Hmm.. my edit about SGS certificate has held for 10 minutes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer#Commercial_plans
Sverre Haslund 2012/9/15 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> > At 05:33 PM 9/14/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: > >> At 04:18 PM 9/14/2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: >> >>> Well, very funny, Jed. However, Mr. Fletcher is essentially clueless as >>> to what would be acceptable as a source for Wikipedia. I looked about and >>> didn't see where he was "threatened with arbitration," which is weird. The >>> last thing that the cabal wants is for their antics to go to arbitration, >>> but, here, they'd win. Essentially, this would just go to Arbitration >>> Enforcement -- which is not arbitration, it is where the "community" >>> enforces arbitration decisions, in theis case Article Probation for cold >>> fusion topics. >>> >> >> 5 Ugo Bardi Quote in the Introduction >> < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#Ugo_** >> Bardi_Quote_in_the_**Introduction<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#Ugo_Bardi_Quote_in_the_Introduction> >> > >> >> If you continue to waste other editors time with your original research, >> the next step is arbitration enforcement >> > > Alan, do you know what "arbitration enforcement" is? Hint: it is not > arbitration. Essentially, the editor threatened to ask that you be > sanctioned for "wasting other editor's time," which, pretty much, you were. > That was rude, but the cabal is not polite, it's not their style. A > functional community would educate you in what is okay and what is not. The > cabal just wants you gone. *You* are the waste of time, for them, really, > but they can't say that. > > But I didn't check on the specific editor. > > Do you know what "original research" means, and why it would be applied to > what you wrote? Do you understand why primary sources are generally not > usable, though sometimes it is allowed with consensus? > > Of course, is the E-cat "cold fusion"? >>> >> >> Regarding Alanf777's 'bold' edit, I'll start by saying that this article >> isn't about LENR in general - Most of the material was off-topic, and David >> Hambling's opinions on the state of LENR research are of no relevence. .... >> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**User:AndyTheGrump<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndyTheGrump>>AndyTheGrump >> (<http://en.wikipedia.org/**wiki/User_talk:AndyTheGrump<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndyTheGrump> >> >**talk) 18:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC) >> >> Since the very first line says "The Energy Catalyzer (also called E-Cat) >> is a purported cold fusion or Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) heat >> source" -- supporting evidence for the progress in LENR is definitely >> allowable. >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**User:Alanf777<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alanf777>>Alanf777 >> (<http://en.wikipedia.org/**wiki/User_talk:Alanf777<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alanf777>>talk) >> 18:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC) >> > > That's one of the problems with the E-Cat article! It assumes that it is > properly categorized with cold fusion. It's not known if it is fusion at > all. Cold fusion is really a popular name for LENR, but, in fact, it's been > shown that the original discovered reaction is -- with very high likelihood > -- some form of deuterium fusion, known from the heat/helium ratio. I've > said "high likelihood." It's not absolutely proven. > > AndyTheGrump's comment above is reasonable. You are now citing Wikipedia > as a source.... Who says that the E-Cat is "cold fusion" or "LENR." It > might be. And it might not be. If the energy turns out to be real and > sustainable, it could be ... LENR, but it could also be due to hydrinos, or > something else. We wouldn't know if it is fusion until the ash is > identified and shown to be correlated properly with the heat. The same with > any LENR. > > > Yup. It 'purports' to be a LENR device. >> > > A thing purports to be nothing. People create purport. > > Nobody but Rossi and his boosters claims it is. Except when he doesn't. >> Until independent sources support his claims, what is going in in >> verifiable LENR research is of no real relevance to the article. < >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**User:AndyTheGrump<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndyTheGrump>>AndyTheGrump >> (<http://en.wikipedia.org/**wiki/User_talk:AndyTheGrump<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndyTheGrump> >> >**talk) 20:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC) >> > > Again, Andy is correct. Now, the E-Cat is notable and there are reliable > sources regarding it (which has little or nothing to do with truth.) I'm > not necessarily supporting his content positions, but he was, as I recall, > not the worst editor involved with the E-Cat. I think his name is > appropriate, he's a bit grumpy. > > > > In a way, they are right. Someone who would persist at Wikipedia is a bit >>> crazy. >>> >> >> I remember now why I gave up in December last year. But I thought it was >> my turn to put in a shift or two at the coalface (or whatever). >> > > Here is what I did on Wikipedia. I had a long-term interest in community > consensus process, and when I started to edit Wikipedia in 2007, I became > familiar with the policies and guidelines and was tempered in that by the > mentorship of a quite outrageous editor who showed me, by demonstration, > the difference or gap between policies and guidelines and actual practice. > I was quite successful, and that included dealing with POV-pushers and > abusive administrators, which is quite hazardous on Wikipedia. If you want > to survive, don't notice and document administrative abuse. Administrators > don't like it, *especially* if you are right. Only administrators, in > practice, are long-term allowed to do that, with a few exceptions who are > protected by enough administrators to survive. > > So if you want to affect Wikipedia content in a way that will stick, > relatively speaking, you will need to become *intimately* familiar with > policies. You can do almost anything in this process, except be uncivil or > revert war. That is, you can make lots of mistakes, but *slowly*. What I > saw you doing was making lots of edits. Andy asked you to slow down. That > was a reasonable request. But I'd add, "... and listen." > > Instead, it appears you assumed that the position of the other editors was > ridiculous. For some, perhaps. But you, yourself, didn't show a knowledge > of Reliable Source and content policies. > > Lots of editors have gone down this road. It's fairly easy to find errors > and imbalance in the Wikipedia Cold fusion article. However, fixing them is > not necessarily easy, there are constituencies attached to this or that, > and averse to this or that. I actually took the issue of the Storms Review > to WP:RSN, and obtained a judgment there that this was basically RS. > Useless, because *there were no editors willing to work on the article who > were not part of the pseudoskeptical faction.* By that time, I certainly > couldn't do it alone, I was WP:COI, voluntarily declared as such. > > When the community banned me, you can be sure that it was not mentioned > that I had been following COI guidelines, and only working on the Talk > page, except where I believed an edit would not be controversial. The same > thing happened with PCarbonn and, for that matter, with Jed Rothwell. All > were following COI guidelines. > > The problem wasn't the "bad guys," the problem was an absence of "good > guys." There were various points where editors not with an agenda to portry > cold fusion as "pathological science," assembled, and I found that when the > general committee was presented with RfCs, sanity prevailed. But that takes > work, and the very work was framed by the cabal as evidence of POV-pushing. > When I was finally topic banned, where was the community? There were only a > collection of factional editors, plus a few "neutral editors" who took a > look at discussions that they didn't understand and judged them to be "wall > of text." Bad, in other words, and the discussion that was used as the main > evidence was actually not on Wikipedia, it was on meta, where it was > necessary. And where it was successful. > > Yes, I was topic banned on Wikipedia for successfully creating a consensus > on the meta wiki to delist lenr-canr.org from the global blacklist. And > then the same editors as before acted, frequently, to remove links, giving > the same bankrupt arguments, and nobody cares. So all that work was almost > useless. > > That is why so many sane people have given up on Wikipedia, and because so > many sane people have given up, what's left? > > There would be a way to turn this situation around, but what I've seen is > that not enough people care. It might take two or three. Seriously. >
