Help:Wiki_markup

It looks like you were trying a German citation template over at Cold fusion. You seem to have figured it out, but in case it helps - the most common templates can be accessed by clicking the Cite button above the edit window, then selecting the desired template from the drop down box. The page describing the templates is at Wikipedia:Citation templates, and the category is Category:Citation templates. I assume de.wiki has similar, so it should be mostly familiar. Ping me at User talk:2over0 if I can help with anything. 2over0 public (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The beast that is cold fusion tries to hide under the name of LENR or CANR or LANR or CMNS, but we know it is the beast. It cannot hide from us.
The beast tried to infiltrate our golden path of science in 1989, but we smashed the beast and cast him out.
The servants of the beast are still among us, they will take any chance to pervert our golden way once more.
The servants try to lure innocent souls into the claws of the beast with their foul lies.
But we know know their foul lies and the lies from the beast are not believed by most scientists.
Brethren, we must ever be prepared for the beast will not relent.

--POVbrigand (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this from a poem or something? Olorinish (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry helps to air some emotions. Do you like it ? --POVbrigand (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like it a lot. Who wrote it? Olorinish (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (POVbrigand) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it may be seen as disruptive, or intending to show a disruptive intent. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account to use for editing. Thank you. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.

with my name I express my intent to adhere to NPOV and fight POV. My impression is that that is in line with WP policy.

I am not a native english speaker and I thought and still think "brigand" is appropriate to express "fighter" or "robber" or "bandit" as in Time Bandits.

I put the explanation on my user page so other users can inform themselves that I do not mean it the other way around as in "fighter for POV".

--POVbrigand (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This personal attack is not very civil [1]. Olorinish (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, it is not my intent to attack people on their person. I do not think that criticizing the mode of discussion is a personal attack. It is my belief that there is persistent unwillingness to discuss reliability of CF-denouncing sources, whereas any CF-supporting source is regarded unreliable by selective reading of the WP-policies. It is not civil to misuse WP-policies, it is not civil to pretend being knowledgeable about a topic when one is in fact greatly ignorant. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we should accuse this user of something to protect science from the evil that is cold fusion but I'm not sure if that div is really good enough Olorinish. It looks to me like you are spoiling everything by using such a poor div. Maybe it will still work out as a provocation I don't know but please don't let it happen again. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 06:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olorinish, your userpage states: "Here are some editors who have been banned or blocked from the cold fusion talk page (at least temporarily): Pcarbonn, Abd, Dual Use, Jed Rothwell, and IwRnHaA." This completely exposes your entire modus operandi, I understand you are happy with the accomplish but it is suppose to be a lot of work to see the pattern of outing unwanted users. You are making people needlessly paranoia by putting this information there. The whole surprise element is gone. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 07:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using bad language is also not very civil. [2] Olorinish (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that other editors don't have common sense is also a personal attack. [3] Please don't that again. Olorinish (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense as in middle of the road. Don't be so pedantic about my civility when you don't give a damn about other editors being totally uncivil. Or are you just stocking up "evidence" for a future noticeboard action, where you will claim that "the user was notified multiple times on his uncivil behaviour, but he just won't listen". --POVbrigand (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Wikipedia guidance on "common sense" does not describe it as "middle of the road." It states, "Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons." and "you should be careful not to imply that other editors are lacking in common sense, which may be seen as uncivil." Olorinish (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another personal attack [4]. In the future, please direct your comments at comments and content and actions rather than people. Olorinish (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested guidance on how to respond to your behavior [5]. Olorinish (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: "no personal attacks". [6] --POVbrigand (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:POVbrigand_reported_by_User:AndyTheGrump_.28Result:_.29 AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings , thanks for removing my citation on Cold Fusion with a reference to PESN saying it is not RS. Please help me understand which sources are RS and which are not. For example, in this google search I have found 155,000 alternative references to Bushnell citing Widom-Larsen as the energy behind eCat. Which if any of these would you say is a "RS"? Thanks.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=cpsugrstla&cp=21&gs_id=2a&xhr=t&q=bushnell+widom+larsen&tok=pHip_hYJPWvTKdEmzWxjPA&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=bushnell+widom+larsen&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=7a815af5c44e7640&biw=1146&bih=622

~ ~~ Charles (talk)

Hi Charles,

User:Alanf777 has done a lot of work on presenting the Bushnell quote in different versions. Only the original interview sound file is RS. I have not seen (or I don't remember) any mention in a science magazine of what Bushnell has said.

Almost all of those links you get out of your google search are not RS. You should look for online editions of real magazines or newspapers, real publishing, not just some website.

My feeling is that even if your line "Bushnell has speculated that the Widom-Larsen theory, published in 2006, could be the basis of the Energy Catalyzer, however Andrea Rossi has rejected that assertion." would be reliably sourced, it doesn't really need to be in the cold fusion article. It doesn't add clarity, he said this, he said that.

The Widom Larsen theory is one possible explanation of all cold fusion phenomena, not just Rossi. What theory will be eventually win the nobel prize will take another couple of year to find out.

Be careful with selecting your sources for fringe topics. Using non-RS is the easiest way for others editors to attack your edit. And if you want to add something that is not in a RS, than that should be a clear indication for you not to add it. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving up on the eCat wiki. Good luck, if you go on with it. Alanf777 (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, the ecat was never one of my favorite articles, I only tried to help to keep it from destruction by the deletionists. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now hosts: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/LENR_at_GRC_2011.pdf Is the GRC considered a "reliable source"? 62.30.137.128 (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The presentation will be regarded as "self published". Self published is OK to say something about the claimant, ie "Nasa GRC did research". If the claimant is an expert in the field then a tiny bit more could be used from the presentation. It should be RS, but there isn't too much you can do with the source. What did you have in mind ? --POVbrigand (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year ... How about slide 14 ? (Of course, this refers only to Kim's Pd-D, not Ni-H -- and it's labelled "Hypothetical" -- so there goes string theory, loop quantum gravity and the rest ... ). But it's all futile ... Alanf777 (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you too, let's hope it's a good one without any fear ... We are still discussing Kim. Slide 14 is just what I wanted to express, that "several theories have been proposed". But slide 14 is about cold fusion/LENR in general, so we can't use that directly in Energy Catalyzer. Thanks. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Here's a link that should be considered superior (there has been some prejudice against lenr-canr links), partly because it isn't a preprint: http://www.springerlink.com/content/9522x473v80352w9/fulltext.pdf The publication info is: Naturwissenschaften, 2010, Volume 97, Number 10, Pages 861-881. I'll copy this to the CF Talk page to see what the other editors think about it. V (talk) 06:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you might be interested in reading my recent comment on my talk page User talk:DVdm#list of cold fusion researchers. As others have told you, be careful. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering,

If I look at the notability guidelines I would say the Pons and Fleischmann event should be deserving of it's own article. Pretending this content will one day seamlessly blend in with cold fusion and low energy nuclear reactions is not realistic. It wont do any of those topics justice. The issue is trying to document a historic event on the same page as current developments.

This while we obviously want a static representation of the historic event. Nothing that happened in 1989 is changing, the article shouldn't have to change either. Doing so would create a different picture.

The biggest problem the "cold fusion" article has is that it claims to cover LENR. It's been repeated often enough, any attempt to cover LENR in the same article will make cold fusion look more credible. The opposite should be true also, any attempt to cover the Pons and Fleischmann press release drama in the LENR article would make LENR look less credible. While this might be deserving it isn't neutral.

Should we perhaps try write the LENR article in stead of just our dull list? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this:[7] And this:[8] And this:[9]

The plot thickens :D

84.106.26.81 (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem is, that many editors are completely ignorant and think it is all just a bunch of junk. Many editors think the name LENR is just an attempt to avoid saying "cold fusion", because that name is "stained". Many editors think cold fusion is done by lone garage DIY inventors who are completely out of touch with science or scientific method. Many editors don't have a clue and don't want to have a clue. Many editors are pathological deniers who believe they are doing wikipedia a huge favour by fighting off and deleting anything they think "is not worth" of being in an encyclopedia.

I do not think that we can start splitting up articles to separate old stories from new developments. Many editors will not buy into the fact that there are new developments. Many editors are seriously annoyed that there is an article about Rossi who is trying to sell a device of which they are so self assured that they have sufficient understanding of the whole situation to decide that it is all rubbish.

I will just keep working on the cold fusion article. I have no interest in fighting off even more ignorant editors who think they are the defenders of the thruth. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I don't care about all that. I just want everyone to agree the 3 topics can not be united into one article.

We keep hearing we must avoid "lending unjustified credibility to cold fusion". In stead of arguing over this we should simply stop pretending it is one topic. Such article already existed, the motivations (former) editors gave for erasing the topic didn't follow normal AFD procedures. The merger clearly wasn't a success.

Even if a LENR article lives in your userspace (until it is finished) it can already help inform other editors. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi,

It might seem a bit odd, for the Patterson Cell the Television coverage is the note worthy media coverage. This is why the article exists. Prominent scientists reported they replicated the cell on Television. Without this there is no reason to have an article. No one would have known about about it if that didn't happen. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the television broadcast is also very important to establish notability of the subject. That does not mean that the content of that broadcast has to be added to the article. It can be if there is something important in the broadcast. Unfortunately there is no way we can link to the google video due to copyright violation, nor the transscript due to non-RS website.

You are drawing a lot of (negative) attention with your editing of the Patterson cell article. I think the current version is pretty good and not much has to be desperately added. Please do not put chunks of content back in that was previously deleted. If you really think something should go in, then please discuss it first on the talk page.

Why don't you get an account ? --POVbrigand (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current version looks very good to me. Much better than I expected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CETI_Patterson_Power_Cell&action=historysubmit&diff=463408004&oldid=463040463

The only problem was that the AFD forced me to put an unfinished version live. Maybe that was bad, but it was productive :) 84.106.26.81 (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your large list of researchers seems to be a potential BLP issue. I have brought a discussion to the BLP noticeboard. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Cold_Fusion_BLP_issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next time at least copy & paste the link correctly WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Cold_Fusion_Userspace_BLP_issues --POVbrigand (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to assess the possibility of "success" of this attempt. To me it seems frivoulous at best, but wikihounding, tag-team, harrassment, griefing, gaming etc are things that I have looked into. Kindly review and let me know how I should react. I am currently trusting the Noticeboard to "rightly assess" the situation. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your question.--SPhilbrickT 22:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being unclear. My request is to give me some understanding or advice if the BLP complaint has any merit. And if my userspace list (work in progress) is in danger of getting deleted. And what I could/should do about it. Thanks --POVbrigand (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think the best way to discover if it has any merit would be to review the comments on the noticeboard. If people think it is frivolous they will say so there. causa sui (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with causa sui here. A lot of regular volunteers on WP:BLPN are well-versed in looking at these issues. While I don't know enough about the topic area to judge whether this is a BLP violation, I can at least confirm the fact that WP:BLP does apply, even though this isn't in an article. You are allowed to respond to the issues raised there--just leave a comment in the appropriate thread. Since there's not much else we can tell you, I'm marking this help request as answered, as the ultimate result will depend on what the BLPN editors say. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am trusting the board. So far so good :-) --POVbrigand (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no BLP issue - nobody responded to the claim --POVbrigand (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone did. A lack of response does not mean there is no BLP issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Andy replied, what a surprise. After all, you responded [10] to his plea for help [11], right ? Who wouldn't support a buddy. Show me one issue where Andy doesn't take the opportunity to show me how much he DOESNTLIKE my contributions. And if you read Andy's response you will notice he didn't even comment on the BLP issue of the list, just some general LISTPEOPLE, OR, IDONTLIKEIT drivel. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About this:[12]

I found D. Gozzi here initially:[13]

I thought the paper was a better ref.

I was thinking we should continue to use User_talk:POVbrigand/list to discuss the article. That way when it gets deleted the content isn't all over the wiki. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work guys. Keep it up. Well done. Lovely reading. I'll bookmark and come back often. And thanks for the support in the jungles of www.wikipedia.com/Energy Catalyzer. Whew! there are some big demons there for sure!

Love and peace, and a Merry Happy Christmas with your loved ones.

Solmil (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have redacted the title of your comments --POVbrigand (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Energy Catalyzer. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just had a quick look at the Cold Fusion article and gave it a good appreciation. :-) However, I checked out the controversy and then, as I had not noticed the part about NASA, checked for it. But I cannot find it... I thought that it was reinserted with general agreement?? If it doesn't happen I must correct my positive appreciation, and that would be a pity! Harald88 (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The NASA bit was deleted [14] by User:Hudn12 (contributions) and it was reinserted but repeatedly deleted again by User:ArtifexMayhem [15], User:Binksternet [16] and User:Stephan_Schulz [17] for dubious reasons. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks - while NASA should be certainly mentioned, I can somewhat understand both actions in view of the presntation. Perhaps as a "neutral bystander", my modest edit will have more success. Let's see! Harald88 (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome any version as long as our WP-readership get's a fair overview of what is happening. Good luck. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It got deleted with a nonsense excuse by a no-name with IP 69.86.225.27 - so I reversed it and added an explanation. Do you know that person? It may well be a banned former editor such as ScienceApologist who was skilled in nagging. Or one of the above - or even both! Harald88 (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, guessing the identity of anonymous editors on Wikipedia is considered "attempted outing" by Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:OUTING#Posting_of_personal_information. I suggest redacting. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information; I thought that 69.86.225.27 is not an anonymous editor but an IP address that possibly originates from a banned editor in view of similar behaviour. Moreover, wiki names are not personal information. However, your reaction feeds the suspicion that you are in fact a banned editor. Harald88 (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP 69.86.225.27, you have a misunderstanding. Outing would be if we would post real life information about YOU here. Speculation whether an IP is a banned user is not outing. If editors have a solid suspicion that a banned user is editing either by IP or by a sockpuppet, than that can be addressed at the noticeboards. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Arbitration Enforcement regarding an issue with which you have been involved. Thank you. [18]. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I told you it was futile =8-)  !!!!! Alanf777 (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are not an English native, so you might not have noticed that this should be "Response to arbitration case", not arbitrary. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Enric I think we need someone to meditate the article. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop speculating what other wikipedians will say or do.[19] If we want to know what they say we can ask them. Even if it is 100% predictable it is still their decision.

How to put it... you will probably thank me later?

ha-ha

84.106.26.81 (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the "current science" dispute is one of the reasons I was dragged to the Arbcom. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of the recent AE thread, this is to remind you that Wikipedia is not a battleground, and that you should maintain an appropriate level of decorum in your conduct here—especially on controversial articles. Continuing to unnecessarily comment on editors and their motives rahter than the substance of a dispute may well lead to a topic ban should you be brought to AE again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last version before closure is here: [20]

--POVbrigand (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[21] ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Brigand! I cordially approved of your suggestion, made at the "policy" page of the Village pump earlier this month. You'll no doubt recall that another editor closed the discussion by "hatting" it there, however (permalink). But I wanted to let you know that I've modified (permalink) that "close/hatting" a bit; have copied the thread to a more appropriate sub-page at the Village Pump; have re-opened it there and, per wp:rtp, have removed some of the off-topic commentary it included.

Here's a link/permalink to the discussion at its new location. I thought you might like to follow it there, and perhaps contribute additional comments in response to any remarks by other editors that may be posted to the thread. As you probably know, the process would be to kick the idea around with other interested editors at the Village Pump's "ideas" page, where it is now, and then move a more completely specified actual proposal to the VP's "proposals" page if there seems to be sufficient interest in doing so.

I very much doubt you'll see additional participation from a particular editor whose comments in the original version of the thread were objectionable to you, btw. But if that editor does show up, I'd take it as a particular favor if you'd simply not respond. I assure you I know how difficult that can be when one feels wikistalked or baited, but I'm strongly of the opinion that doing so in that case would just derail discussion of a really good suggestion that I'd like to see make it to implementation. If such behavior remains an ongoing problem, I'd suggest your best course would be to post a single, very polite request to desist, on his talk page. If that doesn't do it, then a calmly-worded post to AN/I would certainly be in order. Most cordially,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for reading and understanding my ideas. I was disappointed by the "hatting", but didn't bother to defend my point, so thank you for solving this so nicely. The "hounding" is no longer an issue, I think the editor got the point of my warning.

I will contribute on the new discussion. I really think we can improve something. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to do so; you're welcome. I'm not sure when I'll find the time to do it, myself, but I'll also try to follow the thread and contribute further. Seems very worthwhile, to me. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breakthrough in free energy: the B-Cat ;-) [22] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello POVbrigand. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brigand, I saw your actions on this article and think the unfair Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masreliez’s theorem deletion concensus is the reason for C. J. Masreliez' low notability. The afr was initiated and "executed" by the same VansishedUser314159. I am not so versed in wp dispute resolutions as to have the issue questioned and changed. But that must be possible, or? / 77.219.195.79 (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about Masreliez. I cannot assess if his theorem passes the notability criteria to warrant an article. You can try a Wikipedia:Deletion review --POVbrigand (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you say this has now been published in a journal. I can't seem to track it down with Google scholar. Do you have a title and/or link? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in the Energy Catalyzer Article (the first Kim ref). Haha, I put that in while you weren't looking. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Nuclear Reactions in Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Particles? Does this actually mention the E-Cat? I thought it was a general article on BECNF theory? If it is, and it doesn't mention the E-Cat, it isn't really relevant to the article, as far as I can see, regardless of whether it has been published. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does, I checked the paper to be sure it mentions Rossi before adding it. It should be more or less the same as this one, but I can't access the springer version from home. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Ugo_Bardi.27s_blog_as_.22mainstream_science.22.3F. I suggest you reply promptly. Put up, or shut up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you appear to be involved in discussions outside the area of cold fusion. Can you please highlight the nature of your disclosure to ArbCom on your other account. I am considering asking for clarification at ArbCom on this. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My advice for you is to WP:AGF. "you appear to be involved in discussions outside the area of cold fusion" that's hilarious. I should start collecting your oneliners. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my request is particularly unreasonable. Perhaps I should take the matter to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Requests_for_Clarification and seek clarification on the disclosure. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about this clarification: If you think that I am sockpuppeting, you should file an SPI. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense. How could I when I don't know the other account? You mention on your userpage that you have disclosed the second account to ArbCom. All I am looking for is some clarification on this. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are not supposed to know my other account, it is none of your business. You are supposed to AGF, if I say I don't use that account. If you think you have a reason to believe that I am sockpuppeting, then raise a SPI, or else bugger off. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here following a request on my talk page. POVbrigand is a Wikipedia:Clean start account not, strictly, an alternate account. The older account was disclosed to ArbCom last year. There's no time overlap (ie the older account was abandoned several weeks before POVbrigand started editing); there are no overlapping article edits; and the previous account's block log is clean.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Arbitration Enforcement regarding an issue with which you have been involved. Thank you. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#POVbrigand. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Continued from User_talk:Roger_Davies#POVbrigand)

To be honest, the problem was that you were not particularly forthcoming about your old account - which raised suspicions through the roof - then someone speculated as to what that previous account was - and you didn't actually deny it. You should have more clearly and promptly explained:

1. That you are definitely not Pcarbonn and would be happy to have SPI confirm that. You never did actually deny that connection on the ArbCom enforcement noticeboard...which strongly gave the impression that you are indeed Pcarbonn.
2. Why you needed a clean-start account. You could have gone into the detail you did in the discussion on Roger Davies' talk page - which would have allayed fears that you switched accounts for more nefarious reasons.

The majority of people who use clean-start are (as the name implies) attempting to be reformed characters following some kind of wiki-punishment. Clean-start does not make guarantees that your original account wouldn't be detectable. This is especially true when you misbehave to a sufficient degree to cause admins to get involved (as you undoubtedly did in this case). Under such circumstances, it is 100% guaranteed that the existence of a prior account will raise monumental concerns amongst the admins. A further concern is that (in general) people are deeply suspicious of single-purpose accounts - mostly because they are very often created by someone who wants to anonymize themselves so that they can edit from a controversial POV despite harboring an unstated conflict of interest. Your choice of user name definitely doesn't help that! This is undoubtedly the root cause of suspicions against you here...Wikipedia is so much a matter of trust and credibility. Using a clean-start, single purpose account with a contentious name - then diving into some of the most contentious material on the website - is without doubt going to raise gigantic red flags about your motives...and that's what happened here.

As to your clean start: IMHO, there is no huge problem with having yourself be directly identifiable with other online accounts. As you know, I have always edited under my own name, with my own email and web site addresses clearly posted on my user page. People can easily figure out my phone number and street address from that - and thus far, that's never been a problem for me. I do get the occasional phone call, text message or personal email from fellow Wikipedians and they are always interesting and worthwhile. I did once get a very weird letter in the mail from a recently banned user - but I was able to laugh and subsequently ignore it. Point being that if you act honestly and fairly, and don't hide WP:COI issues - stay away from topics where you have a personal axe to grind - then why would you want Wikipedians to have less access to your personal data than you grant the whole of the rest of the Internet?

So I don't know.

I think it should be possible to appeal the decision to demand your previous account information in order to leave the way clear for you to subsequently appeal the topic ban...you could do that on the grounds that this would be (in a sense) a WP:OUTING of your personal identity. If that appeal succeeded then the way would be open to appeal the topic ban itself. I'd support your right to appeal the demand for previous account info (although I'm not sure I'd grant it) - but I think the actual topic ban is probably justified. Perhaps you'd be better off staying away from Cold Fusion/Fringe topics - you are clearly not dispassionate about them - and if I'm honest, I do suspect that you have a WP:COI that you seek to conceal here (why else would you splatter your personal information all over the Internet - yet seek to conceal it from editors of cold-fusion/fringe topics on Wikipedia).

SteveBaker (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know so much more today than I did one year ago.

Before I "discovered" cold fusion early 2011 I had never edited any tendentious topic. I didn't know anything about all the policies, the noticeboards, the "tools of the trade", but I knew about the five pillars. I didn't know what to expect, so I thought that creating a new account for the purpose would be a good idea, because my old account name is tied to many internet activities and I didn't want to think about privacy - I simply wanted to have it separated. I made the mistake of picking a silly username for the new account.

Technically speaking I now realize that this is actually not a clean start account, because there was absolutely no problematic behaviour or editing pattern with the old account. This is an alternative account for a tendentious topic due to privacy reasons. However as I do not use and have no intent to use my old account it is more or less indistinguishable from a clean start. If I had ever imagined that this would be such an cause for anxiety I would have not mentioned it.

I think that even if it were revealed many editors would still find reasons to be mistrusting me if they choose so. You see, the old account is so benign that they might argue that it was set up on purpose for an occasion like this. How would I ever defend that accusation, impossible. And bringing this point up here, might by itself cause mistrust that it maybe was my intend to bring it up here, only to .... ad inf.

I am not Pcarbonn, I am not Lossisnotmore and I am not any other banned user. I have only one old account and that one is absolutely harmless. I would be happy to have an SPI confirm that. I had previously offered to "waive" the requirements to perform an SPI on me. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Request_for_Admin_Review_at_talk:cold_fusion (please note that I used quite a bit strong wording back then, I would use different wording today).

I have no real life benefits from cold fusion and I have no ties to anyone who has. There is absolutely no conflict of interest.

I have never cheated in any way, never used sock puppets, never gamed the system.

I am very interested in the topic, more the sociological side of it than the physical side of it. How is it perceived, why is it perceived the way it is. How the whole situation came about. In a way the editing work on the article and this banning episode are part of that sociological side.

"Using a clean-start, single purpose account with a contentious name - then diving into some of the most contentious material on the website - is without doubt going to raise gigantic red flags about your motives...and that's what happened here." - I fully agree to this, but I wasn't aware of that a year ago. I went through a learning curve that is not yet completed.

btw, if you look at my activity the last months you can see that it was already diminishing. After some time I want to be unbanned so I can do some editing again, but I am not in a hurry. In the mean time there isn't very much that I want to contribute to the article space of Wikipedia. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied these comments across to my talk page (I hate split discussions) and added some comments there about possible ways forward.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit to Martin Fleischmann violates the result of an Arbitration Enforcement case against you, in which you were "indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions related to cold fusion or fringe sciences ... " . I suggest that you self-revert. Cardamon (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I edited a date of death of a scientist. I do not see this as a violation of a topic ban. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Topic bans, revert rules, non-interaction bans etc are generally interpreted strictly, and even normally uncontroversial edits are subject to the restrictions. So in this case, I think you are clearly in the technical wrong, although if I were administering the case, I would not pursue it too strongly as it was a non controversial edit (as long as the date of death was well sourced) Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban Gaijin42 (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I merely provided a source, because that was requested in the edit comment before my edit. I have no interest to edit anything that violates the topic ban. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On further review, I think you were in clear violation of the ban, not just a technicality (although still the edit content itself was acceptable). The article is about someone notable for cold fusion, and you used a source talking about cold fusion. If someone asks for a source, tell it to them, but making the edit yourself is in violation, and can lead to further sanctions (blocks etc) which I don't think anyone wants. As per the other commentors below, the reason for your ban is irrelevant. The ban exists. the ban is explicit. This edit violated the ban. If you think the ban should be overturned, go deal with that seperately, but trying to skirt the rules will just lead to trouble. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even informing the editor about the source would have been a violation of the ban - see discussion at [23] --POVbrigand (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple reasons why this edit violates your ban. First, Fleischmann was the senior member of the pair who kicked off the cold-fusion furor in 1989. Also a large part of the article on Martin Fleischmann is about cold fusion. For both these reasons, any edit you might make to Martin Fleischmann, even a typo correction, would violate your ban.

Next, the source you added itself violates your ban. “Cold fusion”; is even part of its title. Most of it is about cold fusion, and other supposed free-energy technologies, with only a tiny bit being about the death of Martin Fleischmann. Also, it takes the point of view that cold fusion is real, which is the point of view you were topic banned for pushing too aggressively; thus your addition of it could be considered additional POV pushing. Cardamon (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a source as was requested in an edit comment. I fail to see how merely adding a source can ever be seen as "it takes the point of view that cold fusion is real". You are fabricating stuff.

You are absolutely wrong about the reason why I was topic banned. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the reasons...you were banned from editing cold-fusion related articles. Period. If you had some new source that someone wanted - then you can go to their talk page and tell them about the source and let them consider whether they want to add it or not. You are banned from editing these articles...it doesn't matter WHY you edited them or WHY you were banned. SteveBaker (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@POVbrigand: I came to your talk page first to give you a fair chance to retract, since this was your first violation and might have been a mistake. That effort, unfortunately, failed. I agree that my interpretation of why you were banned might not be accepted by everyone. However, as Steve Baker already said, that is irrelevant to the fact that you were banned. Cardamon (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed an arbitration enforcement request that concerns you. It is at: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#POVbrigand. Cardamon (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been temporarily blocked from editing for the reasons detailed at WP:AE#POVbrigand. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This is to notify you that your arbitration enforcement action appeal to WP:AE has been closed as unsuccessful.  Sandstein  07:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]