User talk:Elerner

3rr

Eric, please be aware of the three-revert rule. My edit to the plasma cosmology was an attempt at compromise, which Iantresman, anyways, seemed to accept. Please do not unthinkingly revert anything, or do so without discussion on the talk page. Despite your expertise on the subject, such behavior will not win you any friends on Wikipedia. Also, please learn to use edit summaries, available at the bottom of the edit page. You can use them to explain why you made a particular change. –Joke137 00:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology dispute

In response to your questions:

1. In early stages of a dispute, it may seem that people with too much free time have the upper hand when editing articles. But in the long run, what prevails is the wisdom of crowds. You just need to be patient and persistent. Ask your colleagues to join in as well and help out with the cosmology articles.
2. If an article is biased, and there are contradictions, state them clearly in the talk page. Make a list of the problems you see. Then place the article in Request for comments so that other interested editors can take a look and hopefully assist.
3. As for the three revert rule, you cannot revert more than 3 times in a 24hr period. If you do, you may be blocked. In my experience, reverting hardly works (even though I must admit that I indulge in it sometimes), as edit-warring never accomplishes much, besides getting upset and upsetting others. Best is to try to offer proposals, discuss them, provide sources and references and reach some kind of agreement that you and others can live with.

So, do not despair and have patience. Ask other cosmologists to join in and help out. And most important, know that sooner or later, the wisdom of the community will prevail over the wisdom of a single editor. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I have added a request for comment on your editing behavior, available at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Elerner. I believe that you may add your response at the bottom of the page. For more information about user-conduct RfC's, please see requests for comment and user conduct. –Joke137 00:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

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. --Joshuaschroeder 18:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello

good research! I hope you saw my comment about NPOV in a discusion related to your conduct. It might be handy. If you need anything just leave a message on my user page. --CyclePat 20:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

While editing Eric Lerner I discovered apparent unreverted vandalism by 24.208.178.93 on November 27, so I'll let you determine if it's true or not. Art LaPella 23:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Redshift

You're being used as a supporter of User:Iantresman on the Talk:redshift page. Please respond. --ScienceApologist 14:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

WAS 4.250

Welcome to wikipedia. Please feel free to make NPOV sourced additions or changes. We both know you know more physics than 99% of wikipedians. I believe (and I'm sure you'll disagree) that you know less physics than 99% of Ph.D physicists. Degrees aren't everything. But on wikipedia there is no original research and sourcing is what counts. It's ok for you to add to wikipedia "Eric Lerner claims some claim [some source] while {some other guy} claims some other claim [some other source]." See how that works? But claims that are, ummm nonmainsteam shall we say, don't get EQUAL "billing" in terms space in any article not specifically about them. Fill feel to create articles about your theories using proper sources, but SOURCED criticism about those theories goes in the articles also.

Also, most us us here have no problem with you earning a living writing books, making speaches, and so forth. But wikipedia is not to be used as anyone's billboard or free advertizing medium. I'm sure your intent is to write what you believe to be true. But we judge by behavior, not intent, not even real world identity. There is absolutely nothing to stopt you from editing wikipedia with a dozen aliases. We don't care. When all dozen act in the same objectionable way, THEN we care. It's all about behavior, not who you are in real life. WAS 4.250 18:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Before you distribute gratuitous insults, you should check your facts. If I was not a physicist, as you seem to believe, it would be difficult to explain why NASA gave me $300,000 for fusion propulsion research and what I am doing down here at the European Southern Observatory as a visiting astronomer, or for that matter how I got all my papers published.

What people like you don't realize is that cosmology is science, not religion. It's observations that count. Attempts to ignore things that invalidate a theory like the Big Bang, or to censor them as Joshua Schroeder and others try to do, has nothing to do with science.--Eric LernerElerner 16:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Eric, it doesn't make any difference that you've logged into your account. It's still obvious that you reverted the page four times in about an hour, which is against the 3RR policy. Please discusse ScienceApologist's edits on the Talk page. –Joke 03:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The block expires 24 hours from this notice. howcheng {chat} 07:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Eric, you are once again in danger of violating the three revert rule. –Joke 00:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

So, I have dutifully taken the mediation of plasma cosmology. Before we start, I would like to know what form of mediation you would like to take? You guys basically have three options: the first (and most popular) is to just do it on the wiki, probably at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Plasma cosmology. The second is to do it by email (I wouldn't recommend it as there are quite a few users listed). And the third is to do it be IRC. Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Plasma cosmology where you would like to do it. Thanks. Sasquatch t|c 05:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now that we have all agreed to do it on the Wiki, I have intiated the next step which is an intial statement to see where we all stand. Just state your point of view on the issues at hand without making references to others or the conduct of them. Just to let you know, I have been reading over the talk page and will address the concern of needing a person who understands plasma comology. I feel after reading it, I have a pretty good grasp of it as I am pretty good in science. However, the issues seem to extend beyond just simple right and wrong on the issue but rather into what should be included and where we should draw the line. I hope, as mediator, to rectify these differences and to reach a consensus. As a last note, I suggest you put the mediation page on your watchlist as I will not always give messages like this. Thanks! Sasquatch t|c 01:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverting without comment is bad form

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.--ScienceApologist 18:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 04:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to WIki!

It appears as though you've been here for some months, and have no doubt already discovered why I decided long ago to give up on the Plasma cosmology article. Bravo to you though, I know that your great resolve for the truth will help you endure here. Ionized

Eric Lerner

I'm sure its been said before, but short of minor factual changes, its really bad form for you to edit your own article. Please do not continue the edit war by blanketly reverting the content changes. If you have comments on the changes, please use the discussion on the talk page to form a consensus - make sure you back up your proposed changes with policy. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 00:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Shell. It is not possible for you to be unbiased about yourself. It is best if you stay away from the article talk page for weeks at a time and check back in if there is something that needs to be updated. Many eyes will be on the article now. Relax about it, okay. Take care, FloNight 00:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on my talk page. Its interesting that both sides of this dispute are saying the same things; thats usually a good indication that everyone needs to step back and reconsider their views. If SA is adding verifiable criticisms, it is certainly not slander - you might want to take your concerns up with the people who actually made the statements. Giving weight to the majority position on a subject is a crucial part of our neutral point of view policy. Take an extreme example - once, mainstream view held that the world was flat. During that time, a Wikipedia article written on the subject would have given considerably more weight to that mainstream view and lesser mentions to other minority points of view (i.e. the world is round, the world floats on a bed of water, the earth is shaped like a disc). When mainstream opinion changed, the article would have been updated to reflect that change. Your article is currently in the first state - at this time, mainstream scientific thought disagrees with your theories and the article is written to relect this state. If this changes in the future, the article can updated to reflect that difference.

In the meantime, discussion should be used to handle any concerns and you should try to remain civil by discussing the article and not the editors involved. When the article is the focus of your arguments, its much easier to avoid attacking other editors. The dispute resolution process can be very helping in resolving content concerns by drawing on the larger community. Shell ^babelfish 02:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I got your message on my talk page, sorry it's taken me a couple of days to respond. In short: I don't see how the article says or implies that you were not a visiting astronomer; in fact, I get the very strong impression that you are (even from the originally protected version, which presumably you were referring to). I do see that the edit war that led to this would imply that the other editor doesn't believe that, but nothing can control that. Also, see meta:The wrong version: this is what happens when edit wars lead to page protection. Your statement that the article is "potentially libelous" troubles me greatly, however. It goes to show that you can't be fair and equal with the other editors there, so you should really not edit your own article (once it's unprotected, that is.) Mangojuice^talk 17:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Unless a clear consensus has been reached, I would generally leave a page protected for 2 weeks. Mangojuice^talk 16:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I unprotected it, because discussion has wound to a halt over a week ago. Mangojuice^talk 14:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration involvement

Please note that I have started a Request for Arbitration: Pseudoscience vs Pseudoskepticism in which I have included you as an "Involved party", and may wish to comment. --Iantresman 18:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Eric Lerner

In order to remove some more of this rather appalling situation about you, I've removed some of those stupid states. That said, could you possibly provide paper references or other proof of the "experimental work on the plasma focus in collaboration with the University of Illinois in 1994," and "with Texas A&M University in 2001 and with the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission." - realise I don't disbelieve the facts, I just want to make sure the fellow who keeps making the changes has no leg to stand on. Thanks! Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Lerner,

this document shows you were on the strike committee for the Columbia University Strike, unless I misread. ...Frankly, the more I investigate you, the more it appears you're being appallingly badly treated. I hope everything works out. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's me. Thanks for finding it. What search did you use to find it? I was actually looking for my physical file on the strike in my own files and unfortunately did not find it. I know it's here somewhere. I wonder what more there is online. I also wonder if there are any documents from Columbia Friends of SNCC about our trip to Selma. Maybe I'll ask Strick.

I am about to replace my non-functional scanner. I think once I do, I'll scan the photos I have from the '68 strike and maybe write a little memoir and put them on my personal website. That sort of stuff is really good for historians and should be on the web. Regretably, I did not have a camera with me in Selma.Elerner

I first found it as part of a series of searches on the Columbia University web site. They have a whole section dedicated to the strike. However, I think there's another Eric Lerner (a biologist) - may be wrong - so I ignored it at the time since it was coming up with a lot of stuff about him.

Once I knew it was you, it was a simple matter to put in something like Columbia "Eric Lerner" Strike and get right to it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I've added the cites. Can you check their formatting? I've also removed one sentence "In addition, he developed an original model of the role of the strong magnetic field effect on plasma functioning, which he believes can make net energy production more feasible.", because, frankly, I couldn't figure out quite what it's supposed to mean - it's one of those "It's saying something, but exactly what" things. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd like it back in, please! It should say "plasma focus functioning" . Also organize is misspelled. Also, could you take out "describes himslef as"? It's the last one of thsoe"he says" things. Thanks, EricElerner 23:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have already changed "organize". Art LaPella 00:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Yes, the case will now be opened. Nothing has happened only because we're severely backlogged at the moment. You could help by preparing your evidencenow, maybe by creating a workshop in your userspace. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 01:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 11:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Is this what you meant to say in the last paragraph?

• . . . campaign to label me—and ALL minority viewpoints in since— . . . [1]

And did you sign please? Good to make your acquaintance. --Rednblu 04:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

I'm not one of the arbitrators. I haven't looked at the evidence regarding your editing on articles other than Eric Lerner -- while you shouldn't edit that article, I don't see much point in banning you from it (because you've stopped editing it), but I don't see any harm either (because you've stopped editing it). I don't have much of an opinion on the rest, but that's more because I haven't looked at the evidence. Mangojuice^talk 17:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Your note

Posted a response at Talk:Aneutronic fusion. --EngineerScotty 01:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• Tommysun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing articles which relate to science and pseudoscience. The term "pseudoscience" shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories.
• Tommysun and Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are placed on probation. They may be banned from any article or subject area which they disrupt by aggressive biased editing. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. *Elerner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing Eric Lerner, Plasma cosmology, Aneutronic fusion, and any pages, excepting talk pages, related to his real-life work.
• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science. This applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility.

For the Arbitration committee. Thatcher131 02:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I'm not sure why you would accuse me of censorship since I merely published the result of the case; I had no role in deciding it. However, I have Blocked you for 48 hours for violating the article ban imposed in the case. Thatcher131 03:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That was totally my fault. I checked your contributions and saw a series of edits to banned pages plus your comment to me and did not closely enough at the dates. I have unblocked you, however it may take a few minutes to clear the Autoblocks. Thatcher131 03:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Since I thought the picture of your book didn't fit in the first part of your article, I moved it to the book section. If you have a picture of yourself that you want to upload, I can put it up on your page. I don't want to pull a picture off any of your web sites since that might be a copyright violation. However, if you upload it, the it would be OK. ABlake (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Eric Lerner

We cannot stop you from making legal threats against members of the Wikipedia community over Wikipedia disputes, but if you do then we cannot let you continue editing here in order to preserve an open atmosphere free of intimidation. You will find that your account has been blocked indefinitely for this reason.

Wikipedia pages are not the appropriate channel to handle your legal concerns. If you believe something in the current article is libelous, please either detail that here or if you would prefer to handle things in a private manner, email info-q@wikimedia.org where volunteers will assist you. If you wish to pursue legal action against a Wikipedia editor, please do so through the proper legal channels. Shell ^babelfish 16:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Science apologist has, among other things put statements on my own wiki article page that implies I am guilty of violating Federal eelction law, a felony. How does his publicly accusing me--falsely--of comitting a crime not get him banned? Elerner (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the sentence you are referring to is "Lerner had been a member of the National Caucus of Labor Committees, though he ultimately broke with the organization and later claimed he had been pressured to funnel money from a desalination company he started into Lyndon LaRouche's US Labor Party, which would have been a violation of election law."

The sentence says that you left the NCLC because they asked you to do something that would have violated election law. Isn't that a point in your favor? Do you think that the wording needs to be more clear perhaps? Shell ^babelfish 17:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The passage clearly give the reader the impression that I DID violate the election law. If someone wrote that "Shelly Kinney was pressured to murder her husband" that would imply that you did in fact murder your husband. The passage also implies by its location in the paragraph and giving no dates that I recently left the NCLC, which is false, and that the reason I left had something to do with the non-existent funds transfer, which is false. I left the NCLC in 1978 because it had degenerated from a left-wing split-off of SDS into a cult and there was no way to reverse that degeneration. I never transfered any funds from any company I was associated with to the US Labor Party. That can all be documented at length. Schoerder(scienceapologist) has been consisently attempting to make this article as unfavorbale to me as possible and eliminate anything favorable. He has a major conflict of interest because he is a graduate student in astronomy, working directly under astrophysicists who disagree with my work. He should be banned from editing this article. I would remind you that I was banned from editing the article on plasma cosmology because I work in that field. How can Scienceapologist be allowed to edit the article on me when he too now is in the same field, cosmology, and has made it his special task to attack anything that disagrees with what his professors think?Elerner (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)