At 11:06 AM 9/13/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Energy_Catalyzer_(2nd_nomination)#Energy_Catalyzer
It survived deletion, despite complaints that:
Off wiki mailing list by Alanf777, Zedshort and others here:
(vortex)
which seems to
I went with a non-snarky fairly neutral wait and see
response:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Energy_Catalyzer_(2nd_nomination)#Energy_Catalyzer
Keep Although the eCat has not achieved mainstream media
attention, there is sufficient
Non-WP:RS
evidence that things
At 10:04 PM 9/9/2012, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
On 10 September 2012 02:52, Jed Rothwell
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comjedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
You do not need to satisfy people. You need to
report the replicated, peer-reviewed facts of
the matter. Science is not a popularity contest.
That
2012/9/10 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com
I did not say that. I just said how science works and it is working very
well. Science has (almost!) nothing to do with politics and actually it is
surprising immune for political prejudices. And usually when someone gets
caught on political
On Sep 10, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:
we need to have rock-solid statements to answer the hyper-skeptics.
Rock-solid answer would be that anyone could go their local university and do
the necessary measurement by himself. With Miley's and Celani's cells this
You want to test the Hydrobetatron/Athanor ?
as Jed repeated, good LENR experiment are expensive, and the calorimetry is
so difficult that many mainstream team failed even to make good enough one.
Few researchers have really tested the LENR, and now they are believers,
thus nobody trust them.
At 01:39 PM 9/9/2012, Alan Fletcher wrote:
From: Kelley Trezise ktrez2...@ssvecnet.com
Please consider going to the article, read it and vote on its
truswothiness, objectivity, etc. at the bottom of the page.
The talk page isn't the place to vote. If it comes up for a formal
request for
The page is up for formal deletion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Energy_Catalyzer_(2nd_nomination)
I haven't decided yet whether to vote for Delete or Keep. I'll
probably go with a snarky Keep.
At 06:01 PM 9/9/2012, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
What comes to cold fusion, there are no
established scientific point of view, therefore
it is impossible to write a good Wikipedia
article on cold fusion that would satisfy everyone.
Actually, there is. The claim Jouni makes is one
that
At 06:52 PM 9/9/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jouni Valkonen
mailto:jounivalko...@gmail.comjounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
What comes to cold fusion, there are no
established scientific point of view . . .
Yes, there is. It is the set of facts in the
peer-reviewed literature published in
Some time back I fought the battle of the E-Cat article on Wikipedia but found
it too frustrating and in the end even enfuriating as there are some very
tennatious editiors that really, really don't like cold fusion articles in any
way shape or form. Their obnoxious behavior have driven off the
From: Kelley Trezise ktrez2...@ssvecnet.com
Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 9:31:22 AM
Some time back I fought the battle of the E-Cat article on Wikipedia
but found it too frustrating and in the end even enfuriating as there
are some very tennatious editiors that really, really don't like
From: Kelley Trezise ktrez2...@ssvecnet.com
Please consider going to the article, read it and vote on its
truswothiness, objectivity, etc. at the bottom of the page.
The talk page isn't the place to vote. If it comes up for a formal request
for deletion then a new page will be opened up for
On 09-Sep-12 15:36, Alan Fletcher wrote:
From: Kelley Trezise ktrez2...@ssvecnet.com
Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 9:31:22 AM
Some time back I fought the battle of the E-Cat article on Wikipedia
but found it too frustrating and in the end even enfuriating as there
are some very tennatious
@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2012 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion
From: Kelley Trezise ktrez2...@ssvecnet.com
Please consider going to the article, read it and vote on its
truswothiness, objectivity, etc. at the bottom of the page.
The talk page
- Original Message -
From: MJ feli...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2012 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion
On 09-Sep-12 15:36, Alan Fletcher wrote:
From: Kelley Trezise ktrez2...@ssvecnet.com
Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 9:31:22 AM
I think it is best to delete the article. I wish they would delete the
article on cold fusion.
Wikipedia is dysfunctional and cannot be fixed. The problem is in the
structure and guiding philosophy.
- Jed
Part of the value of keeping an article from deletion is the history of
edits doesn't disappear.
A big part of my motivation in suggesting the use of Wikipedia as the basis
for the Hutter Prize for Lossless Compression of Human Knowledge was the
virulence of the editors of Wikipedia needs to be
yes we should keep archive, for a future Nuremberg Trial on Wikipedia...
same for peer-review, magazines, and other insults
2012/9/9 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
Part of the value of keeping an article from deletion is the history of
edits doesn't disappear.
A big part of my motivation
I have been meaning to ask about this! I will start a separate thread.
Jeff
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:
yes we should keep archive, for a future Nuremberg Trial on Wikipedia...
same for peer-review, magazines, and other insults
2012/9/9 James
The problem is that it is difficult to write about Rossi, because he has
not shown any reasons why anyone should take him seriously. On the other
hand, there are very serious reasons to believe that he
is committing massive fraud.
There is very good article about Blacklight Power in Wikipedia.
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that it is difficult to write about Rossi, because he has
not shown any reasons why anyone should take him seriously. On the other
hand, there are very serious reasons to believe that he
is committing massive fraud.
I do not know
Luigi Versaggi
September 8th, 2012 at 9:05 PM
Congratulations for the Zurich E-CAT Conference.
I suppose this time the main stream media cannot ignore the facts.
We must thank you, the world must thank you.
Andrea Rossi
September 9th, 2012 at 6:13 PM
Dear Luigi Versaggi:
The main stream media
On 10 September 2012 02:52, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
You do not need to satisfy people. You need to report the replicated,
peer-reviewed facts of the matter. Science is not a popularity contest.
That is true, but here cold fusion science has failed.
*Correlation of excess
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is one example of the good peer-reviewed paper, but where is the
replication of the data?
There have been only a few replications in Italy, at SRI and elsewhere
because the experiment is expensive and time consuming, and there is no
money to
On 10 September 2012 07:39, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
In essence, you are saying we should ignore the data because people
opposed to cold fusion have successfully cut off funding. We should let
politics dictate what we believe.
I did not say that. I just said how science
26 matches
Mail list logo
