Please stop using talk pages such as Talk: Cold fusion for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Do not use the talk page as a soapbox for promoting research into cold fusion or promoting your views on cold fusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
|Please carefully read this information:
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
Hi, thanks for the note on my talk page. I can't quite tell what's going on there, but you seem to have retrieved an old edit request and some other posts from the archive, going back months. If you agree with a previous suggestion, it's better to re-post it in your own words, and with your own sources and arguments. If you post an identical request it's likely to be rejected for the same reason as before. Then people get annoyed that the page is cluttered up with old material and discussions about why it has been archived again.
- I've noticed your reply on the reported issue. Thanks. I thinks some aspects needs further analysis. Among these could be how how to proceed when some aspects get improperly archived without being sufficiently clarified. Isn't this type of archiving problematic pattern of edits by trying to hinder the discussion of some content aspects that could improve the article? Also I'd like to ask how to handle notifications of problematic edits on talk page(s) such as the section Use of the archive from cold fusion talk. Hasn't it been archived too quickly?--18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I archived the "Use of the archive" section because it didn't seem helpful. I'm not familiar with this topic or what has gone on at the talk page before, but my understanding is that it is difficult to find reliable sources on the issue (perhaps unfairly, perhaps not, I have no idea). It's therefore important to become familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before suggesting edits, because suggestions are going to be subject to greater scrutiny than usual. If a suggestion is turned down and archived, it probably means there's no point in repeating it, unless you have new sources or arguments, in which case the suggestion should be rewritten.
Yes, it is true that there is some confusion and inconsistency about the difference between mole (unit) and molar mass. A specific pure substance has molar mass, the mass of a mole of the pure substance. (Molar mass is sometimes referred to as molar weight also, but properly weight should be stated in dynes or newtons rather than grams or kilograms, and is dependent on the assumption of sea level.) A mole, as a unit, is simply a way of stating Avogradro's number. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)