User talk:64.247.224.24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Your edits to Cold Fusion

Before adding back the references you are insistent on adding, please explain on Talk:Cold fusion why they should be included. Please recall WP:N and WP:NPOV. Thank you. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


My response at the Cold Fusion discussion page:

Michaelbusch, or someone, keeps deleting important books about cold fusion. Michaelbusch asks: "please explain why these particular references are required." Reasons:

Experts in cold fusion ranging from Storms & Bockris to Arthur C. Clarke recommended these books, and wrote forwards & introductions to the books.

Mallove was published by Wiley, one of the largest and most respected technical publishers. It was widely reviewed and nominated for a Pulitzer prize. Mallove himself played a key role in the history of cold fusion. Mallove purchased the rights to the book and reprinted it, partly because he needed the income, which was considerable.

Dozens of experts contributed to Beaudette. The University of Utah asked for, and accepted, his papers, interviews and the manuscript of this book.

Mizuno is one of Japan's leading cold fusion scientists and electrochemists. He has published over 50 papers, mainly in Japanese, about several different aspects of electrochemistry, including cold fusion. The Japanese edition of this book has sold tens of thousands of copies and the publisher asked him to write a second book, which he did. (It has not been translated into English.)

Contrary to your assertions above, these are not in any sense "self published" books. They were all professional edited and they have all sold thousands of copies.

The fact that you ask why these books are important tells me that you are unfamiliar with the field. Have you even read these books? There are roughly 2,500 researchers in cold fusion listed in the LENR-CANR database. I have met or worked with hundreds of them. I am sure that most of them are familiar with these books, and consider these books important. If you are not an expert in cold fusion, you have no business second-guessing them. Whether you think cold fusion is real or not has no bearing on this issue. If this article was about the Flat Earth theory it would include books that most Flat Earth believers consider important.

PLEASE STOP VANDALIZING THIS PAGE!

- Jed Rothwell Librarian, LENR-CANR.org


Let me add that I have several other books on cold fusion, both pro and con, that do not merit listing in this bibliography for the reasons you cite; i.e. they are obscure or self-published. In other words, your standards for exclusion are reasonable but they do not apply to the books you excluded.

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sign your talk page posts, and stop your verbose flaming. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest reported

Warning Your conflict of interest with regards to cold fusion has been reported to the Wikipedia administrators here. If you continue to insist on including questionable references that you have had a hand in creating and maintaining, you may find yourself blocked or banned. Consider this fair warning. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense. There is nothing questionable about these references. ScienceApologist has questioned them, but he has not read them and he knows nothing about the field.

Ban me if you can. Go ahead. I will reinstate these books for as long as I am able. You can flood the article with your "skeptical" anti-science garbage, but I will not allow you to censor out the truth.

- Jed

[edit] No personal attacks

Warning This last edit borders precariously on violating the Wikipedia policy of no personal attacks. If you do not stop this kind of behavior you will be shown the door. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Ha! You, of all people, accusing others of personal attacks. Good grief! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I have seldom encountered anyone as rude as you.
Go ahead a show me to the door, if you have the power. I will not put up with your insolence, ignorance and insults. I can't abide bullies and know-it-alls. I will NEVER let people like you push me around, rhetorically or any other way. You people have been trying to censor and destroy cold fusion since 1989. You will not succeed as long as I am alive.
- Jed

[edit] Your recent edits to Cold Fusion - 3RR violation warning

Warning Due to your repeated reversions of the cold fusion article, you have violated Wikipedia's three-revert rule. Any further editing of the page today would be reason for a block from editing. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I will ask others to revert it, and I will revert it again tomorrow. I will not allow bullies like you to censor my friends, especially dead friends.
- Jed
HA! You are wrong. I was able to revert it again. I will do that as many times as I feel like, unless you find a way to stop me.
And don't give me any nonsense about the rules. Needless to say, YOU are reverting it one time more than I am, so you are more at fault than I!
- Jed

So that this is abundantly clear: I removed the references because they were not demonstrated to be notable. This is not censorship. End of that. Regarding 3RR: I'm afraid you are greatly outnumbered in this, so that if you persist you will run out of reverts very quickly and be blocked again. I would prefer that this not happen. I am done. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Your three-revert rule violation has been reported here. Expect an administrator to administer the block shortly. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Other people have undone my edits more than I have undone theirs. If I revised the text N times, they have revised it N+1 times, so they are at fault.
- Jed

[edit] Final warning

Warning I have filed a incident report against you. If you continue to keep this up, you will no longer be allowed to contribute at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I suggest you...

...to take the matter to administrators. Ask PCarbonn ore some other cold fusion "regular" who they would appeal to. If you continue in this way you will end up blocked and gain nothing in the long run (no, maybe in the long run the current flamewar will die down. in the short run, actually, the people you're arguing with would surely have their way). If you request admin intervention maybe they won't listen to you, but in this way ScienceApologist and company will surely get you blocked. --Holland-it (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that ArbCom would throw this case out instantly - but hopefully you got the message with the block. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been Blocked for Disruptive editing. Repeatedly you have been warned and have chosen in pursuit of a certain point, to reject community input and consensus that your edits are disruptive. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.--Hu12 (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You have this backwards. A small number of bullies reject community input and ignore consensus. They have repeatedly violated the rules to undo the edit that I and others have done. They are disruptive. They have never justified their point of view, or responded to my points in the discussion page. Instead, they unilaterally push through their point of view. They are at fault, but they have blamed me. You need to look at the facts, and the discussion in the article.
- Jed

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Please read Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)