User talk:Hipocrite/05/2009

which version

In Talk:Cold_fusion#Current_or_other_version, you say that the version has no reliable sourcing.

Abd was talking about this version, with the relevant references being #110 to #117.

I'm curious because I wrote parts of that section, and I don't know if you are talking of a different version, or if you don't actually consider those references to be RS. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(by the way, it was a very good move to remove all those section titles. The divisions were very arbitrary, and they made no sense at all with what the section actually contained. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The parts I have a problem with is the only section that actually talks about a bullshit theoretical explanation - "An alternative explanation has been offered treating the space between nuclei as condensed matter instead of vacuum. This way the energy released from the fusion could be effectively transmitted in the proposed time. However, Goodstein states that the reaction times in the lattice are too slow, and the energies involved are much higher than those in cold fusion (KeV versus Mev).[118] Giuliano Preparata proposed a theory involving the application of quantum electrodynamics to condensed matter." This is fringe scientific work that is not based in sound science, and it's provided massive undue weight. The whole section would be better if it read:

Many possible theoretical interpretations of the experimental results have been proposed.[Derry] As of 2002, according to Gregory Neil Derry, they were all ad hoc explanations with no coherent explanation for the results being given, the experiments that back these theories had been of low quality or non reproducible, and more careful experiments had given negative results, and the explanations would have failed to convince the mainstream scientific community.[Derry] Since cold fusion is such an extraordinary claim, most scientists would not be convinced unless either high-quality convincing data or a compelling theoretical explanation were to be found.[Heeter] In fact... Hipocrite (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The "heat disipated into lattice" has to be in the article because:

a) it seems to be considered notable and relevant enough to be explained in detail by

• David Goodstein in his review of why cold fusion shouldn't work (and he probably qualifies as a RS, check out all the awards he got)
• DOE 1989 [1], under "Unconventional explanations" it dedicates it two out of five paragraphs just to explain why the effect doesn't explain the lack of gamma rays. one short paragraph to Mossbauer and a long one to the transference of heat to lattice
• DOE 2004 does not cite explicitely Mossbauer, but it explicitely cites the transference of heat to the lattice "reviewers were presented with a theoretical framework (...) how all the energy is coupled back into the material in the form of heat instead of high-energy gamma-rays"[2] (page 4)

b) I need it to explain why the Mössbauer Effect can't explain cold fusion (the effect is much slower and it doesn't produce heat in the first place)

c) Goodstein says that prior discovery of the Mossbauer effect affected significantly how cold fusion was received by scientists (after a few experiments it showed something that looked imposible at first sight, so many scientists thought that the same thing would happen with CF)

So, while I am sure that the Mossbauer thing has been abused widely by cold fusion believers, it seems that it was notable in 1989 because it influenced the perception of the phenomena, and it had to be debunked explicitely in DOE 1989.

I think that, in order to determine what explanations should be listed and which shouldn't, in an objective way that doesn't cause fights, we could simply use as criteria that the explanations have been cited in the final report of DOE 2004 (DOE 1989 lists too many explanations which were later droped and would only fill the page). What do you think?

P.D.: I mean, even if the explanations were all bunk, you still need to explain the ones that had notability, in order to explain how and why they were found to be wrong. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Rejected explanations are not explanations anymore, they're rejected. The only non-rejected theoretical explanation for the reported heat and emissions is "experimental error" and "deliberate fraud," depending on which experiment we are talking about. Hipocrite (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Riiiight, but if they were notable explanations then we should cover how and when they were rejected. See how Plate_tectonics#Historical_context has to cover "Floating continents" and Expanding Earth for those same reasons.

(Hum, I notice that I am just repeating the same argument with different words :P ) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If there were a section that was able to be added to the article to discuss the reams of discarded "theoretical" "expalantions," for 'fraud and experimental error,' that would be great. Hipocrite (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Then write a separate paragraph citing the sources that say so (starting with Park and probably Huizenga), instead of blocking the additions of explanations that the DOE 2004 considered important enough to examine and discard :P --Enric Naval (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA

I feel your concern is addressed by my answer: "Of course it would be inappropriate for me to use admin tools in relation to disputes in which I am involved, or disputes occurring on articles where I am an active editor." I should point out that I haven't edited those articles in almost a year—but regardless, we could consider them covered by the answer. Everyking (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA, which was unable pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Hopefully, if/when I have another RfA I will win your support. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, -download ׀ sign! 01:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

So, what about 'bad faith' editing? OckRaz (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It is your belief that my returning the article to a redirect was an attempt to damage the encyclopedia? Please Assume Good Faith. Hipocrite (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the redirect illustrated bad faith in that it violated the spirit if not the letter of this: 'Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked' OckRaz (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Changing to a redirect is not blanking. I'm glad to have educated you on this part of wikipedia isoterism. In the future, you'll want to not characterize anything but the most infantile and obviously worthless edit as vandalism. Hipocrite (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed-

More isoterism?

You may edit the article during the discussion

There are, however, a few restrictions upon how you may edit an article: You must not blank the article (unless it is a copyright infringement). You must not modify or remove the AfD notice. You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community.

You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community.OckRaz (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A functioning redirect. Hipocrite (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith is not the same as violating a rule. You can display bad faith by following the rules with the intent of circumventing them- as you obviously did! OckRaz (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Some random anon

YOU ARE NOBODY TO DECIDE IF PRISONPLANET IS RELIABLE OR NOT. STOP YOU VADALISM RIGHT NOW. Last Warning. Everything prisonplanet.com post is more reliable than the propaganda from BBC, CNN, FoxNews or ABC. As long as you do not provide reliable sources that this is not the case stop deleting the list of Bilderberg Attendees. It is one-sided at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.36.35 (talk • contribs)

Hakeem the Dream

No seriously, look it up. The dream was in attendance. He was working as a valet parker outside. No doubt...respect.
Ewdunivan (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Little Angels' School

The years are Nepal calendar years. I haven't converted them yet because depending on the Nepal calendar month the corresponding Gregorian calendar year could vary. Deleting sections that way isn't helping, there is an under construction notice at the top of the page.Drawn Some (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Drv for List of extraordinary diseases and conditions

An AfD for this article, which you participated in, was recently closed as "no consensus." I have request a deletion review here [3].Bali ultimate (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

K dude.

I'm keeping my full name though, but in a userbox.(i removed the info box anyway, i didn't like it that much)

and how do you put a message on the top of your talk page edit section? do you mind telling me? :D KMFDM FAN (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:KMFDM Fan/Editnotice has your talk page notice. I removed your last name, again. Talk to your parents about why it's a bad idea. Hipocrite (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is more then one Kyle O'Brien in Canada. Unless I supply a picture of myself I don't see a problem. But I don't need an edit war over such a trivial matter. So I won't make a big deal.

Have yourself a barnstar as well

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For letting me know I was doing something wrong but remaing nice and calm (some people are quite rude) KMFDM FAN (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:RPA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Majorly 2

I'm a bit confused by this edit. By what definition could that possibly be a personal attack? --Conti|✉ 13:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It is incivil to say that you cannot think of anything that someone else might ever be right about. See "Judgmental tone in talk-page posts," "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence," and "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Does what Lar added insult or disparage Grace Note? If it doesn't would you be insulted if he said the same thing about you? Let's also note that if we're talking about Wikipedia Review, there is at least one thing that he was instrumental in discoving - the identitiy of the neo-nazi who initially started the site, but who no longer has any control or contributions. Hipocrite (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

But, if you feel it's not a personal attack, please feel free to revert me. I don't care more than a pinch. Hipocrite (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have recieved similar concerns from others and have retraced my RPA action, as I find when lots of people say I'm wrong I probably am. Hipocrite (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that resolves that, then. Just for the record, I think Lar's comment was made specifically about Grace Note's comment in that RFA. That's still not very nice, but it was a personal comment ("He's not right"), and not a personal attack ("He's stupid"), IMHO. --Conti|✉ 13:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is further discussion at my talk page on this topic. I invite any interested parties to continue there, since it was my remark that has been called into question. I think H is aware now that editing the words of others unless it is very clear that it's necessary is not always a good approach. As it was not in this case. ++Lar: t/c 13:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Docu's signature

I went to his talk page to say the same thing, and out of curiosity, checked his talk page history. He's been asked repeatedly ([4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]) to include a link within his signature but usually ignores the request or otherwise refuses to change it. It seems to be a lost cause, FYI. --auburnpilot talk 00:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Cold Fusion talk

Sorry Hipocrite - I should have put my reply, and moved V's, into the collapsed section myself. Or better yet responded on user talk. Thanks for taking care of it. - Bilby (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep responding to him when they're not discussing the article, honestly. Hipocrite (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I just wanted to confirm it had nothing to do with the article, and then I was going to delete, rather than collapse. Collapse was probablky the less controversial solution, though. - Bilby (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

AMiB

If you would like to email me at mattbisanzyahoo.com, I would be more than happy to explain the non-confidential details of the situation as best as I can. MBisanz ^talk 14:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be emailing you shortly. Hopefully I won't have to denyitoff again. Hipocrite (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Crier page

Just protected it. Please link the history and the case on RFPP on ANI as super high priority. I'm totally shot from being sick and about to go to bed... I can't coherently write something this complex up right now. rootology/equality 08:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Nap, I'm on it. Hipocrite (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Hipocrite. I feel better... the missus was sick with coughing, light fever, and headache the past weekend, then I went through the lovely cycle of Tuesday=cough,scratchy throught; Wednesday=fever/chills,cough/throat,sneezing; Thursday=on and off fever/chills/cough; Friday=on and off light fever/cough/wheezing badly/lethargy; today=just coughing up some gunk/far lighter wheeze. The funny thing is I had a flu shot this past year, and the years I do, I never get the traditional seasonal flu. Maybe I should make a "I think I maybe possibly had Swine flu" userbox. rootology/equality 17:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)