User talk:ObsidianOrder

User_talk:ObsidianOrder/Archive1

Vfd

Not sure what you'll vote on this, but if you're interested, bark at this one: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency--MONGO 10:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Just want to make a point about your vote (and don't want to clutter the already over-cluttered voting page). I don't think most of us voting to delete this project have any interest in "censoring" these people. They are free to say whatever they like on their user pages. However, creating a WikiProject aimed at imposing a point of view about the nature of morality or decency is against site policy. A VFD would be raised for any WikiProject of the sort, regardless of their moral standpoint (e.g. they might want to remove all obscene photos of women, defined as those that show women without traditional head-scarves).

The project specifically states that this is their aim, and that any other concerns (e.g. legal implications in Florida) are secondary. No, this is not censorship, this is enforcement of Wikipedia rules and guidelines. If censorship is your concern, you should probably vote userify. Thanks for contributing, and good editing to you! -Harmil 13:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism

BYT put my article on this informative book up for VfD,I'd be honored if you'd take a look at the article and its VfD. Thanks. User:Klonimus/AINB Klonimus 07:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute advice needed

I have had an entry on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda regarding Able Danger deleted several times by people claiming it is not relevant to the article. This is hogwash, of course. I have expanded the entry over time to make it more clear and show the relevance to the article. Still it is deleted. Now they are saying I should not violate the 3RR. I even got a message from an administrator about it on my User:Talk page. I responded to the administrator and am waiting to hear back. In the meantime, I thought you might take a look at the entry and the Talk page that discusses Able Danger (in more than one place). I would appreciate hearing your point of view.RonCram 01:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CfC

If you got a minute

If you got a minute can you take a look. Thanks Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Soviet spies to Category:Alleged Soviet spies. nobs 01:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bioelectromagnetics

Hi, I saw some of the work you've been doing at some of the bioelectromagnetism and EMF hazard pages, and was wondering if you could take a look at bioelectromagnetics and possibly help me turn it into a real article? You seem to have some wikipedia experience as well as a grasp of some of the non-thermal interaction issues. Thanks in advance, Potatophysics 11:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stochastic electrodynamics

Hey, thanks for creating that awesome bibliography! I've been intending to do some research on SED for sometime; you've made it all the more easier. --Intangir 04:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3rr on CF

You've broken the 3RR on cold fusion. Please revert yourself quickly or get reported. William M. Connolley 16:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, done. I think you're way out of line removing the disputed tag, though. Can we at least discuss this? ObsidianOrder 16:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cold fusion

The cold fusion debate has gotten beyond my expertise, so I really can't contribute to it - but I will say that getting Edmund Storms, who has long been a very public advocate of cold-fusion claims, seems a poor way to go about it, any more than getting Bob Park to write it would be! - DavidWBrooks 21:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be an excellent idea to get Bob Park to contribute to the cold fusion article. I would be thrilled to see that. --JedRothwell 20:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which CF article is the manuscript?

You have two versions of your proposed article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/tmp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ObsidianOrder/Cold_fusion

Which is current? Despite my avowed intention not to contribute to this process, I have noticed some minor errors and I feel compelled to fix them.

--JedRothwell 20:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamofascism redirect again

Hey... I don’t know if you have any interest in this subject anymore, but there is yet another attempt to bury the Islamofascism page elsewhere. If you’re interested, the debate is here: [[1]] IronDuke 19:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:To do, by priority

(I answered your question on this page.) EdGl 03:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamism page

O.O., this anonymous user is engaging in taqiyya. There is no reason to apologize for misconstruing him. His hardly-hidden agenda is that Islam mandates Islamism, and that others are being intolerant of Muslims if they reject the imposition of Sharia. Please ignore his threats, as you've done nothing wrong.Timothy Usher 09:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Scheuer page

Please take a look at recent edits on the Michael Scheuer page. There are some interesting quotes there that certain editors do not want readers to know about. RonCram 13:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

theoretical explanations for low energy nuclear reactions

OO, you probably are much more qualified than me to fill the theory section of that article. Would you be kind enough to take a chance ? Pcarbonn 10:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

There is an Rfc on Csloat. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda

Please review the rewrite I did on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and help moderate the controversy. As you know, this is a controversial article that has been the subject of many edit wars. Recently translated Operation Iraqi Freedom documents have made the non-official view that Saddam and Osama did have a cooperative relationship much more persuasive. In fact, former Democrat Senator and 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey now believes they did cooperate, showing this is a tenable position. The older version of the article is clearly not NPOV as it treated the non-official version as if its adherents were members of the flat earth society. I believe the rewrite is much more readable now and the narrative is more connected. I'm certain it has it faults but it seems to be a better foundation to work from than the older version. Please take a look and make any comments you like on the Talk page. Thanks! RonCram 05:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Bernard Haisch

I sent the following to Wikipedia "management" and don't know whether this will result in any assistance.

The Wikipedia article on "Stochastic Electrodynamics" has been converted by a Chris Hillman into primarily an attack on myself and my colleague Prof. Alfonso Rueda. The field of Stochastic Electrodynamcis itself, which has had 40 years of development by numerous physicists, is hardly discusssed at all. The current version is littered with factual errors, misattributions and NPOV violations.

We need to involve a knowledgeable neutral editor, and it would be best to remove the article until this can be done.

Since you, ObsidianOrder, have made numerous excellent comments and arguments on the SED Talk, I would just like to urge you to translate some of these into edits of the SED page. It looks to me like Christine Hillman has been getting a free ride in spite of numerous problems with what she has written. I am tryiing to avoid stepping in directly myself in deference to WP policy.Haisch 22:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Page O Fun

I'm not sure that was such a great solution either. I had posted on Deenoe's page about it.--Paraphelion 05:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's done.. it was easier than I thought.--Paraphelion 06:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig

Hi, Obsidian, I just noticed your comment on these elsewhere, so no doubt you will want to participate in this MfD. I actually agree with your concern. Did you notice that the subpages under MfD were created in connection with my on-going attempt to formulate and propose policies governing things like wikishilling and digging? I feel it is hard to do the former without being able to present evidence that wikishilling is a problem. As for the latter, please see my (still unfinished) essay describing my preliminary thoughts about the problems posed by digging at User:Hillman/Digging (but to avoid fragmenting discussion, please comment on that in my user talk page or in the MfD as appropriate). ---CH 00:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breaching Experiment

I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your rational voice in the MfD. I have no idea why Hillman is carrying on about me the way he/she/it is, but your suggestion of a "breaching experiment" is an interesting one and what I was alluding to as an "experiment in social psychology" in my own comments in the MfD, but didn't know the term. What I find really curious is why Hillman hasn't been blocked yet. His response to David on his own talk page is another clear violation of WP:STALK. He has done the same thing on several other talk pages, btw. Anyhow, I did want to let you know how nice it was to hear some productive comments rising above all the noise. DrL 14:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi disagreeer!

There is another RFAr in statu nascendi at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cold_Fusion_Censorship. On its merits alone it probably will not be accepted. You may want to argue about inclusion in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. But I sincerely can't make prophecies what will happen at RfAr with such an mother-of-all-RfAr.

On the other hand, I pretty much assume, we can constructively proceed at Cold fusion, once some reasonable, experienced non-mainstreamers arrive, e.g. you.

I also invite you to check my attempt for a united position statement of the mainstreamers [2]. Ironically none of the mainstreamers have commented so far, perhaps I'm too soft?

Pjacobi 20:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of weight training, strength training and resistance training

Hi ObsidianOrder,

A note regarding the merger of RT et al. Resistance training as used now is in the sense of resistance provided by elastic tension or water, not in the broader sense of any resistance to the contraction of muscle (through weights, elastic, structure in isometrics, etc). The confusion between the broader definition of resistance (anything to resist contraction) and the one used in wikipedia is part of the reason for the merger. Having the overall category of strength training would allow the differences between the different types of strength training to be highlighted and contrasted, clearing up the confusion between the two types of resistance training and allowing comparison of the different effects of each type of training. Whaddya think? WLU 22:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you've changed your mind on the merger then? WLU 10:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

give them more rope, and more shovels. let simmer a few months. then sit back and enjoy the show.