User talk:Noren

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Noren, I just wanted to welcomeyou to to Wikipedia, and to say how much you input in Roche limit is appreciated. Here are a few links you might find useful.



If you want add any images check out:


If you need any help try:


That's all for now. I hope you decide to stick around. We can always do with good people :-) Theresa Knott (The token star) 23:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I second the welcome.

Could you provide a citation for the Aristotle reference in the Heliocentrism article? If you haven't time to work up a nicely formatted entry, I'd appreciate your sending me the data, and I can work it up. I'm trying to get together a proper References section. Thanks, Dandrake 19:55, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Please pardon the brain fart. I woke up that morning thinking about the need to assemble a References section, and apparently hadn't achieved enough consciousness by 11 AM to look at the article first. Thanks for the work on the article. Dandrake 22:08, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Roche limit

(William M. Connolley 22:10, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Please will you pause to think before labelling my edit as "vandalism". First, it was a good-faith edit. Second, it was correct: orbit or not is irrelevant to the tidal forces.

[edit] Cluster Impact Fusion

Go for it! Just because there's only a small amount of material on the topic doesn't mean it shouldn't be in here. Moreover I'm sure you can I can get a nice boilerplate into shape, and then get Art to jump in.

Good? Yes?

ok, here, see what you think cluster impact fusion

Maury 6 July 2005 12:17 (UTC)

[edit] Cold Fusion

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- BMIComp (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I did discuss them first, extensively, months ago. Perhaps I should have reiterated the arguments. I'd be happy to take this to arbitration, as in my opinion the categories under dispute are clear and obvious violations of the Wikipedia category use guidelines. In any case, I did not violate the 3RR rule as I did not "revert any single page more than three times within a period of 24 hours." I only did so twice (at 16:18, 11 July 2005 and 17:41, 11 July 2005)- two times fewer than what would needed for me to be in violation.
    • Well, I'd say you reverted three times; adding an extra edit in between your revert still makes it a revert. I wasn't reporting you or anything, just wanted to let you know that continued reverts could result in bannination. I noticed brian had made reverts also, but I saw this comment and from it I inferred that he was not going to revert it again.
      • I'm guessing you were counting my initial edit as a revert, though you didn't specify what edit other than the two I cite above you consider a revert... but as you say it's a dead issue.

[edit] Talk:Cold fusion

I've reported the noxious SPAM sites to the blacklist and they should be added (I hope). 68.39.174.238 23:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] source for cold fusion ?

Noren, could you provide the source for "most governments and scientists in the United States and Europe had dismissed the concept as illusion" ? you put it between quotes, so I suppose you are quoting someone. thanks. Pcarbonn 17:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block

I am sorry about the block; I meant to block an IP address of a spammer, and blocked you instead. - Mike Rosoft 14:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good catch on Grape

Hi. Good catch on your revert on Grape.  :) I was trying to help and someone caught my own revert which was only partial. Cheers! --EarthPerson 17:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roche limit FAR

Roche limit has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] Cold fusion

I will soon give the final GA checkmark at Cold fusion, if no new issues come up. I've done a lot of copyediting on the article, I'm largely happy with the results of the mediation, and the editors who have responded seem happy. I'm checking with you and Guy because neither of you checked in during the GA debate (understandable after the long mediation), so I had some concern that your position was not well-represented. I represented a counterweight to some extent to Pierre (Pcarbonn).

I'd like to add this paragraph to the "neutrality" section of my GA review on the talk page, and I want to know if you and Guy think that this is too strong or too provocative:

  • Finally, to chemists and physicists who might say that it's pointless to represent the points of view of the cold fusion proponents: the Chubb and Van Noorden references show sessions on these topics at recent ACS and APS yearly meetings, the 2004 DOE review was equivocal, DARPA and the Indian government are currently funding studies, and one of the fathers of hot fusion in Japan (Arata) just gave a live demonstration of his excess heat experiment in the hall named in his honor to the Japanese press. Wikipedia can't take a position that you're not willing to take; as long as chemists and physicists keep the subject alive and unresolved, Wikipedia must do so as well. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)