Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 2

message: I cut the extra links to infinite energy, the wired article - what if cold fusion is real, cold fusion magazine, and the cbc program.
This list of links should remain NPOV and be closer to what mainstream science believes to be an encyclopedia article - rather than copious links to what if media coverage. The lenr link represents infinite energy and cold fusion times well (it is written by some of the same people). The included media link is in reference to bubble fusion which is also mentioned in the article. Let's refrain from linking to every person who thinks cold fusion would be cool, and keep the links more authoritative.
Trelvis 22:32, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
The links are there to provide balance [read as: NPOV]. Reinserted. JDR 03:36, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: cuts?

message: Request to sysop: Can you please add these notations to previous edits?
*3:50 added better descriptors
*2:54 typo correction
*2:53 added more accurate descriptor
*2:52 added more accurate descriptor
*2:49 differentiated between 1989 and 2004 D.O.E CF review
*2:48 removed biased descriptor
*2:47 use neutral label
*2:46 typo correction
*2:44 html correction
*2:42 Misc edits, Detailed current worldwide cold fusion research, first attempt to write more accurate descriptor of Park's book, added Beaudette's book, added Krivit/Winocur Report, corrected detail of DOE non-announcement
*2:30 Minor edit to Muon Catalyzed Fusion description
*2:20 Contributed cold fusion description from "The 2004 Cold Fusion Report"
:I'm a sysop, but I can't do this.  Is it ok just posted here?  What are you trying to accomplish?  moink 05:35, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, you can't add notes to edits after the fact - certainly plain old sysops can't. Just think of the edit wars that would ensure, with people changing the "reason" for an enemy's last edit to, say, "demonstrate misunderstanding of entire issue" or "sprinkle twisted POV throughout article"! DavidWBrooks 13:37, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Page summaries

message: I just reverted a bunch of edits to a version from yesterday, because the edits consisted of copying an article from another source, creating an ugly and possibly copyvio'd mess. DavidWBrooks 13:42, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: revert

message: David, thank you for the informative and considerate response. That certainly feels more welcoming. Your suggestion sounds good, though I'm a bit confused. You first note that it will need rewriting and rearranging (the requirements of which I am willing to learn) but then you say such formatting can be done later.  This seems contradictory, and I'm not sure how to start.  
I'm also curious as to who will be "rewriting"; Nadine and I, the group mind, or all?  It was rather a monumental effort to write the description in the first place.  One needs to know that the "cold fusion community" is in no way homogenous.  There are broad basic agreements as to the experimental observations, theory is "all over the map" at this point in time, and each scientist, headstrong as any of the rest of us, feels that his or her POV is correct.  The document I posted was reviewed for errors and any gross misunderstandings by nearly a dozen cf scientists, plus a secret hot fusion scientist who has been assisting to help us with language and terminology that will help it be "heard" by the hot fusion camp. What resulted was a compromise that was not the "perfect" description for all cf scientists, but it was acceptable enough to all.
Yes, good idea about the account, I had actually done so, but forgot to login before many of my previous posts. I believe that I have set a cookie to autologin now.
One thing I want to state up front: I have no interest in arguing online if people don't do their homework.  I will gladly engage in argument or defense regarding any of our work, which is meticulously referenced, or any other original sources. But arguments based on information from second sources is just a waste of time as most of them (both pro and con)are often skewed, inaccurate, and merely propogate the continued communication problem.  Does this seem acceptable and reasonable to the culture of Wiki?
I will be pleased to send a free copy of our Report to anyone who requests it, and I will be pleased to direct them to scores of original sources and documents on this subject matter should they wish it.
Steven
steven@newenergytimes.com
----
"A recent development (March 2004) is that the United States Department of Energy now will give this phenomenon a second look, based on new data. This news was released by James F. Decker, deputy director of the science office, and reported in the weekly publication New Scientist."
Thanks for this contribution User:165.155.128.121, do you have any supporting information on this?  The exact issue of New Scientist would help, or a link to the announcement from USDoE. --Mat-C 12:14, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: From Steven

message: :There are 250,000+ article on Wikipedia now, so any given article only receives attention from a small part of the community at any time. Having said that, I'm surprised nobody else has entered the discussion. Ah, well. 
: What I meant by my suggestion was that you rewrite your article into more encyclopediac (is that a word?) form and put it on the Cold fusion (temp) page. ("Formatting" can be done later - that is, adding wikipedia markups to make things bold, or to create internal links, and to follow accepted style. That's relatively trivial.) 
: Soon, I would imagine, there would be consensus (maybe just from you and me) to replace the existing article with your piece. Then, maybe nothing would happen, and it would join the general base of wikipedia articles - or maybe other people would suddenly notice and object, or raise questions, or rewrite portions to make them better, or to make them worse, or even to make them wrong. You might have to debate the issue with somebody who's very knowledgeable, or somebody who's completely ignorant. In the process you might be able to enlighten somebody who is deluded on the topic - or you might run into a closed-minded idiot who frays your patience, citing second-hand sources. If this doesn't sound like something that interests you, maybe (alas) wikipedia isn't for you, since throwing yourself open to all comers is part of the appeal, and part of the drawback. - DavidWBrooks 17:24, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: From David again

message: Would you have a picture or diagram to illustrate this article, e.g. of an electrolytic cell ?  This could bring the article to featured article status. (I have also inserted the request in Requested images) Pcarbonn 21:19, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture / diagram request 

message: I created stubs for these two guys. It seemed really stupid to have links to them in this article which just redirected to this article. I don't know much about them at all though so please feel free to flesh those out if you do. --Fastfission 02:18, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Stanley Pons]] / [[Martin Fleischmann]]