User talk:JzG/Archive 31

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Deletion review for Adeyto

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Adeyto. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oh what a surprise. No doubt good old DGG will help Adeytro's webmaster to restore his essential sales and marketing page on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Guy, I would be quite honored to even meet her, not to mention of becoming their webmaster! But maybe you can talk them into that for me.Tsurugaoka (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Guy, when I do help a spammy article stay, I delete the spam. I hate it as much as you. DGG (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Michigan dogman

Before I do anything about cleaning up (or cleaning out) this one, can I get a sanity check from you, since your opinion's generally the opposite to mine on "weird stuff off teh internets" pages. This reeks to me of a hoax - complete with what looks to me like a confession from the hoax's creator, and what "sources" there are look suspiciously like advertising for someone's self-published books. While it seems pretty clear to me that this isn't a genuine piece of folklore, do you think it sneaks under the wire as a "notable hoax" (or my least-favourite keep argument, "notable meme")? — iridescent 15:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  • No reliable sources that I can see. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Clesh

Hi, if you could spare the time I would appreciate any attention you can give to the article Clesh. It's a sister of FORscene, and I found your ID from the archives to get that article off the ground - for which I believe you lent your support.

FORscene has, since this time, split into professional and consumer offerings rather like Adobe's Pro and Elements versions of the Premiere video editing technology. Adobe's offerings have separate articles and I think it would benefit readers if the same treatment is extended to Clesh/FORscene.

An article for Clesh has been created by a Clesh user but has since been nominated for deletion.

Regards. mk (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

re your comment about Poetlister, Taxwoman etc

I'm not posting this on the thread since it may be remembered by others that we two have not seen eye to eye on a few issues recently, but this is intended to be read with a sly wink;

Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mr Friendly

Here is the article you cannot delete:

[1]

I wanted to ask you to block me permanently from Wikipedia, but then I realized you cannot do that. What a pity. That is what I want. Unfortunately you cannot do that.

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is generally a bad idea to troll admins on their own talk pages. It's also a bad idea to violate WP:CIV on a talk page. Jtrainor (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It's also very silly to tell me that I can't block him from Wikipedia when I obviously can. My Clue-O-Meter is registering quite low on this one. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

VK's proposed return

Your input and comments are welcome on the talk page here User:Giano/Terms for VK's return. Giano (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Shrew's fiddle

Thanks for making this edit. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • No problem. It was quite simple, really: the site has vastly less information than the Wikipedia article, so is entirely superfluous. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Request

I hate to unleash you on this issue, but could you look at Talk:Rosalind Picard#Question? Please ignore the initial impetus of the question, this is, naturally, my own concern.

In a more general sense, how long should we keep "This article has been edited by the subject" up? I can't help thinking that if we keep it up long after the edits they made have been erased, and the page is unrecognisable, its somehow unnecessary and sort of spiteful.... --Relata refero (disp.) 14:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.
Do give some thought to the more general point, I might want to return to it later in policyspace. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

infoboxes on RV

Can you go to Talk:Remote_viewing#Discussion_of_alternatives_and_addition_of_navigational_template.28s.29 and say if you agree on using those templates and moving the pseudoscience infobox to the criticism section where the scientific claims are discussed? --Enric Naval (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin Action

Hi there,

You blocked me for disruptive editing, probably referring to this [2], can you provide any diff, which constitute disruptive editing !! Sethie has stated there that i have used the term "Zombie", for these cult member's. Once again, kindly provide a diff for that, all i could find is this [3], where Sethie is stating that I have never used the term "Zombie". This is very strange..... (?) Pls respond at my talk page. --talk-to-me! (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please help!

Dear Guy, the user above (Cult free world/talk to me) has come off of his block and immediately reverted this article to the libelous, slanderous mess that it was on his userfied space. The talk page has been active all week with several editors gaining consensus, following Wikipedia policies, and working together in relative harmony (esp. during Cult's two-day block) and I can't believe that one-day off of the block he's back ignoring policies, reverting seven other editors' hard work, all to paste in what's on his blog here. Please help! This has gone on so long and we're desperate. Renee (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


This has alrady been addressed here [4], and has already been responded at BLP notice board, [5] it states that the newspaper report does not constitute what you are stating due to your WP:COI --talk-to-me! (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

ATren has taken umbrage at this edit of yours. Guy, please try and avoid backsliding into the kind of behaviour that prompted the last RFC, no matter how short/non-existent your patience must be by now with ATren. Neıl ☎ 12:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It had nothing to do with ATren, as I'd happily have clarified had he asked. Or maybe he did, over there, I don't know - I was working late last night and am incredibly busy IRL right now. He appears to have grabbed the wrong end of the stick and is now trying to beat me with it; I have pointed out on ANI that it was not addressed to him. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I accept that. Given our history and the way it was threaded, it appeared to be directed at me. I'll add a note to the AN/I page. ATren (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, BTW, I've replaced your PRT criticism at SkyTran with one more critical of SkyTran in particular. I do agree with you that SkyTran is worthy of skepticism given its immature state of development. This is not to say I don't find the project interesting, but I think UniModal has a long way to go in terms of both proof of concept and development, and such skepticism is both reliable and appropriate for the article. However, this differs from generic PRT criticism, which I believe is addressed well in the PRT article itself - a whole paragraph detailing Cottrell's critical review of the literature, which is probably even a little much for what was just a little known conference paper. There is no need to rehash those generic concerns in the SkyTran article when specific criticisms of SkyTran are much more substantial. ATren (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Fine and dandy. Hatchet still firmly underground. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

question about a user using his main page for a mock up article on Technocracy movement

Is that a good idea..? or should it be done that way? This user is making a site on his user page of a mock copy of what he says is a future article. Is this not confusing or would be for people stumbling on it from google or elsewhere ? I added the disclaimer on the top of the users mock up. Was that a good idea ? Should not this mock article be done in a sand box instead of a page that could.. until I put the disclaimer on it be misconstrued for a real wiki article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Firebladed/newtincdraft User:Firebladed/newtincdraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Please act and inform accordingly as to appropriateness and policy. I will mention this to a couple other people for feed back.

This is what I added at the top... This is not a real wikipedia article. It is a mock up or practice article. In no way should it be confused for an actual wikipedia article although this subject herein may google up as such. This disclaimer is made in case there is any confusion on this point. This editing project is an attempt to write a better sourced article elsewhere. It is a draft and no doubt contains multiple errors which are in the process of being worked out here in sandbox form. skip sievert (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks JzG for sorting that out. skip sievert (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

An ifd

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 May 8#Image:Virgin Killer.jpg. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't be seriously suggesting that we give in to a right-wing extremist Christian conservative group's moral panic. We didn't delete the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons or the Depictions of Muhammad despite mass e-mails and death threats from Muslims - so it's A-OK to offend them, but we can't tick off the "Moral Majority" wingnuts? Absurd. I don't disagree with you often, Guy, but the image is not child pornography by any objective legal standard and there is no reason to delete it. FCYTravis (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I also have to wonder if this isn't an attempt at retaliating for the fact that we purged most links to WorldNetDaily as an unreliable source. FCYTravis (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It is an image of what appears to eb a legal minor, and we should not keep such images for gratuitous purposes. Guy (Help!) 07:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't. But this isn't gratuitous. It's the primary album cover for an encyclopedic album by a major band. For God's sake, millions of these have been produced and distributed around the world. It's hardly as if we dug this out of some 30-year-old dusty archive. The same cover on the same album is available for sale today from Amazon.com FCYTravis (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I wouldn't call myself a "right-wing extremist Christian conservative", possibly the first description fits me but the other 3 do not, not that am I aware of. As I said elsewhere, we cannot compare ourselves, an educational charity manned by volunteers, with Amazon, a commercial organisation. While I realise it is the internet not ourselves who have republished this image I expect us to keep to the high standards of an educational charity. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi again, you know my block history really pisses me off, i find it really embarrassing that people can see it, particulary that civility one. Blocked for personal attacks and harrasement. Its so unfair, it doesnt represent what happened in a balanced light at all. It makes me sound like a monster. Is there a way of appealling to have things removed from your block history? Please reply at my talk page, cheers. ;-) Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok, shame, never mind, its up to me to prove that i am civil then i guess. Lol, how did i get myself into that mess, nevermind. ;-) Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Revert

I had to revert you here. Please see my edit summary for an explanation as to why. Thanks, Qst (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Post-chronicle removal

I can understand why you removed the Post-Chronicle links as being an unreliable source... but I think you should've replaced them with {{fact}} tags instead. That way other editors know what needs to have fresh sources found for them. Tabercil (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It's not as obvious as that, I think. Some of them were cites for widely-available information (e.g. death dates); a few for information that should not be there at all, and I removed, some were redundant with a second adjacent source, and some for material that is covered within sources cited elsewhere ion the paragraph. I'm sure that some would indeed need sourcing additional to the sources already there, but past experience indicates that taking out an unreliable source and tagging {{fact}} results in the unreliable source being put straight back. If you have a good way of fixing that, I'd e happy to hear it, but it's not easy to get rid of hundreds of links to unreliable sources without making it a full-time job. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
If you feel the sentence/paragraph is false, the proper way to go about this is to remove the entire statement. Removing the reference just leaves the statement uncited - which is against Wikipedia guidelines. The references are there to support the statement that precedes it. In short, you're leaving behind a huge mess for us editors to clean up. Someone will read the unreferenced statement, mark it as {{fact}}, force an editor to re-research for a reference.... See what I mean? Let the editor who is way more familiar with the subject matter decide if the reference is unreliable - not some bot-like editing like you're doing. Groink (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Very good, now go back and read what I wrote. Pay particular attention to the bit which discusses redundancy. Oh, and please don't give me "sourcing 101", I have been around the site for a little while now. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

ANI

I have posted the following at ANI: [6]. You've had some tangential involvement here. Please chime in if you think appropriate. David in DC (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Your input requested regarding reliable sources

Any insights you might offer to this discussion would be helpful and appreciated.  : ) --MPerel 03:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

On a repeated spammer

Hello,I recently reverted edits by 59.152.98.158. I have been tracking this anonymous user for a while,as he has made edits from another IP: 59.152.99.184. I have managed to trace this user to this user page: user:hatashe.I have also made a request to blacklist the link he keeps adding. Got any advice? - Amog |Talk 09:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That guy was getting on my nerves. Amog |Talk 13:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States Inclusionist (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

G'day Guy

I've been speaking to a few OTRS folk recently, and have thought about talking about this aspect of the project in a 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly podcast - which as you probably know is just a recorded conversation about wiki related stuff..... can I persuade you along at any time? - all it would take is your willingness, and preferably a skype account (although we could connect on a landline / mobile if that works better.....) - let me know your thoughts... cheers... Privatemusings (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Not really. I don't have time, and Skype is banned on my company's computers anyway. Cary Bass is a better bet for this. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Hi. You commented on a previous AfD debate on the article Hattrick. There is a new AfD here. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 05:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re marking my article an advertisement

Um I am a bit confused, this article has been through several iterations and has in the past been marked for speedy deletion. The result of this debate was that the article was to be kept. I now find it is under question again when I have been working on improving it. I don't really know what else I can do. Everything in the article is factual and can be supported by third parties. I have a great love of Architecture and if you read other pages relating to architecture firms they all read in a similar way. Please can you help me to make this better? I am a technical author of IT manuals and user guides so maybe it is my writing style that is the problem? I got Aedas to give permission to use the rendered images and release them to the world at large but they are in no way influencing what I wrote. I did originally copy for one of their brochures but have since changed it dramatically to what it is now. They are truly a global company and have recently opened offices in Ho Chi Min city and Kiev so I will be updating the page again in the next few days.

I am guessing from your personal page that you are working in Canary Wharf somewhere which is where I was working up until a few months ago for Barclays. Great views at all times of the year!

Deevincentday (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My edits

You are the second person to revert my edits, the Encyclopedia Dramatica article does exist now. So is there another reason or is it just a mistake? --I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Go away you ED-spamming worthless troll. I think that covers it. I LIVE IN A HAT tells us all we need to know - you are not here to benefit our project, you are here to promote yours. Not interested. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Mail

U have.--Filll (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Another nail in the coffin of the encycloapedia

We now have an "article" on the self-aggrandizing sophomoric shithole that is Encyclopedia Dramatica. Way to go. That really improves the encyclopaedia, just like the countless band vanity articles we get. Fact is, nobody who is not already a member of the ED community gives a toss about the worthless place, and their retaliation against our original deletion showed that deletion was unambiguously correct. The purpose of the article is solely tro validate their tawdry little website and persuade themselves that the hours they spend there are of more merit to humanity than hours spent masturbating. They are wrong. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, the thing does seem to have established noteability. I don't really care for it myself, but I can avoid it simply by not going there. Jtrainor (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Not really. It's as notable as Jason Fortuny's blog would have been, had that been the place he chose to post his crap. Which is not independently notable. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Except that apparently a number of proper sources have been found for it. There are plenty of things that have worse sourcing than that. Jtrainor (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
FSVO proper. Guy (Help!) 20:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the subject then. I tend to have a rather liberal view of noteability myself considering my interest in giant robots that don't have many english sources vOv Jtrainor (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure. If the robots start harassing people I will delete them, though :-) Guy (Help!) 10:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

harassment against you

look at the history of this page, there was an IP harassing you --Enric Naval (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know that the blog that the harasser was going to use to post your details has been closed down due to breach of terms of service --Enric Naval (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

protect expired, POV-pusher is back

Hi. You set up protection for Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program a month ago, for which I was grateful - the protection expired May 7th, and the sockpuppet IP editor who you put the sprotect up to block has returned, right on schedule. Could you re-institute the protection, please? Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (chat) 11:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Chaplain Extraordinary

When you created the stub Chaplain Extraordinary in 2006, you said that you intended to consult print sources. Could you come back and upgrade it some? It has been flagged as needing context, which flag I'd have to say I agree with. GRBerry 15:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Ah, I had completely forgotten about it (obviously). Will have a dig. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sprout Sharing Show deletion

Hi JzG...Might it be possible to recreate this article? If I remember correctly, though it was created by a banned user, I'd done a bit of work on it to bring it up to snuff--and it's linked through the PBS KIDS Sprout article as well. Granted, though it was created by a banned user, I don't think it needs to be wiped off the face of the earth. If you can't put back the article, might you be able to send me the text? I can cobble something together from it, at least. Thanks so much... Gladys J Cortez 18:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and just to say: THANK YOU eversomuch for banninating that odious user. Jamesinc14 honks me off to no end. I'm grateful. Gladys J Cortez 18:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
A subsegment of a segment? Good grief. The level of trivia that people want to write about is a source of constant amazement. Guy (Help!) 18:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL...yeah, I know. We write about what we know, ya know? I have a fairly small and trivial life at the moment, though I'm working on that...Gladys J Cortez 19:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please

[7] Thank you very much for your reply. Sorry, I was very busy off WP recently, and only today got to do some stuff here, after almost a month away. I would appreciate if you could, please, email me the content of the page, since I do not have a copy. You can just go to my user page and click "E-mail this user". It is always activated. Thank you very much. Dc76\talk 18:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • You got mail. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I did. Thank you very much. Cheers. Dc76\talk 18:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Your Opinion Please on SCO_Skunkware

I tagged SCO_Skunkware with the notability tag and proposed deletion of the article. The article's author (who is also the chief architect of SCO Skunkware) objected to the deletion and has bolstered the article with more references. I don't know what is the normal threshold for deletion, so I would like to get your thoughts on the notability of this subject and if it is worthy of an article, either as it is, or with further work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Nemo III (talk • contribs) 18:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Guy, but IMHO it's notable enough. It has a long history in the industry. SCO UNIX, before Caldera took over and tanked the company, was for a while a major UNIX industry player (more units shipped in the mid-90s than any other UNIX version, for example). This was the major free software source for SCO UNIX at the time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Is there ore vandalism these days, or is it just that it's easy to click the undo button so I can zap more of them in the same time? Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I think vandalism per article is about the same, but there are more articles. Good to see you around still :-) Guy (Help!) 21:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed.

This? Too bloody right. Extremely well said, and thank you for saying it. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting restoration or emailing of content of a deleted user subpage

User:Ssbohio/Justin Berry

You deleted this calling it a POV fork. Had you mentioned any POV concerns to me, or mentioned your intent to delete the page, I'd've resolved the situation without losing information and references. I'd like at least a fair opportunity to work on this content which was still in my userspace because it was not ready for integration into the article. Please restore the page to my userspace; Failing that, please email it to me. Thanks, SSBohio 19:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • You had not touched it since September 2007. We do not have userspace forks of WP:BLP articles hanging around, it's too much of a minefield. I will email it to you for storage on your own computer. This is against my better judgement, don't make me regret it please. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your assumption of good faith in this matter. Believe me, there's a reason I hadn't attempted to readd any of the unedited content from it into the article itself. Between the references and some portion of the text, I believe there are enough needles to justify keeping the haystack, though I regret that my disgust over the whole situation led to my prolonged absence from working on that draft. I hope you'll find your better judgment informed by my overall history as an editor and the deliberate way in which I tried to avoid attracting attention to that draft. I'm here to write an encyclopedia, not prolong the drama. --SSBohio 22:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I got the email. Thanks, Guy. I'd give you a kitten or a cookie or something, but I can never remember the appropriate gift for the Wikipedian who has everything.  :-) --SSBohio 20:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered/Battle of Jenin

Please would it please be possible to have a copy of the last version of "User:PalestineRemembered/Battle of Jenin". I'm not sure when I last edited it, but I don't think it was long ago. There are no BLP or FORK issues involved that I'm aware of. The deletion was on 21:16, 18 April 2008. I'm happy not to keep it as a UserPage if there's a problem, but I was never informed of one. PRtalk 15:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

revert request

JzG, is it possible for you to revert this article to your last version of 7 April 2008, since you were the last administrator involved. It appears your goal of a short, clear, concise article is being disrupted and subject to edit warring. [8] Colorwave (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom Case

I made a motion for you to be added to the C68-FM-SV case. Just informing you. Kwsn (Ni!) 22:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Demob (band)

I notice that you have deleted this article. I put a fair amount of effort into improving this article and am not sure why it was deleted. It has been the subject of vandalism and COI issues but that's no justification for deletion in my view. It doesn't seem to have gone through AfD, and nobody informed me it was about to be deleted despite the work I had done on it - I think this should be restored and be subjected to a discussion at the very least before deletion. I have no connection to the band and no interest in any legal disputes, but have been trying to improve coverage on second wave UK punk bands. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

a question was placed on my talk page about this, and I advised the user to take this to deletion review, since I see you haven't edited since the 18th. DGG (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Demob (band)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Demob (band). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Michig (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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 Noren because neither of you checked in during the GA debate (understandable after all you've been through, and 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 Noren 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) 02:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG/Archive_31"