User talk:Noren: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:11, 6 May 2014

Hello Noren, I just wanted to welcomeyou to to Wikipedia, and to say how much you input in Roche limit is appreciated. Here are a few links you might find useful.

If you want add any images check out:

If you need any help try:

That's all for now. I hope you decide to stick around. We can always do with good people :-) Theresa Knott (The token star) 23:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I second the welcome.

Could you provide a citation for the Aristotle reference in the Heliocentrism article? If you haven't time to work up a nicely formatted entry, I'd appreciate your sending me the data, and I can work it up. I'm trying to get together a proper References section. Thanks, Dandrake 19:55, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Please pardon the brain fart. I woke up that morning thinking about the need to assemble a References section, and apparently hadn't achieved enough consciousness by 11 AM to look at the article first. Thanks for the work on the article. Dandrake 22:08, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Roche limit

(William M. Connolley 22:10, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Please will you pause to think before labelling my edit as "vandalism". First, it was a good-faith edit. Second, it was correct: orbit or not is irrelevant to the tidal forces.

Cluster Impact Fusion

Go for it! Just because there's only a small amount of material on the topic doesn't mean it shouldn't be in here. Moreover I'm sure you can I can get a nice boilerplate into shape, and then get Art to jump in.

Good? Yes?

ok, here, see what you think cluster impact fusion

Maury 6 July 2005 12:17 (UTC)

Cold Fusion

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- BMIComp (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did discuss them first, extensively, months ago. Perhaps I should have reiterated the arguments. I'd be happy to take this to arbitration, as in my opinion the categories under dispute are clear and obvious violations of the Wikipedia category use guidelines. In any case, I did not violate the 3RR rule as I did not "revert any single page more than three times within a period of 24 hours." I only did so twice (at 16:18, 11 July 2005 and 17:41, 11 July 2005)- two times fewer than what would needed for me to be in violation.
- Well, I'd say you reverted three times; adding an extra edit in between your revert still makes it a revert. I wasn't reporting you or anything, just wanted to let you know that continued reverts could result in bannination. I noticed brian had made reverts also, but I saw this comment and from it I inferred that he was not going to revert it again.
  - I'm guessing you were counting my initial edit as a revert, though you didn't specify what edit other than the two I cite above you consider a revert... but as you say it's a dead issue.

Talk:Cold fusion

I've reported the noxious SPAM sites to the blacklist and they should be added (I hope). 68.39.174.238 23:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

source for cold fusion ?

Noren, could you provide the source for "most governments and scientists in the United States and Europe had dismissed the concept as illusion" ? you put it between quotes, so I suppose you are quoting someone. thanks. Pcarbonn 17:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I am sorry about the block; I meant to block an IP address of a spammer, and blocked you instead. - Mike Rosoft 14:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on Grape

Hi. Good catch on your revert on Grape. :) I was trying to help and someone caught my own revert which was only partial. Cheers! --EarthPerson 17:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roche limit FAR

Roche limit has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Cold fusion mediation

You are named as a party at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion. Please either agree to mediation, or strike your name from the list of parties. MigFP (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 19:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I have accepted the mediation case regarding Cold fusion. Can you provide a brief summary of your view points regarding the issue here? Thanks, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion

I will soon give the final GA checkmark at Cold fusion, if no new issues come up. I've done a lot of copyediting on the article, I'm largely happy with the results of the mediation, and the editors who have responded seem happy. I'm checking with you and Guy because neither of you checked in during the GA debate (understandable after the long mediation), so I had some concern that your position was not well-represented. I represented a counterweight to some extent to Pierre (Pcarbonn).

I'd like to add this paragraph to the "neutrality" section of my GA review on the talk page, and I want to know if you and Guy think that this is too strong or too provocative:

Finally, to chemists and physicists who might say that it's pointless to represent the points of view of the cold fusion proponents: the Chubb and Van Noorden references show sessions on these topics at recent ACS and APS yearly meetings, the 2004 DOE review was equivocal, DARPA and the Indian government are currently funding studies, and one of the fathers of hot fusion in Japan (Arata) just gave a live demonstration of his excess heat experiment in the hall named in his honor to the Japanese press. Wikipedia can't take a position that you're not willing to take; as long as chemists and physicists keep the subject alive and unresolved, Wikipedia must do so as well. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bot should automatically stamp the RFC page with the Cold Fusion topic, right? I'm not 100% sure on how to submit it for RFC, but I thought that I was doing the right way. You could use a little more good faith Noren, and not accuse me of reverting edits with a blanket statement of merely deleting with an invalid purpose. seicer | talk | contribs 22:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I snapped at you. I've been under a lot of stress lately. Yes, I disagree that my edit summary was incorrect but I had assumed that a bot would have fleshed out the RFC page after a tag was applied on the Cold Fusion talk page. I was wrong about the process and will review it further for the next time. Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 02:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR: Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9

Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Fist

Wow, uh... I swear to God, I had no idea how that happened. I went back and looked at the page history, and that's not at all what I was trying to do. :\ Must have been some kind of page glitch. I'm going to try, again, to do what I was really attempting, and thanks for bringing that to my attention! 67.162.108.96 (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it... man, that was weird! 67.162.108.96 (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SL9

Hi Noren. A few of us have been working away on Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9. I added a few new references today and I also posted four "citation needed" requests for unsourced paragraphs. Perhaps you can help with those? You'll notice two in the 'Impacts' section and one each in 'Chemical studies' and 'Post-impact analysis.' If these are done I think it will be up to current FA standards as far as referencing goes. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marskell, it's good to hear that you think it's close and I'm glad you've taken an active interest in improving the article. I've not had as much time to work on it as I'd like lately, but I'll try to do more. --Noren (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phan Xich Long

Hello Noren. I have tried to address your concerns. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comet Hale-Bopp

Hello again Noren. I have nominated this comet at the FA review, here. As you helped with Shoemaker-Levy, I thought you might be interested. I can work on it some but can't bring it back to standard alone. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of topic ban

Since you contributed to the ANI discussion that led to this, you may wish to contribute to the topic ban discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_topic_ban:_User:Pcarbonn_from_Cold_fusion_and_related_articles. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CF Images and Copyright

Noren: I am clueless about Wikipedia and need help. It was inappropriate for me to upload this image. I have tried to delete it from the cold fusion page but somebody put it back. Can you please help me to permanently delete the image? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SSC-LENR-CR39Overlay.jpg 17:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenBKrivit (talk • contribs)

Well, I'm not really an expert in this area, but I believe the issue comes down to copyright. As I understand it, that picture was made by US government employee(s) in the course of their employment, and therefore is in the public domain by law. I don't believe that the fact that you were the one who uploaded it enters into consideration, as you had no creative input into it. However, I am not a lawyer and that's just my impression of the situation, for whatever it is worth.

This is in contrast to this photo, which you removed from the page at the same time. In that case I believe you do have copyright rights as the photographer, which is why your decision to revoke copyright was honored. Again, that's just my humble non-expert opinion. --Noren (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the right of a contributor to revoke a permission; my understanding was that the license granted by upload isn't revocable, and others may have again used the image, properly, under the license (and that image has indeed been copied elsewhere). But I don't know policy on this. In this case, Krivit is understandably miffed by the blacklisting, improper in my opinion, of his publication, New Energy Times (newenergytimes.com) and seems to be reacting rather strongly. Some of us, with some administrative support, have been moving slowly and cautiously to undo the damage from some recent actions that seem to be promoting an anti-fringe agenda, but to do this without disruption takes time. --Abd (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know StevenBKrivit's motivations and I don't think it's appropriate to speculate. Looking through his edits I see no reference to his acting because of being 'miffed'- all of his recent edits have been quite civil and this question is written in a calm tone. I don't think it's helpful for you to label his actions in this way. I also feel the need to point out that your description of your own intentions seems to be rather WP:soapy. It would be better to focus on content of pages rather than editing with a purpose to fight what you perceive as 'actions that seem to be promoting an anti-fringe agenda'. --Noren (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I do know his motivations? Perhaps I know a lot more about them than would be visible in his edits here? Perhaps I'm not "speculating"? Perhaps I treated you as a human being who would be interested in the human story? In any case, his motivations are moot, that was just dicta, and he could be as miffed as he likes, or not, my comment was simply one of human understanding and, indeed, sympathy. My question was about his right to delete images being used in articles, after he'd granted permission. I don't think the grant of copyright made with the upload can be revoked. That was my question. Do you have an answer? Thanks. --Abd (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not have an answer. Perhaps you missed my initial response, wherein I repeatedly indicated that I am not an expert on this topic and am not capable of answering this question with certainty. Perhaps in spite of this I tried to do what little I could to address the question directed at me in this location, where I wasn't expecting anyone expert on the topic to drop by to pick up the slack. Perhaps you would meet with better success if you were to address this question to someone who has not repeatedly mentioned his lack of expertise on the topic. Perhaps. --Noren (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Noren, sorry to bother you. --Abd (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be so kind as to explain yourself ...

Have we had a dispute that I don't recall? I see that you have accused me of being a Sock Puppet which is a decided unWP:CIV thing to do. I don't even know you for goodness sake.

Please explain how you came to the conclusion that I am supposedly a Sock, with appropriate diffs. As I note at the checkuser request, I have nothing to hide. I have only ever made a single edit at Cold Fusion and my involvement on the talk page has been mostly tangential as it applied to procedural issues surrounding the purported topic WP:BAN of Rothwell. This makes me a Sock of some sort? --GoRight (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moon

If you like moon things, I can strongly recommend Clint Mansell's soundtrack album for Moon (2009 film). It is quite excellent, as is the film. Parrot of Doom 22:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ganymede (moon)

Tattletale: war was resolved peacefully days ago. I hope you enjoy your status as a Wiki-toolate tattletale. Katydidit (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Hi, I just saw your post at the bottom of this thread. You give difs about the outside recruitments against WMC and I think others. As someone who is outside of this area trying to make sense of everything, I'd never seen that recruitment from the outside to bring editors in. I am talking about this post, "On the subject of off-wiki efforts it may be useful to (re)consider this evidence in reference to the off-wiki campaigning problem - in particular, consider this "How-To Guide"--Noren (talk) 8:08 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)" I'm not sure but do you think it might be better to start a new thread to put this in so others who don't edit in the CC articles plus the arbitrators can take notice? I almost missed it myself and when I found it I was surprise about how blatant it was and also who was involved in the recruiting to bring editors into the project. I would do it myself but it's your posting and I don't move about others posts. I could write something myself, I know, but that would muddy things up since I had never seen it before so I don't want to confuse anyone, plus I already posted one new thread that got everyone worked up yesterday. I just think that this should be seen plus discussed if necessary. A discussion where you have it doesn't seem to be the right place to do it. Please consider this if you would. Thanks in advance and thank you for posting it as it makes things a lot clearer for me about the offsite stuff that I was trying to explain. Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning on my talk page

Is it a personal attack to say someone is mistaken and harming the quality of the encyclopedia with their poor judgment based on reptile-brain emotional drives? If so, how can that be re-phrased more diplomatically? Ura Ursa (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit article "Cold Fusion" Nine References 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. Wiki editors need to recognize that technical papers always have introductions that review prior work that pertains to the subject of the paper. This introduction to a paper is a secondary or tertiary source, not original work, that generally contains both pros & cons of the subject.

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

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

This Query is not the job of WP. If done by anyone, it would be considered original research, if published. Even if it were to be done, the questions asked are premature (perhaps by 5 years). Despite at least one PhD already issued for research on the topic, the questions are not appropriate at the present.

The W&L theory has little (or no) support among the experts in the field. It has too many major flaws that have been repeatedly mentioned. On the other hand, no CF theory has broad acceptance anywhere, so the subject would not be appropriate for teaching as a physics course.

Appropriate questions for the present could begin, "In the last decade have you read anything at all about Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, Cold Fusion, or Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. If not, please ignore this questionnaire." "If yes, ..." Aqm2241 (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Noren, 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) 00:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 155: / Line 155: @@
 Is it a personal attack to say someone is mistaken and harming the quality of the encyclopedia with their poor judgment based on reptile-brain emotional drives?  If so, how can that be re-phrased more diplomatically? [[User:Ura Ursa|Ura Ursa]] ([[User talk:Ura Ursa|talk]]) 02:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
-== edit article "Cold Fusion" Nine Refefences to Pathological Science Should Be Moved to Historical Footnotes ==
+== edit article "Cold Fusion" Nine References to Pathological Science Should Be Moved to Historical Footnotes ==
 To improve the article:
@@ Line 161: / Line 161: @@
 ) Wiki needs to view it as science.
-) Wiki needs to recognize which scientific journals are utilized and sourced by scientists in this field of physics.
+) Wiki needs to recognize which scientific journals are utilized and sourced by scientists in this field of physics. Wiki editors need to recognize that technical papers always have introductions that review prior work that pertains to the subject of the paper. This introduction to a paper is a secondary or tertiary source, not original work, that generally contains both pros & cons of the subject.
 I predict a tremendous increase in the readability of the article.
 Query to the scientific community: To the Directors of Physics Departments,
+:: This Query is not the job of WP. If done by anyone, it would be considered original research, if published. Even if it were to be done, the questions asked are premature (perhaps by 5 years). Despite at least one PhD already issued for research on the topic, the questions are not appropriate at the present.
+:: The W&L theory has little (or no) support among the experts in the field. It has too many major flaws that have been repeatedly mentioned. On the other hand, no CF theory has broad acceptance anywhere, so the subject would not be appropriate for teaching as a physics course.
+:: Appropriate questions for the present could begin, "In the last decade have you read anything at all about Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, Cold Fusion, or Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. If not, please ignore this questionnaire." "If yes, ..."  [[User:Aqm2241|Aqm2241]] ([[User talk:Aqm2241|talk]]) 07:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear or Lattice Enabled Nuclear; historically misnamed "Cold Fusion"