User talk:209.253.120.198

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please don't make that kind of edit to Cold fusion; I tried to describe why in a few words in the edit summary. I'm not hostile to anyone's point of view, but there's a reason that we can't battle this out in tiny edits design to subtly shift the tone. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on your comment please. I have been watching this site for a year and most of what I have seen is "small, arguable edits designed to subtly shift the tone." Are you saying that that is going to stop now? 209.253.120.198 (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(copied from Talk:Cold Fusion) I'm realizing I'm being a little bit loud on this issue; sorry about that. I'm really mostly trying to see if other people agree with this general principle, and will help me patrol the article in the future, especially in the quieter times in-between the big discussions; 209.253 didn't do anything wrong, in my book. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How does it look now?

I was going back and reading the earlier comments, and I noticed you said that the Cold fusion article was clearly not a "Good article". How do you feel about it now? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is better than before you arrived, which is good. I especially like the section title changes. I still disagree with the label "Good Article" because that implies it is one of the best 10 or so physics articles. If the label was "Very Important" or "Recently Evaluated" or something like that then I would vote yes. Maybe if the article had 4 or so months of stability I would be in favor, but Pierre wanted that stamp of approval quick, so here we are.
I worry that the article has too many partisans and will not remain stable. When I first started following the article around May 2007 Pierre and his cohort wanted to replace the electrochemistry image with a Mosier-Boss image since, as one put it, "a corner" had been turned. Then rude people showed up and I kept quiet. I just don't trust the people who have been on this page to be reasonable and civil. For example, what do you think of Pierre's edit of 10:29 27 May 2008, which reverted my edit of 22:02 22 May 2008? He had asked if there were any establishment statements of disbelief after 2004 and I gave him one, but he throws it out.
I hope you stick around and do what you can to make the page better. As you can tell, I think this is a very important wikipedia article because the topic is so contentious. Cold fusion is sui generis, in a class by itself, and deserves to be studied for its lessons in how science works.
Incidently, I sometimes posted using the name olorinish. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I enjoyed reading your Discover magazine reference, I agreed with Pierre that that wasn't the right sentence for it; that is, the focus of the article wasn't a critique of the supporters. I agree that there are other physics articles on Wikipedia that are better-researched and more stable, but many of them aren't GA simply because no one has done clean-up work and nominated them yet; so even though we only have 10 GA physics articles on WP at the moment, I don't think of Cold fusion as 1 of 10, I think of it as 1 out of 100 GA or potentially GA articles. I think it's easily good enough to be in that company, because it's such a difficult topic, and we've done a better job with the topic than most. I also understand wanting stability in a Good Article, but "there is a tide in the affairs of men" and all that...that is, we pretty much have to work when people are ready to work, because they usually aren't ready. I also think there was some logic to immediately following the mediation, so that we can claim that the spirit of the mediation still holds.

You made many good comments during the review; I believe you were the most active skeptic, if I remember right. Thanks. I very much agree about the "lessons in how science works". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 05:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I sound bitter, but Pierre just made another "tiny edit designed to subtly shift the tone." (11:01, 28 May 2008) I'm just sick and tired of him. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You have every right. I left a note on his talk page; I want to give him a chance to recognize his mistake before I do something rash. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dan, this is just a reminder that you have not reverted Pcarbonn's edit of (11:01, 28 May 2008). You had earlier said that: "I'm going to revert anything on sight that smacks of the kind of thing that drives article watchlisters in controversial articles crazy: small, arguable edits designed to subtly shift the tone." Do you plan to do anything about this? 209.253.120.198 (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Dan, in the last two days there has been even more POV pushing discussion at the site. As almost the only one representing the establishment view of cold fusion, I feel like I have been holding a finger in a dike by myself for the last year, keeping the article from going over totally to the cheerleaders. I am now starting to think that the cold fusion article is an extreme special case, deserving of extreme measures. When an article attracts partisans who only represent one side of controversial issue, the wikipedia paradigm breaks down. That is why I loudly applauded the reversion to the FA version several months ago, to slow down the drift of the article. But I now see that the enthusiasm of the cheerleaders is so strong, and establishment-view editors so absent, that I am starting to think I have been wasting my time.
I am curious about the history of this type of behavior. How many other sites have been taken over by partisans? Have top people like Jimmy Wales ever stepped in and acted as the other side of a debated issue? What do you think? 209.253.120.198 (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It is very unlikely that Jimbo will help us on this one, but I am a little bit optimistic that eventually the larger community will help us. I think that semi-protection is a very real possibility, so if you want to help out on the article on an ongoing basis, it might become necessary for people to know you by your user account name instead of your IP. I started a new section at Talk:Cold fusion, I hope you'll reply there. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Dan, let me ask this question. Are you aware of other articles that are contentious, but have had editors which heavily advocate one side of the controversy? It is possible that cold fusion is the first article to be in this situation, but I would like to learn from others' experience. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Jumping into the conversation uninvited.... You could check out Intelligent Design or Homeopathy, but I don't think you'll find any examples of good solutions there. Evolution may provide some positive example, but the closer analogy there would be to Fusion, not Cold fusion. Gnixon (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I missed your question, thanks Gnixon. Check out 3RR, RSN, and even ARBCOM for conflicts caused by one side or the other winning edit wars despite flimsy sources. Flimsy sources aren't the problem with Cold fusion...in fact, I don't know whether there is a problem or not. The article will probably reach a point soon where everyone is happy or says they're happy...and then we wait and see what happens. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)