User talk:DVdm

— Telcome to my walk page — Please leave new comments at the bottom and sign them with tildes (~~~~) at the end. I will respond to your messages on this page. If I have left a message on your talk page, please respond there. I will try to keep an eye on it. If you think I forgot to check —which often happens when I am practicing the Fine Art of Real-life Living— don't hesitate to remind me here.

list of cold fusion researchers

We obviously cant describe each researchers contribution in the cold fusion article. Rothwell's first list has 4500 names on it. A later version only lists the 350 peer review published researchers. We cant list this on the cold fusion article but it does show how active the field exactly is. Currently people believe Rossi is doing all the work. This while he hasn't even published anything. Nothing on Wikipedia contradicts this flawed assumption.

I'm not sure about the exact criteria at this stage but before adding them to a Wikipedia list of researchers each list item should have the credentials checked out. This is going to take some time. People who have a wikipedia article that already identifies them as a cold fusion researcher would obviously be the first to approve. The gray areas need a bit of debate first.

If you cant wait you can put the article live with 4 or 5 of the 350 names on it but I thought that was a bit of a silly approach. The list on the talk page is suppose to be a photo-negative of the one on the article so that editors can easily help expand it.

If in doubt, we also have List of quantum gravity researchers and one for List of loop quantum gravity researchers etc etc

84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I obviously cant continue now that you took over the page so I'm going to do something else. My apologies if my response is a bit slow. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that I have had a quick read of the serious wp:BLP-related objections at Talk:Cold fusion#List of cold fusion researchers, I strongly suggest you remove that long list ASAP and try to get a solid wp:consensus with the other editors over there. I will not touch anything further. DVdm (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I can see you are reverting IP edits. I also see in this process you ended up falsely accusing me of BLP violations, suggesting Cold fusion is a dirty word in the eyes of cold fusion researchers. I would like you to substantiate the claim or withdraw it.

Thanks ;) 84.106.26.81 (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any BLP-accusation or claim from my part, so I wouldn't know what I possibly could substantiate or withdraw. The BLP-related stuff that I do see, are objections and concerns by Stephan Schulz, SteveBaker, again, and TenOfAllTrades on Talk:Cold fusion#List of cold fusion researchers, and it would be very wise to listen to these guys. Consider it a friendly, but well-informed little piece of advice. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even understand their point. lol Apparently they got the impression I wasn't going to source anything. What would be the fun in that? It's such a strange assumption I really didn't get it. Now it all makes sense. I just have to get used to the idea of being treated like an idiot and all will be fine. haha 84.106.26.81 (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you still don't get the point. It is not about sourcing, but about interpreting sources the wrong way (see wp:SYNTH, wp:NOR, wp:BLP). The point is that having XYZ's name in the list of authors of a publication in PQR's list of UVW-related publications, does not warrant labeling XYX as a UVW-researcher with PQR's list as a source. Try re-reading their comments with that in mind. Understand that and all will be fine. - DVdm (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz, Steve Baker and TenOfAllTrades make the point that scientists who will be listed on a list of LENR researchers might lose a job/grant/tenure/Nobel Prize or might sue wikipedia.

I notice that cold fusion is avoided like the bubonic plague. This is 100% in line what the researchers in the field have been saying all along. The social pressure in the scientific community to dismiss cold fusion is so strong, mainstream scientists will flee town if a cold fusion symposium is held there in fear of catching the disease and lose their scientific life.

Of course we cannot copy/paste any external list over to the WP-list. I have already proposed criteria

Criteria for inclusion:

• Has published a peer reviewed paper clearly on cold fusion / LENR
  • Co-authors should not be included automatically, but can be if they have consistently co-authored similar papers by the author, ie are in his research group.
  • Rossi's blog obviously doesn't count as peer reviewed
• or has submitted papers/presentations for the annual "International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science" visible in the proceedings
• or has authored a book clearly propagation the CF/LENR science.

--POVbrigand (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look on the current status of the list User:POVbrigand/list#List_of_LENR_researchers (only the first bit, the rest is just working sheet) and let me know what you think. Thanks --POVbrigand (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a glance, but I'm not going to scrutinize it, if that is what you would like me to do. I'm not interested in the subject, and even less (!) in List-of-Pokemon-characters type articles. If you have made sure that every single person in your list would personally wholeheartedly agree that they are indeed a Pokemon character, then you might have nothing to fear, unless of course someone objects to your list as a severe case of wp:BLP-related wp:synth and wp:original research. Good luck with your list. - DVdm (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

ok, thanks --POVbrigand (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the list was challenged for BLP while still in my userspace. Nobody responded, so I guess I did everything right. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad that it works out so far for you. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia organization

A description of WP organization is in this draft. Please look it over and make changes with accompanying discussion on its Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have seen it and, from a great distance, it looks pretty good. It would be nice to have an article with this kind of content. However, I don't think that I'm sufficiently competent in the material to make (or even suggest) changes. I commented on the earlier RFC at Talk:Wikipedia because, as you probably have noticed, I am interested in the "correct" interpretation of wp:CIRCULAR under/over wp:PRIMARY. I will certainly keep an eye open and I wish you good luck. Cheers & keep cool! - DVdm (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Now moved to this location. Brews ohare (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I had noticed and had put it on watchlist already. Looks good. I hope it will root. - DVdm (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Congrats with wp:Formal organization! - DVdm (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

A Star, for you

		The Userpage Shield
		Thanks for taking care of that vandalism on my page. Achowat (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thanks and cheers! - DVdm (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Edgardo Mortara

D, thanks for the slack you picked up at the article. I'm afraid I did that in a stupid moment of multitasking and did not bother to try to fix it. I'm glad you went in and straightened it - also I see that I misunderstood the Dawkins ref. So thanks for that. Djathinkimacowboy 21:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Without screwing up the flow or altering further, I did clean up some of that grammar, which I see you simply reverted to; it did not reflect the correct expression of what occurred. For example, it was accurate but it sounded as if Edgardo had been automatically or magically made Catholic through this rite of baptism. It needs to express that it is the Catholic belief and not just stated as a fact. Also I made improvements regarding Canon Law, which is the Code of Canon Law of the Church and guides it. It needs to be emphasized that it was also the law of the land in the Papal States - and even that is incorrect because Canon Law deals exclusively with the Church, not so much with civil, common law. Djathinkimacowboy 21:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

about here

About your comment on my talk page, for which you said "please cite a reliable source" for the article Square root: I did not write those thing. I just copied a portion of text from Methods of computing square roots, just to display an example. If you need a reliable source, you can contact the original author of it. Anyway, thanks for your great comment. Derek LeungLM 02:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Derek, sorry for the inappropriate message — I hadn't noticed the main article tag ({{main}}), my mistake. Howewer, I undid your edit again, as it contains an exact copy of the section Methods of computing square roots#Decimal (base 10). It's a good idea to mention manual computation shortly and point to the section and the algorithm in the other article. If you really would like to duplicate the entire section, the best thing would be to propose that on the article talk page, but generally it is not a good idea to copy such content between articles. The template {{main}} states: "This template is used below the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article that has been (or will be) summarised." So the idea seems to be to summarise the article/section, not to copy from it. Your edit also had undone some significant formatting edits that I had made to the article. So, if you would add somerhing about manual computation again, perhaps a short section with a wikilink to Methods of computing square roots#Decimal (base 10)? Sorry again for the message on your talk page. I have struck it. Feel free to remove it. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Source confusion

Hi you said the statement was un-sourced the source can be found at the end of the paragraph. I added the source again and see you have now removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.60.118 (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I had made a mistake. I should have read a bit further to check the source. Sorry for the confusion. - DVdm (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Time def

It seems likely Collins dictionary has changed it entry for "time" - and it does say 2011 now. See 6th down in this search

Collins: The Dictionary Meaning of time www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3...False...1. the past, present, and future regarded as a continuous whole, temporal, (Related adjective) 2. (Physics) a quantity measuring duration, measured with ... I must wonder why they would consider their change an improvement--JimWae (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, apparently they changed their definition. That's what I assumed. My edit summary comment was aimed at the anon who threw the present in the bin without even checking the reference. At first "sight" the new def sounds horribly wrong —first future, then now, and finally past— but then, when thinking it through it makes perfect sense after all, although it took some time before my penny dropped :-) - DVdm (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for undoing all the damage that the Mr. Curious' IP address has done to my talk page and user page. It was very kind of you. :) It's such a shame that they will not leave me alone on wikia and Youtube. But thanks for undoing the damage once again. :)--Brainiac Adam (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Perhaps the edit summary of this edit was not a good idea. When I noticed you making it, I made a bet with myself about how many days it would take before Curious would return. I won that bet :-) - The only way to possibly get rid of a stalker is by consequently and totally ignoring them. Never address them or reply to them directly or indirectly, always ignore. I'm sure that your user page and your talk page is on quite some people's watchlists, so you don't have to worry — harassment will be dealt with. Cheers & Cool! - DVdm (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Time in New Age beliefs

Thanks for your vigilance about the time articles... lol... And please kindly elaborate a bit on my talk page (I added a few questions there). -- Nazar (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done - see here. - DVdm (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Booknotes

Booknotes was a high quality interview program that interviews leading authors on topics directly relevant to the articles in question. There is no way it violates any of the WP:ELNO restrictions. So please don't delete them. The series of 800 hourlong interviews is a major RS for Wiki users. Many of the people interviewed won the Pulitzer and other major prizes. Pulitzer Prize winning author David Halberstam praised the series because it "connects serious writers in a highly-civilized way to serious readers out there." Brian Lamb did most of the interviews, for which he was awarded the National Humanities Medal. and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The American Historical Association awarded Lamb the 2004 Theodore Roosevelt-Woodrow Wilson Award "for extraordinary contributions to the study, teaching, and public understanding of history." High honors indeed. Rjensen (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. These external links are in the most direct violation of wp:ELNO, item 13:

• 13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked.

These external links are a schoolbook example of links to be avoided. If such a link has something important to contribute to an article, then a short mention "about that something" should be integrated in the text body of the article, with a properly templated <ref>{{cite web |...}}</ref> reference where the link can be specified as a URL-parameter. - DVdm (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

These are classic examples of good useful links that follow the rules. For example you deleted the one hour discussion by Seymour Martin Lipset entirely devoted to American Exceptionalism, in the article on American exceptionalism! Can't get more appropriate than that. Likewise hourlong discussions by major biographers of people like James Madison being in the Madison article. Likewise the memoir by the ganddaughter of the life of Yitzhak Rabin belongs in the article on Yitzhak Rabin. The flaw is asserting only indirectly related when that is simply false. They are all directly related. If after listening to the program you think it's inappropriate, then bring it up on the talk page because other editors disagree with you. Rjensen (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said, the site is not directly related to the article's subject—something at the site may be highly relevant, but the site as a whole is not. Just integrate something into the article and use the site as a reference. See Wikipedia:External links:

• This guideline concerns external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content. If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it. Guidelines for sourcing, which includes external links used as citations, are discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources.

So as an external link the site could probably be used without a problem in the article Booknotes only.

It's not that hard. See what we just did at Artificial gravity and User talk:Otolith2#External links to be avoided. It works and it's better, and it is a Wikipedia guideline. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been working on integration of Booknotes links into pertinent articles as a sideline project for some time, and I agree with the concept of not having a contest to see how big of a collection of links you can have for each article. I can understand that perhaps the Einstein article is lengthy enough that you would not want to include every biography (although I think that a further resource to Einstein article readers is being lost now, but I will concede that one). However - You also deleted the link I made on the page for Eleanor Clift, which led to a one-hour, serious interview with her and her husband about a book they wrote together. How is that an appropriate deletion? Here is an excerpt from point #13: If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked. - How is the Eleanor Clift article and link not covered under the auspices of that policy, not to mention being a common sense good resource to have? I think these are valuable links to have, and just because adding the link for the Einstein article may have been iffy on my part, I would hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Please feel free to communicate further about this. KConWiki (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, now I see that it looks like the specific interview links were removed from a couple of dozen articles at one fell swoop. I need to ask, how closely did you look at the links that you removed? KConWiki (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the article subjects and I looked at the website. None of the article subjects is directly related to the website. Amazon sells excellent books on thousands of subjects for which we have articles, and we don't put Amazon's book entries in these article's external links sections — that would be spamming. The New York Times has excellent articles on, and interviews about, thousands of subjects for which we have articles, and we don't put The New York Times in these article's external links sections — that would be spamming. Booknotes might have a superb collection of excellent interviews on our article subjects, but putting Booknotes in these article external links sections amounts to spamming. Just read the guideline. It was specially designed to avoid the flooding of the external links sections with collections of stuff about the subjects. The solution is very simple. See what we did at Artificial gravity and User talk:Otolith2#External links to be avoided. DVdm (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

One small point here: Amazon is a primarily an e-commerce site (see WP:ELNO item 15) but the Booknotes website is primarily an informational one; in each case, the full interview is available free of charge. Moreover, surely a link to a specific interview cannot be considered a "collection of stuff". WWB Too (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

WWB Too, no, of course a link to a specific interview cannot be considered a "collection of stuff", but Booknotes is a collection of stuff, and that is the entire point of the guideline - please read it more carefully. Bookstores as an external link is just not directly related to the article subject. - DVdm (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If a link is made to the top level of the Booknotes site, I would agree with you. When the links go to a specific page on the website, I do not. It sounds to me like you are penalizing Booknotes for being a useful resource on many topics, which is just silly. WWB Too (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

As for the first part of your comment, this is probably where our opinions diverge. As for the second part, I'm not penalising Booknotes. That would be silly indeed. - DVdm (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

As to the first part of my comment, you've already agreed that "a specific interview cannot be a 'collection of stuff'" so it should naturally follow that a link to a specific, relevant interview is not the sort of link discouraged by WP:ELNO. And with all due respect, this debate is silly. WWB Too (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Having reviewed a handful of these deletions, I'm in agreement with Rjensen and KConWiki; DVdm, I'm afraid you're deleting unique and highly relevant information. I can't see why, for example, an in-depth interview with Fox Butterfield should be removed from the Wikipedia article about Fox Butterfield.

DVdm, you've identified items 1, 11 and 13 from WP:ELNO as guideline-based justifications, but I'm afraid I disagree on all three points. Per item 1, surely these count as a "unique resource"; if a topical interview on a well-regarded, nationally-broadcast television series is not a unique resource, what is? Item 11 discourages linking to "blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority"; C-SPAN's Booknotes is none of the first three but certainly is the fourth. Finally, item 13 specifically allows the sort of material you are deleting: "If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked." As far as I have seen, these links were not made to the top-level of the Booknotes website, but to the specific interviews.

For these reasons, and those outlined by KConWiki and Rjensen, I believe these ELs should all be reinstated. (In the spirit of disclosure: I am a consultant to C-SPAN, and I have arrived upon this page at KConWiki's request; however, I don't think either fact detracts from the points I've made here.) Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you are correct about items 1 and 11 not being applicable. It's only item 13. I don't have a problem with deep linking, but note that this is not deep linking, it's external link spamming. It should be easy to write a sentence in the article about an interview with Sandel on Democracy's Discontent. <== that is deep linking. - DVdm (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, your example of an appropriate deep link is effectively identical to the KConWiki edit you removed; certainly the link is identical. You'll have to explain the difference, because I don't see it. WWB Too (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

My deep linked example is a link integrated in the text. This one is the same link listed in the External links section, which is what the guideline is about. I have no idea how to explain it more clearly. - DVdm (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I see. Well, it so happens the very first sentence of the WP:EL guideline discourages what you recommend: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article." So KConWiki's usage was in fact the more correct. WWB Too (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] spamming? nonsense. a meaningful link to a useful high quality resource is exactly what makes the Wikipedia "External Link" sections work well. Editors who make the links should be congratulated. DVdm says it's easy to write a sentence in the article in lieu of a link--he might try that and see just how "easy" it is compared to using the "External Link" section, which is the appropriate place the great majority of Wiki editors actually use to put an an external link. Rjensen (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: Reply is to DVdm above; outdented following edit conflict. Now, WP:LINKSPAM says "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." Perhaps this is a flawed guideline, as it speaks to editor motivations rather than the resulting content. However, in each of the cases reviewed, I believe the linked interviews provided relevant information.

And I don't think you disagree, since you're encouraging the interviews be used to add more information. Well, I'd be very happy to see any one of these interviews used to support specific additions to the page. But it's not that easy—in each case it would take time to watch the interview, identify useful material, write it, cite it and make the edits. Moreover, we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of the good, and Wikipedia is always a work in progress.

Meanwhile, not that Wikipedia is necessarily a reliable source (nervous laughter) but its definition of "deep linking", as you link, reads: [D]eep linking is making a hyperlink that points to a specific page or image on a website, instead of that website's main or home page. That describes each of the links you have removed perfectly; I'm not certain I follow the distinction you are trying to make, and in any case outright deletion shouldn't be the first resort. WWB Too (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, let me point out (below) that the existing External Links (not including Booknotes) on the Einstein article (which was the original one in question) includes links to the FBI, Life Magazine, the Nobel Prize website, The History Channel, PBS/WGBH, an MIT course that also covered Oppenheimer and Feynman, and an article by Einstein about Socialism. Again, I will concede that perhaps the links section for the Einstein article needs to be patrolled against getting too crowded (due to the length and breadth of the article) but the same is not a particular concern for Eleanor Clift, Ted Sorenson, etc. KConWiki (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

External links section from Albert Einstein article, not including Booknotes

Collapsed list

Works by Albert Einstein (public domain in Canada) The MacTutor History of Mathematics archive, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of St Andrews, Scotland, 1997, retrieved 14 June 2009 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein, Monthly Review, May 1949 FBI file on Albert Einstein Nobelprize.org Biography:Albert Einstein The Einstein You Never Knew — slideshow by Life magazine Albert Einstein — videos Science Odyssey People And Discoveries MIT OpenCourseWare STS.042J/8.225J: Einstein, Oppenheimer, Feynman: Physics in the 20th century — free study course that explores the changing roles of physics and physicists during the 20th century DVdm publications indexed by Google Scholar

Yes, there's probably a lot of improper external links there. I just don't think that a section in bad shape should be put in an even worse shape.

And of course I still don't see what is so hard to understand about the guideline as amply quoted above. Our interpretations seem to be collide. Anyway, time for some Real-life Living now. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers and happy holidays to you as well; One thing that I do suggest is that you pick one (or more) of the interviews that looks like it might interest you, and when you have an hour to spare, to watch it. I think that (even if it does not change your opinion on this matter) you will find it a rewarding experience. KConWiki (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the quality is not really relevant. Anyway, it is not such a big deal — although I might ask a question or so at Wikipedia talk:External links some day. Cheers and happy holidays to all :-) - DVdm (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Drawn here by my own revert of the link being added to Albert Einstein before I was made aware of this discussion I think any point I might raise has been discussed already but it's still worth me restating my reasons for removing the link, expanding on my edit summary. The link in question's main problem is it is only incidentally on the topic: the main topic of the linked page is the book, not Albert Einstein. So it clearly fails #13 of WP:ELNO. Also a video is far less useful as a link as it requires both more time and special software for users to view. There is a transcript but it's clearly not meant to be read, being poorly formatted and stuck in a narrow frame. But the main reason is #13 of the reasons to exclude links.

I agree the section is already too long but just because there are bad links already is not a reason to add more – quite the opposite. I have in the past pared back overlong external links sections in articles, but I'm happier to do this in other topic areas and leave this to other editors who know this subject better.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Note. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Not sure about Booknotes in external links - DVdm (talk) 12:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Note. See also₂ Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Booknotes external links. - DVdm (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

edit "Cold Fusion" Nine Refefences to Pathological Science Should Be Moved to Historical Footnotes

To improve the article:

1) Wiki needs to view it as science.

2) Wiki needs to recognize which scientific journals are utilized and sourced by scientists in this field of physics.

I predict a tremendous increase in the readability of the article.

Query to the scientific community: To the Directors of Physics Departments,

LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear or Lattice Enabled Nuclear; historically misnamed "Cold Fusion"

1) Is this science or pathological science?

2) Do you offer a class in this discipline? If so, please provide information.

3) Are you developing a curriculum of this science? If so, when will you offer it?

4) What peer review journals do you utilize or source in this field?

DVdm, P>S> 1) Any suggestions or criticisms before I move forward with this? 2) Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wikipedia forum on Cold Fusion may value? Thank you for your time, Gregory Goble gbgoble@gmail.com (415) 724-6702--Gregory Goble (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The only useful suggestions I have at this point, is that you follow some of the links in the welcome message on your talk page, and that you take the suggestions from the other contributors to that article seriously. Happy reading and editing, and good luck. - DVdm (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey wait a minute...

DVdm, I have admitted I jumped the gun- but I don't think I deserved a spanking from you like this[1].Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 23:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't confuse someone explaining some of the rules with a spanking. I have put a final comment and collapsed the section per wp:TPG. It can stil be made visible by clicking the show link. DVdm (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

POV

How is global security a pov source? in fact why haven't you warned the other user for 3rv rule? I will remove your warning if you pick and choose who to warn at your leisure 109.150.60.235 (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, your source tries to install malware on people's PC. - DVdm (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe that source is fine I have been on it several times now and I have kaspersky internet security I have sent them the link and they will investigate your claims 109.150.60.235 (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I get a popup telling me that my PC is unsafe, a typical malware installation trap, usually not detected by standard antivirus software. Be very careful. - DVdm (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I have one of the best virus and internet security programmes and they do not mention this site at all.....109.150.60.235 (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)