverting out everything and I'd largely given up to deal with other stuff. It's not because it was a good article. We had peer reviewed reliable secondary sources from 2007 and 2008 on uncontroversial text, text that is indisputably verifiable, removed with the text and replaced by weak, tertiary or passing-mention secondary source from 1999 or 2002. Basically you handed Hipocrite what he wanted on a silver platter. Changes where he had more or less been forced to accept general consensus were removed.

When you made that suggestion, there were two polls above. The polls don't conflict, they can be interpreted together. There was a much better version from May 31 that had the highest consensus: because Hipocrite and Verbal had accepted in their poll, and because I'd scored it 8/10. I put a lot of work into the poll, and you just may have tossed it in the trash. No, I don't like it. I'm going to go sulk. Or maybe I'll instead go out and celebrate having half-broken the blacklist on lenr-canr.org, every link I've requested but one -- I withdrew it -- has been whitelisted. There are still some to go, but when this is done, I think that meta might be much more accessible for global delisting, thus finishing the task begun when I first challenged JzG over the blacklisting. --Abd (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

Abd, this looks like a good spot to comment on your (transmogrified) reply to my (transmogrified) observation about CF hypotheses. Consider the Pythagorean Theorem; there are lots of ways to prove that. If some amateur happens to come up with a new one and posts it in a blog, and it is indeed a valid proof, do you think it is any less worthy than a different proof that happens to be 2000 years old and widely published? Good Logic is completely independent of the place where you find it. So, if there happens to be a CF hypothesis that makes logical sense to most readers, and it happened to get published in New Energy Times instead of Physical Review, what difference does it make? AND, if certain other hypotheses are given "first billing" and described as coming from a mainstream peer-reviewed source, then in what way would this one be receiving "undue weight" if it is simply listed with a bunch of other hypotheses, ALL of which happened to be published in non-mainstream sources, and the Wikipedia article says so!? V (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

AN/I Notice

I have filed a report on AN/I that refers to you. Woonpton (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Can this be resolved simply and sensibly by just asking you not to edit other peoples' talk page comments? MastCell ^Talk 20:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

One might think so. MastCell, there were three edits here that were "edits of other people's talk page comments." One editor, not plural.

1. Mistakenly thinking that I'd linked the wrong version to an option, a version that is much more neutral, as I think just about every involved editor would agree -- except apparently Woonpton -- I assumed that Woonpton had looked at the permanent link and had voted for that. I was, at this point, preparing a diff matrix and thought I had discovered a link error. To figure out exactly what happened would take a lot of digging! So, after fixing the link (actually I was now making it wrong), I moved the !vote to the version that had been linked (I thought). MastCell, I assume good faith and I also expect the assumption. The immediate reaction was very negative, "shenanigans!" This is a poll, not a debate, and the end of the poll is some days off, I expect. It would all sort out, and, further, the poll is merely advisory, it won't determine anything by itself, and for me to deliberately warp votes would be utterly and completely stupid. So first action: I moved the !vote.
2. Instead of just putting it back, Woonpton left it (now in the wrong place) and struck, not the !vote, but the comment made with it, comments which are largely moot in this process anyway. Because, now, it appeared that Woonpton accepted the change but was striking the comment for some reason, and because this is really not a deliberative process but an aggregative one, intended for quick measure of consensus, not for extensive debate of article content, to deal with the fact that Hipocrite's edit warring, requesting article protection, and then quickly shoving much POV content into the lead -- one of the most outrageous abuses of Wikipedia process I've ever seen -- deleting a comment that one no longer supports, or changing a vote if one's opinion shifts, such as by a desire to compromise -- I deleted the struck comment.
3. Then, because by now Woonpton was screaming bloody murder, and I did realize that I'd goofed, I moved the editor's comment back where it had been. Then, after doing that, I saw the request not to touch any comments. So I didn't. And then Woonpton removed it entirely.

There are conditions, MastCell, where one does delete or strike or refactor other editor's comments. And it has been frequently done to me, including today, by Verbal. It is not usually worth making much of a fuss over. I apologize to this editor for any offense, and for my confusion.

My mistake about the diffs was still reflected in the diff matrix today, I hope it's finally been fixed. It's being used in an attempt to impeach my efforts to measure consensus. You really ought to take a look at that, MastCell, it's a continuation of a long pattern by some. --Abd (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to make something clear, MastCell, I very rarely change the comments of other editors, and there was no intention to change any comment here. The real change was made by the editor, who deleted the !vote and who had earlier struck the comment, which is fine, though puzzling. What was deleted by the editor was in the place the editor claimed as the intended vote, at the time deleted -- unless I've made another mistake!

I apologize to Woonpton for the offense, and I again assure this editor -- as I did in Talk for the article -- that there was never any intention to do anything other than have the !vote reflect the intention, and I'm quite sure that even if this editor had gone on vwikibreak, the !vote would have ended up in the intended place.

Woonpton, however, did previously declare an agenda or intention to expose me as being some unspecified menace to Wikipedia, see [20], permanent link, and which refers to [21], all of which seems to conclude that you are my "next target." Which is, shall we say, far, far from the truth. I don't carry around targets or hold grudges, I think I see you fairly well, and it's not a negative image. I've never seen you act while involved, never seen improper behavior, so why someone would imagine you as my target is beyond me.

We don't agree on some things, but this is, after all, Wikipedia.

Thanks for your comments at AN/I, they were, I hope, helpful to defuse this mess. Jehochman suggested another admin to Hipocrite, who had approached him, and that admin seems to have taken up the idea of mediation. We'll see what happens, but it could help. I'm pretty skeptical about Hipocrite, who created this mess by a rather nasty piece of gaming RfPP and then wants, apparently, to control how it gets cleaned up. But, in the end, it doesn't matter, it's mostly fluff. --Abd (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration, Abd, but based on your commentary here re:Hypocrite if you agree to mediation you should probably do so with a whopping big portion of WP:AGF (which I know you usually do anyway) and that you make a conscious effort to censor some of your more pointed commentary simply as a sign of good faith on your part (regardless of whether you think that you have done anything untoward, or not). Just a friendly suggestion to reflect upon. No need to reply. --GoRight (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The mediator is announcing an intention to focus solely on content issues. This isn't a behavioral mediation. I won't be making any comments on editor behavior there, they would be worse than moot, they would be offensive. Thanks anyway. I will proceed, if I proceed, on behavioral issues directly and separately. Meanwhile I'm going to need someone to try to negotiate with Hipocrite about his behavior. Doesn't matter who, though I'd prefer someone who might actually succeed. From my point of view, the dispute isn't a content dispute, it's a behavioral dispute. Content disputes could be much more easily resolved. Editors were working together fine at Cold fusion, not without difficulties, but able to negotiate consensus and move on, gradually improving the article. That changed when two editors started pushing hard on the anti-fringe side, new editors, without much knowledge of the field, but very firm conclusions. Hipocrite and, to a lesser extent, less willing to push the envelope of behavior, Verbal. --Abd (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I try not to hold grudges either, and to remember that things aren't black and white. I suspect that if we met in real life, I'd have a very positive impression of you, as Jehochman does. People are always a lot more complicated and interesting in real life than they are on Wikipedia, myself included, hopefully. I'm sure you didn't have any ill intent here, but in these sorts of situations it doesn't take much to get feathers ruffled. Anyhow, my goal in commenting at all was to defuse things and resolve this peaceably, so thank you for helping get there. MastCell ^Talk 04:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is pretty much how I see you. I can tell the difference between an editor or admin "out to get me," a few are on occasion, maybe, and one who is simply dealing with matters as they appear at the moment. Often what I do can be hard to understand; if I'm brief, it's rejected as incoherent, if I explain thoroughly, it's tl;dr. And to explain with the exact balance of brevity and detail is difficult and often time-consuming; that is the best of writing, and it's hard to come by. One of my friends who, in the past, has written on the same topics as I do, but who is far more brief, has said that, sure, he's brief, but I'm more thorough, and it takes him three times as long to write his brief summary (which, I'd say, is typically excellent) as it takes me to write my tome.) Ideally, it takes all kinds to write and edit an encyclopedia; writers *often* are too wordy, besides having points of view, making mistakes, and failing to reference claims, because they are writing from personal knowledge, and that's why they need editors, in real life as well as on Wikipedia. Editors and writers, real-world, are famous for conflict.

On-line interaction is also famous for leading to flame wars, because of the absence of all the cues that allow truly high-bandwidth communication in person, mostly visual: this can't be stuffed into the very narrow channel of text, not even close (much more than a thousand times as much information per second). I've been "conferencing" on-line since the mid-1980s, and it was obvious then. If there is rapport failure, text may be interpreted through a hostile filter; hostile or false meanings can be seen in the text, instead of alternate true or at least neutral meanings. Woonpton has done some reading in my history, and doesn't understand what she read (I think it's she). Others have done the same. If you look at Jehochman's warning to me that was the basis for my block last year, you could see a similarity with Woonpton's conclusions. Iridescent didn't make that the basis of the block, but was clearly thinking the like of it in discussions around the block on her Talk page. I went to the trouble of working it out with Jehochman, first with a userspace self-RfC (an new process, I must say, that should be more used by editors with a complaint about how they have been treated, it was designed to be minimally disruptive; had I been as accused, I'd have been so advised, and I would not have been able to use the self-RfC for anything else), then by approaching Jehochman directly, and, out of that, a very solid working relationship has been formed. it was good even before we met in person. I never did address it with Iridescent, it seemed moot by the time I'd have been ready. Maybe someday. Thanks for dropping by, make yourself at home. Watch out for the pet dog-vomit slime mold in the corner, and please step over the clutter. Coffee or tea? --Abd (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Banned from editing Cold fusion and its Talk page

CF

I've banned you from CF and its talk page. Please don't post there again William M. Connolley (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Bill. Apparently you neglected, in your haste to remove my comment acknowledging the ban and promising to respect it pending resolution, to notify Hipocrite of the ban. I've responded to you on your Talk page, with this, permanent link for ease of reading. I do recommend considering accepting what I suggested; I'll wait a bit before appealing this to give you a little time to consider, but the only troutslap that I got from ArbComm in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG was over waiting before escalating, so I won't wait long. --Abd (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that we were on first name terms, let alone diminutives. H will, no doubt, read the CF talk page in due course. You should not have assumed haste or neglect William M. Connolley (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the presumption of the propriety of civil familiarity, Mr. Connolley. I simply wonder why you formally notified me and not him, if you were acting neutrally. Looked like haste or neglect to me, no matter how you slice it, but now I see that may be incorrect. I appreciate your frank response, it helps. --Abd (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Having watched this unfold, I think he is re-notifying you here because you edited the talkpage after his initial announcement of the ban - at least, that's how the sequence looks to me. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course. He's notifying me here because I requested such formal notification, as is really necessary for a ban to be in effect, not because I needed the notice -- I acknowledged the ban at the Talk page in question -- but because he hasn't notified the other editor and seems to be refusing to do so. Hence he has really, pending further notification, only banned one side of a dispute, clearly the side he disagrees with; he's called for my ban from cold fusion before. Hipocrite wasn't notified in any way except by this, today, which is still indirect. Sucks, Fritzpoll, since you've popped in. I haven't objected to his notifying me here, I requested it. How closely have you been watching this, FP? --Abd (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - I was just referring to the fact that you were implying a lack of neutrality because he's posted here and not to Hipocrite's page. What I was saying was that he has posted here as a followup warning for not respecting the talkpage ban, which Hipocrite has yet to "violate". Thus the initial notification was neutral to both of you, and the followup was necessary because you continued posting to CF talk. I did e-mail William to suggest listing it at WP:RESTRICT, but that's the extent of my involvement thus far. As to how closely I've been watching, I've got CF watchlisted, as I often do with potential flashpoints, but I've doubtless missed something Fritzpoll (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

FP's interpretation is correct. He's notifying me here because I requested such formal notification is wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Distinction without a difference. The post that WMC followed up on, here, was a request that I be formally notified, here, even though I acknowledged notice of the ban there.

A ban can't be violated that doesn't exist, a ban doesn't exist until receipt of notice is clear, and there is no clear evidence that the ban exists for Hipocrite. I created that evidence, deliberately, for myself by responding to the ban notice, in the place it was given, and I considered that an act of cooperation; until I created that evidence, I hadn't been notified, so I wasn't banned, I could not have been blocked for a violation. Then I was notified here, as I had also requested. WMC's motive is not really relevant, the effect is the same regardless. In spite of my request, Hipocrite hasn't actually been notified. There is no actual notice of the ban on Hipocrite Talk, so, unless Hipocrite acknowledges the ban in some way, it's not enforceable, and an unenforceable ban doesn't exist. There is now an indirect notice on Hipocrite talk, placed by User:Enric Naval, that might serve, for now, though it will become difficult to follow in short order, it won't be intelligible, it doesn't mention "ban." It's anomalous that the normal practice of notifying an editor of a ban through notice on the User talk page, where the user will receive a notification with the first page view afterwards and until it's looked at, has been bypassed in favor of a notice on the article talk page, where the editor might easily not see it and edit either the article or another section of the Talk page, perhaps after an absence for a few days, and when I see anomalies, I look for explanations, and it's not difficult to imagine one here. --Abd (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawal of consent to ban from Cold fusion

William M. Connolley did not accept my offer to waive claim that he was involved and not neutral; in addition, reading WP:BAN and reflecting on ban policy in general, I've concluded that an administrator has no authority to unilaterally create an article ban without the consent of the banned editor. An administrator may block for disruption, edit warring, or other offenses, and may waive a block for a user who has voluntarily accepted a ban, but may not impose a ban. The ban William M. Connolley attempted to impose was not based on any stated offense, and a block would not have been sustained. The ban was not based on any ArbComm sanction, nor had there been any community discussion establishing it. I have therefore informed William M. Connolley that I consider that the ban does not exist, so that he may not continue to depend upon my acceptance of it. --Abd (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WMC has responded on his Talk to my notice there, see [22]. I've been exploring how to pursue DR with minimal disruption. Taking the issue to a noticeboard or to ArbComm, when my position has become, based on discussion off-wiki with other editors and exploration of it, would be necessary if there were something more than a possibly empty threat. If I'm disruptive, any admin can block, the ban adds nothing to that. Had a basis other than IAR been alleged for the ban, WMC's position might have been stronger, but appealing a block is a routine process, should he block me, that might involve no more than one neutral administrator. Therefore the most efficient way to deal with this is to defy it. I will not, however, edit Cold fusion or Talk:Cold fusion just to make a POINT. I do, however, have a suggestion (brief, hah!) to make there that could recover a few week's work, which should enjoy consensus based on the available evidence, so I might edit a little later today.

WMC has been questioned by others on the basis for the ban. He alleged no basis that satisfies WP:BAN. To interpret the ban as existing would then require possibly disruptive process to challenge it, when what has happened is only that an admin, known to be hostile to my work, has declared an intention that, to carry out, would require a serious violation of block policy. It is far more efficient to deny that the ban exists and let him prove otherwise than to debate it. WP:IAR, indeed! My favorite policy. At my RfA(2), I was asked what policy was most important. I replied "Rule Number One." Some didn't like that answer, but ... it was correct. I wasn't saying that I wouldn't follow rules and guidelines, in the spirit of them as well as -- usually! -- the letter, that is an entirely different question, and it wasn't asked. --Abd (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Less is more

Is this strategic advice, or is it 1984? --Abd (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh - I'm not sure anyone has ever suggested that you reduce your vocabulary to limit your ability to express dissent (if I am reading your reference correctly). I think they mostly want you to stick to a single point or small set of very related points at a time. I think people's comments on your verbosity can be summarised best by what one of my English teachers used to say to me: "if you try to make 3 relevant, focussed points in a handful of sentences, it is better than making 6 half-relevant points in twice as many sentences - I won't bloody understand what you're talking about, and I don't have endless time and patience to work it out, boy!". I think people want to take part in discussions, and feel disenfranchised in some way if they feel they have to ignore blocks of text that the author themself admits could be distilled into easier to digest sentences. Perhaps it is a curse of living in a media-dominated age? An interesting discussion to be sure - maybe the modern desire for soundbites and apparent ease of access to information, in spite of the ever-increasing complexity of our lives is essentially the effect that Orwell describes - we become more ignorant because the language we choose is increasingly simplistic. Anyway, just my musings Fritzpoll (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, I like puzzles. What does that mean? I don't know, but I like the issues it raises. That's why I wrote it. Consider it poetry. Frequently what I write is multivalent, drives some people crazy, What does he mean? Does he mean this, or that? Quite possibly, both! Where I come from, the ability to hold two differing views at the same time is the precedent condition to depth perception.

Limiting discussion to narrow points or issues is precisely good consensus process. But when I do it, those who really don't want consensus, they want their POV, object vigorously. (ref complaint about the no-discussion requested on the quick poll I set up to find a version to revert too by consensus. Strong complaint that I was "suppressing discussion." But it's an example of the kind of motion that under parliamentary procedure is considered undebatable, the whole point is to make a quick decision pending something deeper to be decided later, and debating it defeats the purpose. The poll worked, even though a competing poll was set up, occasioning more useless debate, and it was all ignored by WMC, who picked his own earlier version, much less supported.

I've responded in more detail on your Talk page. What's really an important take-home point is that there are two basic forms of writing: polemic and discussion. Polemic is better when it's cogent and brief, sound bites, even, the tighter the better. Polemic is intended to convince, and if it's an important point, great effort can be warranted. Discussion, on the other hand, not in person, to even approach what can happen face-to-face, must expand greatly -- unless there is *very* good rapport, and the writers are true poets, which is rare. What many editors want is polemic, they can then judge "what side the editor is on," so they can know to support or oppose. See the problem? To find true consensus, on-line, where it's absent and there is conflict, normally takes a lot of discussion, more discussion than many or most editors have patience for. So, I think the solution is obvious. Let those willing to engage in extended discussion do so, and let one or more of them summarize this for the rest of the editors, who can then read the original if they become more motivated. Trying to suppress extended discussion is placing the battlefield desires of some editors above the true welfare of the project, which ultimately requires a consensus to be built that includes all editors, to the maximum extent possible. And that will resolve conflicts, and keep them resolved, instead of having to push the boulder back up the mountain, over and over. --Abd (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

All right, already. Less is more is strategic advice. Want to reach a difficult goal? Do less, i.e, make each action more effective. But demanding less is 1984, i.e., oppressive, reducing everything to polemic ("effective speech, designed to convince"), inhibiting free thought, confining discussion to channels easily identified as "supporting the cause," and not allowing the kind of open discussion that fosters rapport among those open to it. --Abd (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

One of Orwell's themes in 1984 was the devaluation of language, as a systematic tool to subdue opposition. That's what the whole doublespeak/newspeak thing was about, and the oxymorons you allude to ("war is peace", "freedom is slavery", etc). But there are a lot of ways to devalue language besides simply restricting vocabulary. Lengthy, unedited, and unrefined walls of text devalue language, and they suppress meaningful discussion. Think of the filibuster - the archetypal way to completely derail any collaborative, parliamentary effort is by simply talking, at length, and without discernible direction or meaning. I think that's what people are getting at when they say "less is more", or when they complain about the length of certain talk-page posts.

I don't buy the stuff about polemics vs. discussion. No matter what the nature of your post, it's more effective if it is cogent, short, and to the point. On Wikipedia, you basically live and die by your ability to communicate effectively. When I come here, I don't have any advanced degrees, or publications, or academic rank - I just have my ability to convince other people that I'm making sense. That's actually the most refreshing and interesting thing about Wikipedia. Trust me when I say that whatever you hope to accomplish here, you'd be much more effective at it if you made more of an effort to edit and distill your posts. MastCell ^Talk 03:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, MastCell. I make that effort with some posts, with time, you will see, the percentage increases. I *always* edit my writing down. It may seem like stream of consciousness to you, it isn't. What I can say to you is, if you see a "wall of text," it's not for you to read, and the only "negative consequence" you would experience, if any, is that you would not benefit from what is in it, and if it isn't for you there may be no benefit at all, it would just irritate you. I don't read everything I see! I don't read everything in Talk:Cold fusion, but I typically scan most of it. I figure that if it's important, it will come back. I'm not a professor addressing a class, test next Friday. Those walls of text, typically, besides being bad wiki design (wide columns, come on!), are not walls of text to some people, I know that for a fact. Lengthy, unrefined walls of text do not devalue language, they have practically no effect, except for people who imagine they must read them. I really can't emphasize this too much: demanding that all conversation on Wikipedia suit the needs of all editors is not sensible and will only perpetuate conflict.

I was once assigned by one of the great teachers of our time to sit and talk with another student, a medical doctor from Spain who had been a communist in Spain when that was a capital offenses. We talked all night. In the morning, someone else heard us and made the comment "You are talking about nothing, senseless nonsense, you are wasting your time with such abstractions." We were not wasting our time. We were developing rapport, a rapport that was on levels the onlooker could not see. It was not for him. One of the difficulties of Wikipedia is that text is very low-bandwidth. Very, very low, compared to personal presence. Much of the conflict on Wikipedia would disappear if we could edit collaboratively, face to face. Why? After all, it's about text, isn't it. No, consensus is about human interaction, and that takes place, typically, not all at once, everybody together, one big meeting. It arises piecewise, and spreads. Nobody is, ultimately, excluded. But different people are ready for different ideas at different times. --Abd (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Abd, above you stated: The poll worked, even though a competing poll was set up, occasioning more useless debate, and it was all ignored by WMC, who picked his own earlier version, much less supported. Do you truly believe that the poll worked? Woonpton withdrew from participation, several editors indicated an unwillingness to participate in your poll, and I know I said nothing because the whole thing looked like a train wreck waiting to happen. Leaving aside WMC's actions afterwards, I am interested in what you mean by "the poll worked". EdChem (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Look at the poll! It covers all opinions that have been maintained about the articles. It discovered this quickly and efficiently, with a minimum of discussion. Hipocrite opened up a "competing poll." Fine. That was, in this case, disruptive, but in the end had no negative effect, because I simply reported the other !votes in my poll. The purpose of the poll was to detect community consensus on the versions, and anyone was free to suggest any version they wanted. The poll detected community consensus. More editors voted in it than in Hipocrite's poll, so far, but that isn't important. I added the versions suggested by Hipocrite, and the votes on them, and then voted myself on them, and you might notice that those votes were generally supportive of those versions. The poll was designed to discover consensus quickly, in a situation where we had a *really bad* article which was the result of Hipocrite's gaming of RfPP. Really, have you looked at that? He could easily have been blocked for it. He was edit warring, then, when he realized he was opposing multiple editors who weren't going to have to break a sweat to prevent him for excluding reliably sourced content, and he'd hit 3RR, he reverted his last edit so he wouldn't look so bad, went to RfPP, claimed I'd been edit warring -- and a superficial review of the edits, and he's a highly experienced editor, he knows what actually happens, could make it look like I was reverting. Actually, I was at 0RR or 1RR on June 1, depending on how one interprets initial edits restoring with changes to satisfy concerns about sources, and reflecting developed consensus in Talk. Then, knowing it likely that protection was going to come down, mangled the lead, making it grossly POV, in a way that he knew would never stand, it was absolutely against consensus. But it wasn't a revert!

Sure, Woonpton withdrew her vote. Arrived with an attitude, I could show that from posts elsewhere. She was "collecting evidence about me." Before this whole thing. And there was a misunderstanding, an error on my part that left me confused for about an hour. I'm 65, I get to be confused occasionally! This is what I suspect *really* happened: The version she preferred was one that had been heavily edited by Shanahan to his POV, he's COI, and no longer edits the article. It was blatantly bad. But she is a believer in the POV that cold fusion is bogus, and that made that version look, why, perfectly fair to her. As she pointed out, it wasn't perfect, it wasn't sourced. But it also wasn't following sources, or was presenting what might be sourcable in such a way as to present opinion as fact. Nobody else supported that version, at all, but Shanahan, who had implied a proposal for it, and I'd added it as an option out of respect for that. Now, that would have been fine. But in the process of creating the matrix to be used for comparison of versions, I made a mistake in interpretation of a diff, and it caused me to think that I'd made an error in providing the permanent link for the version Woonpton had voted for. Rightly or wrongly, I decided to move the vote to the version that I thought she had looked, which was the next version, where Pcarbonn accepted what was usable from Shanahan's version, and took out what couldn't be supported. It was a much better version, close to consensus or actually consensus -- haven't checked -- though, in fact, our standards have shifted since then and we've gotten a lot tighter on source requirements. I explained what I was doing, and assumed that Woonpton would correct my mistake, if it was a mistake. Sure, I shouldn't have done that. When people are confused, they do things they shouldn't have done. However, instead of fixing the error, which she could have easily done in a flash, she cried "shenanigans," and demanded that I not touch her vote. Which she left on the version she now claimed she had not intended to vote for! But before I read the demand, but after I checked and discovered that, indeed, I'd misread the diffs and she had looked at the version that she thought she was voting for, I undid my mistake. And then she removed her entire vote, now in the place where she had placed it, and went to AN/I with the complaint. You figure this one out.

Look at the poll, EdChem. It accomplished its purpose, but it hasn't been used. It was disregarded by WMC, who violated protection policy by reverting under protection to May 14 without an established consensus; I added that version to the options, and you can see the results. Better than the mangled version which nobody supported, not even Hipocrite who had created it -- he didn't want to vote in my poll because that would have made the purpose of the June 1 edit warring and gaming of protection obvious -- and it was better than the old version from September -- but ... WMC ignored what was, by that time, an expressed consensus, confirmed by subsequent votes, on May 31, which had been suggested as a compromise by Hipocrite. Note that the May 14 restoration effectively accomplished what Hipocrite's edit warring of May 21 and Jun 1 had been trying to do. GoRight has, I think, concluded that he'd made a mistake by proposing May 14, he hadn't reviewed the edits and presumed that because May 14 had stood for five days, it was fine. In fact, I'd abandoned editing the article because I'd work on a edit for a few hours, carefully finding and citing sources, and it would be taken out in a minute, and tendentiously opposed in Talk. Eventually, these things, later, May 21 -June 1, were making it through, with consensus, but I still was abstaining from most new content, I was just adding extra sources to old. On Jun 1, Hipocrite wasn't edit warring with me, I didn't edit war that day at all, he was edit warring against consensus.

Sure it can all be fixed. That's why I suggested a mutual ban on editing the article, in order to get quick unprotection. I hadn't done anything wrong on Jun 1, I didn't have to offer that, but it was for efficiency, to avoid debate over Hipocrite's edit warring pending. WMC's action looked bold, to be sure, but actually undid almost a month's work: Hipocrite had been edit warring since the beginning of May, but it was spread out, and I wasn't confronting it until May 21, at which point he began making concessions and balancing instead of bald reverting. And again, Jun 1 caused some progress that would have been reversed by going back to May 31, but May 31 was close, and the differences minor.

From the poll results, what should have been done is clear, and any editor could still do it, which was to revert to May 31 and proceed from there. Complete consensus, no expressed opposition. I will deal with WMC and his ban, the problem is blatant and the only reason you aren't seeing big fuss about it is that I don't work that way. There is quiet discussion here and there, working now on stage 2 of WP:DR, which stays very low-level. You can see the on-wiki part of it by looking at my contributions, but about half is off-wiki.

I'm not sure you realize what you are dealing with, EdChem. I hope you continue in your efforts to become more informed about the present situation with cold fusion, and we need more editors who are informed and who can understand the literature. More, not less. A number of editors have been very active who don't appear to have that capacity, and it's their right, but we also need good, unbiased, balanced advice here. I know at least one admin who is a physicist and who may pop in. He was reluctant to participate, because, he told me, he has a POV. I wrote back, "I bet you are skeptical. Please come." I was right, and he may do it.

Lucky guess, eh? Not really. Physicists are more often highly skeptical on this, chemists -- more often, certainly not universally! -- are not. The chemists said, in 1989, this isn't chemistry, and the physicists said, this couldn't be physics, it must be chemistry. Both were venturing outside their expertise, in fact. That's part of what happened in 1989. A chemist tried to do neutron detection and fell on his face. Physicists tried to replicate, in a few months or less, work that had taken a highly experienced electrochemist five years to develop into something that was -- barely -- possible to demonstrate. They failed. Big surprise! And Fleischmann himself didn't understand all the conditions: there is reliable source that when he ran out of the batch of palladium he'd used to find the still-low frequency of excess heat demonstration, he couldn't get it at all. It took almost ten years for the field to figure out how to process palladium so that it would work, and the bulk-palladium theory of Fleischmann was wrong, the effect is a surface effect, it doesn't happen inside the lattice, only at the transition zone where deuterium gas dissociates, entering the lattice. Takahashi's theory of tetrahedral condensate fusion appears to depend on the presence of lattice *and* deuterium molecules, which is only the case at the surface.

Much of what you've written on Talk:Kirk shanahan about the situation isn't true. There are techniques now known for setting up the NAE (Storm's nuclear active environment) that work 100%, such as the SPAWAR co-deposition technique, among electrolysis techniques, or Arata's loading of deuterium gas into nanoparticle palladium under pressure. The SPAWAR work is peer-review published, and there are confirmations. The general finding of excess heat in palladium deuteride has been confirmed by 153 peer-reviewed papers; some of this work is definitely poor, but some of it isn't. Some of it is very solid, and I have reliable source to that effect (Hoffman, 1995). (Hoffman in 1995 decided to focus on the nuclear evidence, mostly setting aside the calorimetry, not as a criticism of it, but simply to stay more focused.) That's why the 2004 DoE panel was already up to the point that evidence for excess heat was "convincing" (50%), and the other half, I'm sure, weren't united on "bogus! But physicists, we could expect, then as now, were going to be a very hard sell that the cause was nuclear, they demand more specific nuclear evidence. In fact, the evidence was there in 2004, and it was put before the panel, but there was a curious misunderstanding of the evidence that I documented in a section on Talk:Cold fusion. The summary by the anonymous DoE bureaucrat gave a statement about the association of He-4 with excess heat that wasn't supported by the paper that it was cited, and that appears to have been based on a single reviewer report that also misunderstood the evidence, but the overall reviewer compounded the error. We have the reviewer summary, clearly contradicted by the review paper which was issued as part of the report, instead of evidence that I tried to put in from the report. I was reverted to the summary, but, at that point, I hadn't found the part of the paper that was the source for the incorrect information, and when I did find it, I was confused by the contradiction at first.

If you read the DoE summary, you would conclude that association had not been shown. The reverse was actually true in the paper. I think that a reviewer misunderstood the report, focusing on the wrong section, a section which wasn't designed to show association of helium with excess heat, except for one experiment where time-correlation data was striking. That was basically a footnote, an appendix, to the real discussion of heat and helium association. The real claim? Well, I'll take it from Storms' review instead of the DoE report, because I have it from that on my desk. Hagelstein, in the review document, reviews a shorter series of experiments.

[In a series of 33 studies], 12 produced no extra energy and no extra helium. Out of 21 studies producing extra energy, 18 produced extra helium with an amount consistent with the amount of extra energy [i.e., consistent with 23.8 MeV/He4, which is what would be generated by a process that takes in deuterium and generates helium.) The exceptions were one sample having a possible error in heat measurement and two studies using a Pd-Ce alloy. Obviously, the latter result has some alternate interpretations, but forget about the exception; count all the studies. If excess heat and helium are not actually associated, i.e., causally connected in some way, but both are artifact, what is the probability of seeing this level of coincidence? I'm confident that you could do the math, estimating the frequency of each "error" as shown by the results, and then the probability that they would come up to that level of coincidence. Miles reports 1/750,000.

My point is that all is not necessarily as it appears. There is plenty of reliable source showing that cold fusion was rejected in 1989. We can find plenty of reliable source claiming that Fleischmann's work was never replicated. But this is certainly not peer-reviewed source, as you know, you would be unlikely to find that in a peer-reviewed paper, or, if you find it, it would be dated and subject to contradiction by later replication. Now, if we look at peer-reviewed reviews, we find quite the contrary, we find reports of replication. He Jing-tang covers something like 10,000 studies, as I recall, and reports that replication success reached 100% in 2007. Researchers have figured out how to do it. But I'm not -- at all -- suggesting we report, in the article, that cold fusion is a done deal. It isn't. I'm suggesting that we follow reliable source and use weight of publication to balance the article, on the science, without preconceptions or assumptions, and that we report the history as would be normal with history, media sources are fine. Where reliable sources conflict, we have more work to do, and the question gets more complicated, but, in fact, "reports of contradictions are greatly exaggerated." --Abd (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)