User talk:Kevin Baas/Archive8

NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

As you can see, this article has recently gotten active again, with new editors. Just a heads up to someone who's been active there in the past. As I commented on the talk page there "I'm rather busy right now, so for the most part I'm probably going to have to leave it to other people who have been involved with this article to correct/challenge/congratulate in whatever mixture." Crust 22:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq war

Hi Kevin, it's been a while - I hope you're doing well.

Thanks for your comment on the Iraq war infobox-gate.[1] I don't want to misinterpret you, but is it ok if I list you as a "support" for my proposed compromise, at least as a "everybody holds their nose and settles" compromise? Let me know, TheronJ 08:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images listed for deletion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.

Thank you. —Remember the dot (t) 06:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to the message on my talk page) - You can ask for these images to be speedily deleted by replacing {{ifd}} with {{db-author}} on the image description pages. Once you've done that, make sure to go to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 February 9 and leave a note under these images stating that you have requested their deletion. —Remember the dot (t) 21:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stablepedia

Thanks a lot for your comment regarding Stablepedia on Wikipedia talk:Stable versions. I have noticed your formula, and i believe it is quite interesting and can work pretty well. I plan to implement a modified version of it and test the results, and if the the results are good enough, i will use it on Stablepedia. Of course, i will not forget to mention you if i eventually use your formula :).

I am glad you like the site, i have added your suggestion on my todo list. The problem is that i am working alone on this project, so implementing all the ideas takes a lot of time, especially that i am also a student.

You said "And I think your site is great. :-)", I am building a kudos page, i was wondering if you would allow me to include it along with your name :).

Thanks ! --Sinan Taifour 17:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Franklin_actual_votes_per_machine.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Franklin_actual_votes_per_machine.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 22:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Franklin_county_registered_voters.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Franklin_county_registered_voters.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 22:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:S_rbturnout.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:S_rbturnout.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 22:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics CotW

Hey Kevin, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 22:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global perspectives task force

Hi Kevin! I just saw your recent comment on the Iraq, which led me to take a look at your really impressive work across Wikipedia. Kudos. I especially appreciate some of your ruminations on neutrality :-) Anyways, I thought you might be interested in the newly formed global perspectives task force, which is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. The basic idea of the task force is to try to ensure that key articles reflect a truly global perspective, especially in terms of the sources on which the articles rely. Based on the work you have done on the site, this seemed up your alley, so I wanted to invite you to take a look at the project page and, if you're interested, add your name to the list of participants. It would be great to have someone with your outstanding commitment to Wikipedia involved. Cheers! --Mackabean 21:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Franklin county registered voters.gif

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Franklin county registered voters.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

replaced. Kevin Baas^talk 00:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help with Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles

I would appreciate any help you could provide with the new Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles proposal/essay and also over on wiktionary's definition of "conspiracy theory" here. zen master T 23:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your image on wikinews

If you don't mind, could you slap some free copyright tag on n:Image:Good2 color crop.jpg. Thanks, happy editing. Bawolff 22:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FNC & Pals

Hey Kevin... I applaud your levelheadedness and skillful blend of prose and logic during the (considerable) debates always ongoing at the Fox News Channel article. I'm sure you've seen that I've been working for quite a while to keep the article honest and balanced, and I appreciate that I have a well-spoken editor who seems to strive for the same. Bravo! /Blaxthos 14:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:User categories for discussion on -isms

Hi. A user category that you are in has been proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. You are welcome to comment. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Exit poll small florida.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Exit poll small florida.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion mediation

You are named as a party at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion. Please either agree to mediation, or strike your name from the list of parties. MigFP (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 19:15, 6 January 2008 (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.

I have accepted the mediation case regarding Cold fusion. Can you provide a brief summary of your view points regarding the issue here? Thanks, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CMNS

I filed a request for unprotection that you might want to keep an eye on, please. MigFP (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Franklin voting machines2.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Franklin voting machines2.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments in WP:AN3RR

Regarding your comments here, could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

Remain polite per WP:Civility.
Solicit feedback and ask questions.
Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.
Assume good faith of other editors.

I hope you find this reminder helpful. --Ronz (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. You could've just said you though my comment uncivil. I admit that it was and I'm sorry. I crossed it off. I find the way the discussion is going on the fractal compression talk page a little disappointing, and the aggressive editing of the article on controversial matters while that material is being discussed on the talk page is not helpful. Kevin Baas^talk 19:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've been trying to help with the article for some time now. I've given the editors there a great deal of leeway, and Editor5435‎ has taken advantage of it. --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think people need to work on dispute resolution, and people need to work on not aggravating an existing dispute. And it seems like you are throwing all the blame on Editor5435, which is completely unfair. Editor5435 is clearly getting pretty upset, and that's certainly not helpful. But his frustrations do not come from thin air. My frustrations with interacting with other editors on the fractal compression article can probably be deduced from looking at the talk page. From my experience, Spot has not been very cooperative or easy to talk with. I hope you can see that things are not all that black-and-white. In any case, I hope that things cool down on the talk page and we can find something that we can cooperate respectfully and constructively on. Kevin Baas^talk 19:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"But his frustrations do not come from thin air." Correct, they come from what appears to be willfully ignoring Wikipedia policies and guidelines, a conflict of interest, and an inability to cooperate with others. Simply look at his editing as User:Technodo. I gave him plenty of chances as Editor5435, not knowing that he had edited earlier as Technodo. --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This does not demonstrate comprehension of what I wrote. It is, to the contrary, quite opinionated and polarizing. Kevin Baas^talk 15:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then let me be clear. He's taken advantage of my help. I regret not being more careful with him from the start. I will not make the same mistake with him again. --Ronz (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-)

WP:DFTT. :-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, seriously. I have mad respect for your willingness to assume good faith, but we're being trolled. Read this (and this). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Please take a moment to comment here, if you're comfortable. Time sensitive. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page for Fox News

Thank you for using the more neutral label "section break." Urzatron (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ya, originally i was just trying to think of a brief title to summarize instead of being completely generic. I wasn't thinking you'd take offense to it; that is, it wasn't my intention. i was just trying to make it easier to edit as the section had grown exceedingly long. i see now that the title was very poorly choosen. and i apologize for the mistake. Kevin Baas^talk 18:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done, then! :) Urzatron (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Election controversy articles

What are your thoughts about how to proceed? I've told David Gerard that I consider his AfD close improper. Nevertheless, I don't know whether an immediate DRV is the best course. You'll find relevant discussions at User talk:David Gerard#Your close of the AfD on election controversy articles, Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies#potential merge information to include, and Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies#How to merge. I'm concerned that some of the editors who favored total deletion will be going ahead with a de facto deletion, without consensus. JamesMLane t c 17:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the result of the AfD was. It sounds from what you write that it was merge. Last I checked, there clearly wasn't consensus for this. I don't know what DRV is, but if it was closed without a true consensus with something other than status quo than I would say some kind of appeal is in order, for as far as I understand that would constitute a policy violation. If it's just merging the smaller summary article into the larger one, I'd say that's fine - it's redundant anyways, and I don't think anyone really read it. As regards editors favoring total deletion, I share your concern -- the fact that their ideal solution is so extreme and anti-historical doesn't exactly nurture a lot of faith in their prudence and moderation. Problem is, I'm quite annoyed right now and I have little patience left for dealing with this. Maybe some time later I'll take a look at things. (Again, if the result is merging the smaller summary into the larger one, that seems to me like a fine solution.) In the meantime, I wish you luck. Kevin Baas^talk 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. The AfD close was to delete all the articles except 2004 United States election voting controversies (the summary article), and merge information into that article.

I obviously don't think the summary article was redundant. I started it because I thought there should be a summary for readers who didn't want to wade through what had become a very sprawling main article. Still, this AfD close is likely to produce a result that you and I both oppose. The pro-deletion faction will try to eliminate most or all of the information that was in the main article and all the daughter articles. If, however, even a small portion of that information makes it into what was the summary article, then that article will cease to be useful as a summary.

DRV is deletion review. It is indeed a way to appeal an improper deletion. I was half-expecting that you'd bring this close to DRV. The practical problem is that if no one starts a DRV, and if the merger of content is left to PhilSandifer, Bonewah, and R. fiend (who've all been participating in the discussion at Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies), then a huge amount of information will be lost. I can understand your lack of patience, though. JamesMLane t c 01:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That outcome is outright ridiculous. Definitely take it to DRV. Nobody in their right mind would argue that that was the consensus. Kevin Baas^talk 14:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews

I followed your remark at Categorization re dynamic category listing at Wikinews but found I was not up to finding anything dynamic. Could you elaborate? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, DPL's are a way to transclude categories into any article as a sorted list. DPL's have been augmented with features that make them more versatile and powerful, such as category intersection, list style (bulleted, numbered, etc.), and sort criteria (alphabetical, date added, etc.).

Every section on any of those pages - w/the header and the list of dates and articles, is a dynamic page list(DPL). The list of dates and articles is the DPL. It's "dynamic" because when a new page is added to the category-intersection it's in, it will automatically be added to all the corresponding DPL's, showing up at the top of them (if it's sorted by date added, descending), with the corresponding date it was added (if that option is enabled).

As to why it's called "Dynamic Page List", a little history may be enlightening: originally, every time an article was created, an entry for it had to be manually created in the newsroom, and every time it was ready for publishing, it had to be manually added to the main page. This was a lot of unneccesary work, so DPL's were invented and augmented to perform this task automatically. With the use of DPL's and article status tags (such as template:develop), the newsroom became almost fully automated.

An example for wikipedia might be RFC's. If DPL's were used, to RfC an article you'd just have to put it in the RfC category, and it would automatically show up on the rfc'd article list - you wouldn't have to manually add it in.

If you view the source/edit on any of the portal pages you can see how they're instantiated. Most of the content you see on the portals is automatically generated by DPL's. Thus, the pages never require any manual updating. Same goes for the newsroom and the main page. Kevin Baas^talk 15:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing process in the middle of a poll

Hi Kevin - I appreciate your contribution to the WikiProject assessment poll. I also recognise that several editors have expressed their comments in the form of an "oppose", and understand that you are trying to reflect this view, but changing the rules of play half-way through a discussion is not good practice. I believe that Walkerma, who asked for this poll, is travelling right now, so may be unavailable to revert your edit, but this poll was set up to use approval voting rather than support/oppose, and any change needs to be discussed first, and then the instructions updated accordingly Geometry guy 19:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I thought it was just a mistake. If it's not reverted already I'll self-revert. Thanks for the heads-up. Kevin Baas^talk 20:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I reverted and added a mention to the "Further discussion" section, in case there is any appetite for a change in process, but I suspect not. Cheers, Geometry guy 20:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Election articles

The discussion at Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies has heated up again in the last few days. Those of us who oppose the censorship of this information from Wikipedia have several ways to proceed: DRV; begin merging information from the daughter articles into what was supposed to be the summary article (the one that survives); or create sandbox versions of the deleted articles, work to improve them to meet the objections of the less rabid deletionists, and then re-create them. If we do nothing, the present situation of de facto deletion will probably remain in place. The people who called for merger have so far done no actual merging. JamesMLane t c 16:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong recommendation

You are getting more and more shrill at Talk:Cold fusion. I suggest a break before one is forced upon you. Alternatively, you can consider branching out to other areas of the encyclopedia. There are a lot of places that may benefit from your help. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a veiled threat? OMG, please be WP:CIVIL. Kevin Baas^talk 19:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you aren't offended by my jumping in here and reminding you both to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. It's best to closely follow talk page guidelines, assume good faith, and keep a cool head even when you think others are not. --Ronz (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite to the contrary, your interjection is much appreciated. :-) Kevin Baas^talk

Easy as pi?: Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership

The discussion, to which you contributed, has been archived, with very much additional commentary,
at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 35#Easy as pi? (subsectioned and sub-subsectioned).
A related discussion is at
(Temporary link) Talk:Mathematics#Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership and
(Permanent link) Talk:Mathematics (Section "Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership"). Another related discussion is at
(Temporary link) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership and
(Permanent link) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics (Section "Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership").
-- Wavelength (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clue

Psst! I filed for arbitration, not SA. You might want to correct this. Also, the case was accepted 7-0 very quickly. Arguing that arbitration was wrong isn't going to convince many folks at this stage. Jehochman ^Talk 21:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

opps, i read something that gave me the wrong impression, then. thanks. Kevin Baas^talk 21:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

which negative?

What is the negative that I'm going to prove? are you referring to "to see if I'm making false accusations or not"? That's not proving a negative, either the accusations are backed by diffs (they are true) or they aren't (they are false). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me. I meant that you're asking me to prove a negative. Kevin Baas^talk 18:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added more to clarify. In retrospect, my prose is probably too biting. Sorry for that. Kevin Baas^talk 18:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I see what you mean. However, people do it every day at ANI, fallacy or not, so you should be able to simply pick one of the collapsable boxes and analyze the diffs below to show that they don't support what I say that they do support... I have said so on the WP:AE page --Enric Naval (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. I actually said what you just said in my above-mentioned clarification. (the "your diffs are mine" stuff.) Kevin Baas^talk 19:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, you were right after all, he does not say that all are fake, he says that on the most famous three either they didn't notice the evidence or they faked. For the rest, he appears to imply that they had failures for obvious reasons, if I read it correctly. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About your comment on AE. The way I see it, there are reliable published sources saying "could fusion experiments are wrong". And and you are saying that they are wrong, but not because some other more reliable source says that they are, but because you have read Theory and you interpret that those papers can't falsify the theory because their assumptions about "what is a scientific theory and how you can falsify one of them" contradict your own. That is, very clearly, original research. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any sources, reliable or not that say definitively that cold fusion experiments are wrong, nonetheless any where that can be logically derived from. There are certainly sources that show how they COULD be wrong. And I don't doubt that some of them ARE wrong for precisely the reasons cited in those sources. But that right there is my own extrapolation - that right there is original research.
- Now if some scientist recreated a specific cold fusion experiment, "positive" results and all, and tested their hypothesis on that experiment, and then published that result in a reliable source, then I could say, with respect to that experiment, that the result was such and such. (And clearly the ideal experiments for this are the ones that most reliably produce "positive" results.) But to my knowledge no skeptic has done that, so anything either of us have to say in that regard is pure speculation.
I don't know if any experiments are wrong for the reasons cited in those sources and neither does anybody else because as far as I'm aware, nobody has reconstructed those experiments and tested that hypothesis on them. This is not original research. This is the lack of the existence of a particular type of research, which I have no control over.
Now I am not saying that any source is wrong. I do not know where you got that idea from. As far as I'm concerned, I don't have the credentials to evaluate that. And even if I did my opinion would not count because wikipedia doesn't work that way.
Those papers do not make any assumptions about "what a scientific theory is and how one can falsify one", so I don't see how I could possibly speak to that and say anything meaningful. (And I certainly don't see why I would speak to something that in my mind doesn't even exist.)
I do not make any assumptions about what a scientific theory is and how you can falsify one. When discussing them, I go by the definition. And there is nothing subtle or elusive about it. It's quite straightforward and concrete, and it's spelled out in just about every scientific textbook. It is called the scientific method, and there's absolutely nothing original about it. Kevin Baas^talk 16:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't know of any sources" --> "In short, according to everything we know about the behavior of matter and nuclei, Cold Fusion is impossible. This is what I meant when I said that Cold Fusion is an experiment whose result is contrary to prevailing theory." [2] David Goodstein from CalTech

That's a rather presumptuous statement. VERY presumptuous, in fact. I'm quite curious as to why that guy's not a millionaire. Even the best mathematicians in the world couldn't achieve a feat like that. You see, what we have are a set of equations, and while they are good at predicting simple things, there are very, very, very, very, very many ways to put them together. Just like there are very, very, very, many different materials, etc. While reductionism is one thing, synthesis is quite another. To say that we know all of the ramifications of the physics formulas we have is to say that we know how to make every material there is to make, every drug imaginable, etc. Obviously, we don't. Not even close. As regards predicting with certainty what would happen in a C.F. cells using what we know about physics, well it took some of the most powerful - custom made - supercomputers in the world to simulate a tiny amount of space for a tiny amount of time - we're talking nanoscale here - to verify the standard model. Point is, it doesn't work like that. Math is hard. You can't just rule out a theorem by looking at a few axioms for a while. That's the epitome of arrogance. It's essentially an NP-hard problem from a very large set. And even if the result was contrary to the prevailing theory - which we don't actually know and anyone who says we do hasn't really comprehended the mathematical complexity - that just makes it more interesting.

"Overall, the experimental situation remains murky. In spite of the claims by cold-fusion proponents that "hundreds of successful experiments" have provided evidence of tabletop nuclear reactions, the results are not clear cut and are beset by complexity. Hundreds of erratic findings do not necessarily add up to solid proof. (...) hot-fusion research has run into the billions, but no one doubts the existence of deuterium-tritium fusion in a hot plasma. No such statement is possible about cold fusion" [3] Physics World

Which is exactly why people should take the best (/most successful) experiments and work off of those (or if they think they are up for it, try a novel approach). Kevin Baas^talk 16:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, they don't say specifically " the experiments are wrong". But you have to recognize that they don't exactly have much faith on them being correct in any or form.....

Faith is the blood of religion, not science. In science you have to prove things. Kevin Baas^talk 16:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are still doing original research. I quoth: "I don't know if any experiments are wrong for the reasons cited in those sources and neither does anybody else because as far as I'm aware, nobody has reconstructed those experiments and tested that hypothesis on them."

I am saying that people who make said claim are doing original research unless they can find a reliable source to back it up. If it's original research to say that people who can't support their claims with published materials are doing original research then we're both pretty screwed. Kevin Baas^talk 16:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

because as far as you are aware? On wikipedia you have to say, because of as far as this reliable source is aware. I mean, where is that independient third party secondary reliable source saying "nobody knows if they are wrong"? Where is the reliable source saying that it's not known because "nobody has reconstructed those experiments and tested that hyphotesis on them". Actually, where is the reliable source saying that nobody has done that? Show me the secondary source(s) that you extracted those statements from. If they are from several sources, show me the source that links them together.

I am acknowledging my limitations. Since when did that become a sin? Would you prefer that I pretend to know everything? And again, you are asking me to prove a negative. (Or rather find a reliable source that proves a negative.) Do we really need to support claims that others are doing original research with reliable sources that purport to prove this negative? Where are your sources then, for all of your claims of original research?

As soon as you are not getting all those statements from secondary sources (or even tertiary, like other encyclopedias), you are making the research by yourself.

I believe that was the point I was trying to make.

(continuing with the definition thing) It's not enough to know the definition of scientific theory yourself. You are making a link to how conclusions on cold fusion are affected by that definition. You need a reliable source that makes the link between the definition and those cold fusion experiments, and that's what you don't have. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making a link. You asked me some simple questions about the scientific method. (how would one go about invalidating a theory?, etc.) And I gave you an answer. Then you said my answer was original research. Then I referred you to the respective encyclopedia articles to show you that it was not. Kevin Baas^talk 16:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, there currently isn't any theory to explain the phenomena in question, so the falsification question really isn't relevant at this point. What one can do is try to construct a scientific theory to explain all of the results and go from there. Or one can do more experiments to try to find out more about the phenomena. (and again, someone who was really interested in making progress would start with the most successful and interesting ones, like co-deposition or gas-loading. For example, maybe they could formulate and test a hypothesis for the crater-like structures found in co-deposition.) Point is everything's still in the pre-theory stage of the scientific method. Kevin Baas^talk 16:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think another point that I was making when you accused me of "original research" (what i would call "being rational") was that affirming the consequent is - besides being outright wrong in the first place - original research. Frankly, I was surprised to see it specifically mentioned in the scientific method article as a big no-no. Kevin Baas^talk 16:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, wikipedia is not like science. You don't have to prove things, you have to follow what reliable sources say. I presented you two reliable sources ([4] and [5]). One says directly that CF is imposible according to current knowledge, and the other that the "[claims made by CF proponents] of 'hundreds of successful experiments' (...) [don't provide evidence because] the results are not clear cut and beset by complexity. Hundreds of erratic findings do not necessarily add up to solid proof". I don't care that you find them presumptuous or wrong. Either you find an equivalent or better reliable source that claims them to be wrong, or what they say is what goes into the article. Period. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the reliable sources policy does not mean that we have to put everything we find that's from a reliable source into the article. If that were the case it'd be a giant mess of links. We're supposed to use some discretion. Like not putting in things that are wrong for obvious reasons. Kevin Baas^talk 15:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I never said wikipedia is like science or anything of the sort. You said ""...the experiments are wrong". But you have to recognize that they don't exactly have much faith on them being correct in any or form...." and i responded "...In science you have to prove things." I acknowledge that i was somewhat terse and thus cryptic. What I meant was that they have not said that their experiments disproved c.f. and that cannot be logically derived from any of there results, therefore it would not only be original research to say they do, even if you "recognize that they don't exactly have much faith on them being correct...", it would also be completely unscientific - so even if original research did belong in articles, that particular kind of thing still would not belong in a science article. Kevin Baas^talk 15:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at WP:V "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." WP:RS says what sources to use, and WP:V says when to use them. (also, I always try to follow the GA and FA criteria, in order to write the best possible article, see criterion #2 on Wikipedia:Good article criteria, and, whenever possible, the more stringent criteria #1.c and #2.c on Wikipedia:Featured article criteria).

Ah, you are very right on that, they don't say that the negative experiments have disproved CF. What they say is that the positive ones don't provide a proof that is convincing enough to overcome certain problems problems like: lack of a theory that explains the results, contradiction with existing theories, calibration problem, shield from external influence problems, contamination problems, failures to replicate when using more controlled parameters (the "negative experiments" among them), etc. In short, that the positive experiments haven't managed to prove the existence of cold fusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with that. Kevin Baas^talk 20:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Good2 color crop small2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Good2 color crop small2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. O sama K^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 10:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Out of curiosity, why does your signature go through the redirect at User:Kevin baas? Cool Hand Luke 19:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know it did that! I originally registered as "Kevin baas", and then when the feature was made to enable user name changing I signed up to have mine changed to the correct capitalization. I guess I never changed my sig to point to my new user page. I'll do that now that I'm aware of it, though. (Thanks.) Kevin Baas^talk 14:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Exit poll small florida.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Exit poll small florida.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment on cold fusion talk page

LeadSong took it out again and cited "Wikipedia:Talk#Others'_comments (bullet 4)". I think that he meant bullet 3, the one about "material not relevant to improving the article". --Enric Naval (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, not a big deal i guess. just a difference in opinion on empathy & social etiquette. Kevin Baas^talk 15:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of File:2004 us fraud7.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:2004 us fraud7.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip [i.e. a Word document or PDF file] that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Guy0307 (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion mediation

I have been asked to mediate the content dispute regarding Cold fusion. I have set up a separate page for this mediation here. You have been identified as one of the involved parties. Please read through the material I have presented there. Thank you. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll on displaying time since last edit

Hi, you weighed in on the "display time since last edit on article" discussion at the Village pump. I have now started a straw poll on the subject at WP:Village pump (proposals)#Straw poll. Your opinion would be appreciated. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SETI RfC

Hi Kevin - Yes, I was including you in my count of three for the last version of the sentence - but could you re-add your comment on the talk page? I think we're in agreement here (please tell me if we're not!) - I think the distinction between excluding "peer-reviewed" because it's redundant or because it is not true is important, so I'd like the reasoning recorded on the talk page to save any misrepresentation later. Thx! GyroMagician (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:All election incidents.png

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:All election incidents.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Pais (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify, as it seems the status of this content is not properly understood: THIS IMAGE IS FREE. Ergo said criterion does not apply. Kevin Baas^talk 17:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]