User talk:Ron Marshall

19:23, 2 October 2006 (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 a single page 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. --Pjacobi 19:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics.

Notice that the normal practice (and good manners) is to put your comments at the BOTTOM END of the appropriate section of the talk page; not at the top or in the middle. A side benefit of doing it that way is that you avoid being the first to have your comment removed into an archive the next time that archiving is done. JRSpriggs 11:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

I would encourage you to tone down your rhetoric on Talk:Cold fusion. You risk being blocked for making personal attacks. –Joke 15:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from incivil language on Talk:Cold fusion. If you persist I will report your behaviour WP:Civility. Jefffire 15:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Cold fusion

By all means please post a link the discussion on the wikiproject, but please stop pasting in the comments from another discussion. This looses version history and may falsely represent views. Also remember WP:3RR. Thanks/wangi 14:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion

Ron, could you comment in cold fusion's talk page on "theory vs experiment", and on "patent", so that we can start a RFC on user ? thanks. Pcarbonn (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have largely reverted your recent edits to this article, with the exception of the addition of the NPOV tag. The article still requires cleanup, the categories you removed are justified by definition, and your statement that a book is erroneous (which is something I suspect is incorrect) is not sufficient reason to remove a reference. That said, the reference list is in need of overhaul. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your removal of references without discussion on the talkpage as well as the removal of the legitimate categories is nothing short of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If you continue to behave in this fashion you will be subject to blocks and bans. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not again

I have left a reply to your last statements on the cold fusion talk page, but after that I think I understood that you are indeed already familiar with the subject, so I probably directed you to readings you already know. It seems like the usual group of would-be scientists always comes back from time to time to have a good flame war. You know, that's what I hate about wikipedia. The whole "he who shouts loudest and keeps up for more time wins". Damn. --Holland-it (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful what you insinuate, Holland-it. Statements like "would-be scientists always comes back from time to time to have a good flame war" can be taken the wrong way. Take it easy, ScienceApologist (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I would not have acted quite as boldly as Apologist, your edits to cold fusion do indeed constitute POV pushing, and based on the above you have to realize this. I therefore conclude that you are violating WP:POINT or are so convinced that cold fusion exists that you will not accept any of the standard dis-proofs of the claimed detections. So please stop now. Saying things like 'removing skeptic version' when WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE dictates that we must be skeptical of cold fusion also does not help you. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning (2)

Your reversion today was again an instance of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. More than this, the justification you offered here and repeated verbatim here indicates that you did this as a direct attack. This kind of behavior, if it continues, will result in blocks and bans. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you are trying to do with your edits to cold fusion, but unless your goal is to further antagonize Apologist, I don't think you're going to get anywhere. Your edits are disruptive and to some extent insulting (because there is no cabal). Please stop now before a final warning needs to be issued and a block enforced. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 01:00, 11 December 2007 (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.

Personal attack warning

This edit qualifies as a personal attack. Please consider removing this comment or ~~strikethrough~~ the comments that are about the contributor rather than the content. Continued behavior in this regard will result in blocks and bans. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration on cold fusion

Please note that you are cited in an arbitration request. See here. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]