It looks like you were trying a German citation template over at Cold fusion. You seem to have figured it out, but in case it helps - the most common templates can be accessed by clicking the Cite button above the edit window, then selecting the desired template from the drop down box. The page describing the templates is at Wikipedia:Citation templates, and the category is Category:Citation templates. I assume de.wiki has similar, so it should be mostly familiar. Ping me at User talk:2over0 if I can help with anything. 2over0 public ( talk) 02:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The beast that is cold fusion tries to hide under the name of LENR or CANR or LANR or CMNS, but we know it is the beast. It cannot hide from us.
The beast tried to infiltrate our golden path of science in 1989, but we smashed the beast and cast him out.
The servants of the beast are still among us, they will take any chance to pervert our golden way once more.
The servants try to lure innocent souls into the claws of the beast with their foul lies.
But we know know their foul lies and the lies from the beast are not believed by most scientists.
Brethren, we must ever be prepared for the beast will not relent.
-- POVbrigand ( talk) 11:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (POVbrigand) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it may be seen as disruptive, or intending to show a disruptive intent. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account to use for editing. Thank you. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) ( talk) 21:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
-- POVbrigand ( talk) 21:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
This personal attack is not very civil [1]. Olorinish ( talk) 04:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Using bad language is also not very civil. [2] Olorinish ( talk) 03:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Claiming that other editors don't have common sense is also a personal attack. [3] Please don't that again. Olorinish ( talk) 01:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the Wikipedia guidance on "common sense" does not describe it as "middle of the road." It states, "Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons." and "you should be careful not to imply that other editors are lacking in common sense, which may be seen as uncivil." Olorinish ( talk) 23:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Here is another personal attack [4]. In the future, please direct your comments at comments and content and actions rather than people. Olorinish ( talk) 03:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I have requested guidance on how to respond to your behavior [5]. Olorinish ( talk) 03:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:POVbrigand_reported_by_User:AndyTheGrump_.28Result:_.29 AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Greetings , thanks for removing my citation on Cold Fusion with a reference to PESN saying it is not RS. Please help me understand which sources are RS and which are not. For example, in this google search I have found 155,000 alternative references to Bushnell citing Widom-Larsen as the energy behind eCat. Which if any of these would you say is a "RS"? Thanks.
I'm giving up on the eCat wiki. Good luck, if you go on with it. Alanf777 ( talk) 19:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Now hosts: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/LENR_at_GRC_2011.pdf Is the GRC considered a "reliable source"? 62.30.137.128 ( talk) 14:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Here's a link that should be considered superior (there has been some prejudice against lenr-canr links), partly because it isn't a preprint: http://www.springerlink.com/content/9522x473v80352w9/fulltext.pdf The publication info is: Naturwissenschaften, 2010, Volume 97, Number 10, Pages 861-881. I'll copy this to the CF Talk page to see what the other editors think about it. V ( talk) 06:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you might be interested in reading my recent comment on my talk page User talk:DVdm#list of cold fusion researchers. As others have told you, be careful. Good luck. - DVdm ( talk) 08:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering,
If I look at the notability guidelines I would say the Pons and Fleischmann event should be deserving of it's own article. Pretending this content will one day seamlessly blend in with cold fusion and low energy nuclear reactions is not realistic. It wont do any of those topics justice. The issue is trying to document a historic event on the same page as current developments.
This while we obviously want a static representation of the historic event. Nothing that happened in 1989 is changing, the article shouldn't have to change either. Doing so would create a different picture.
The biggest problem the " cold fusion" article has is that it claims to cover LENR. It's been repeated often enough, any attempt to cover LENR in the same article will make cold fusion look more credible. The opposite should be true also, any attempt to cover the Pons and Fleischmann press release drama in the LENR article would make LENR look less credible. While this might be deserving it isn't neutral.
Should we perhaps try write the LENR article in stead of just our dull list? 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 14:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I just found this: [7] And this: [8] And this: [9]
The plot thickens :D
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 15:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
hi,
It might seem a bit odd, for the Patterson Cell the Television coverage is the note worthy media coverage. This is why the article exists. Prominent scientists reported they replicated the cell on Television. Without this there is no reason to have an article. No one would have known about about it if that didn't happen. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 15:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Your large list of researchers seems to be a potential BLP issue. I have brought a discussion to the BLP noticeboard. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Cold_Fusion_BLP_issues. IRWolfie- ( talk) 20:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I am not able to assess the possibility of "success" of this attempt. To me it seems frivoulous at best, but wikihounding, tag-team, harrassment, griefing, gaming etc are things that I have looked into. Kindly review and let me know how I should react. I am currently trusting the Noticeboard to "rightly assess" the situation. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 09:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
no BLP issue - nobody responded to the claim -- POVbrigand ( talk) 13:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
About this: [12]
I found D. Gozzi here initially: [13]
I thought the paper was a better ref.
I was thinking we should continue to use User_talk:POVbrigand/list to discuss the article. That way when it gets deleted the content isn't all over the wiki. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 15:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Good work guys. Keep it up. Well done. Lovely reading. I'll bookmark and come back often. And thanks for the support in the jungles of www.wikipedia.com/Energy Catalyzer. Whew! there are some big demons there for sure!
Love and peace, and a Merry Happy Christmas with your loved ones.
Solmil ( talk) 01:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Energy Catalyzer. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet ( talk) 14:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi I just had a quick look at the Cold Fusion article and gave it a good appreciation. :-) However, I checked out the controversy and then, as I had not noticed the part about NASA, checked for it. But I cannot find it... I thought that it was reinserted with general agreement?? If it doesn't happen I must correct my positive appreciation, and that would be a pity! Harald88 ( talk) 18:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. IRWolfie- ( talk) 09:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
You are not an English native, so you might not have noticed that this should be "Response to arbitration case", not arbitrary. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 23:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Please stop speculating what other wikipedians will say or do. [19] If we want to know what they say we can ask them. Even if it is 100% predictable it is still their decision.
How to put it... you will probably thank me later?
ha-ha
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 06:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
As a result of the recent AE thread, this is to remind you that Wikipedia is not a battleground, and that you should maintain an appropriate level of decorum in your conduct here—especially on controversial articles. Continuing to unnecessarily comment on editors and their motives rahter than the substance of a dispute may well lead to a topic ban should you be brought to AE again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
[21] ;-) AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Brigand! I cordially approved of your suggestion, made at the "policy" page of the Village pump earlier this month. You'll no doubt recall that another editor closed the discussion by "hatting" it there, however ( permalink). But I wanted to let you know that I've modified ( permalink) that "close/hatting" a bit; have copied the thread to a more appropriate sub-page at the Village Pump; have re-opened it there and, per wp:rtp, have removed some of the off-topic commentary it included.
Here's a link/ permalink to the discussion at its new location. I thought you might like to follow it there, and perhaps contribute additional comments in response to any remarks by other editors that may be posted to the thread. As you probably know, the process would be to kick the idea around with other interested editors at the Village Pump's "ideas" page, where it is now, and then move a more completely specified actual proposal to the VP's "proposals" page if there seems to be sufficient interest in doing so.
I very much doubt you'll see additional participation from a particular editor whose comments in the original version of the thread were objectionable to you, btw. But if that editor does show up, I'd take it as a particular favor if you'd simply not respond. I assure you I know how difficult that can be when one feels wikistalked or baited, but I'm strongly of the opinion that doing so in that case would just derail discussion of a really good suggestion that I'd like to see make it to implementation. If such behavior remains an ongoing problem, I'd suggest your best course would be to post a single, very polite request to desist, on his talk page. If that doesn't do it, then a calmly-worded post to AN/I would certainly be in order. Most cordially, – OhioStandard ( talk) 22:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Breakthrough in free energy: the B-Cat ;-) [22] AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello POVbrigand. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi Brigand, I saw your actions on this article and think the unfair Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masreliez’s theorem deletion concensus is the reason for C. J. Masreliez' low notability. The afr was initiated and "executed" by the same VansishedUser314159. I am not so versed in wp dispute resolutions as to have the issue questioned and changed. But that must be possible, or? / 77.219.195.79 ( talk) 21:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I see you say this has now been published in a journal. I can't seem to track it down with Google scholar. Do you have a title and/or link? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Re Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Ugo_Bardi.27s_blog_as_.22mainstream_science.22.3F. I suggest you reply promptly. Put up, or shut up. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I notice you appear to be involved in discussions outside the area of cold fusion. Can you please highlight the nature of your disclosure to ArbCom on your other account. I am considering asking for clarification at ArbCom on this. IRWolfie- ( talk) 17:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm here following a request on my talk page. POVbrigand is a Wikipedia:Clean start account not, strictly, an alternate account. The older account was disclosed to ArbCom last year. There's no time overlap (ie the older account was abandoned several weeks before POVbrigand started editing); there are no overlapping article edits; and the previous account's block log is clean. Roger Davies talk 17:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
See this. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 14:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
(Continued from User_talk:Roger_Davies#POVbrigand)
To be honest, the problem was that you were not particularly forthcoming about your old account - which raised suspicions through the roof - then someone speculated as to what that previous account was - and you didn't actually deny it. You should have more clearly and promptly explained:
The majority of people who use clean-start are (as the name implies) attempting to be reformed characters following some kind of wiki-punishment. Clean-start does not make guarantees that your original account wouldn't be detectable. This is especially true when you misbehave to a sufficient degree to cause admins to get involved (as you undoubtedly did in this case). Under such circumstances, it is 100% guaranteed that the existence of a prior account will raise monumental concerns amongst the admins. A further concern is that (in general) people are deeply suspicious of single-purpose accounts - mostly because they are very often created by someone who wants to anonymize themselves so that they can edit from a controversial POV despite harboring an unstated conflict of interest. Your choice of user name definitely doesn't help that! This is undoubtedly the root cause of suspicions against you here...Wikipedia is so much a matter of trust and credibility. Using a clean-start, single purpose account with a contentious name - then diving into some of the most contentious material on the website - is without doubt going to raise gigantic red flags about your motives...and that's what happened here.
As to your clean start: IMHO, there is no huge problem with having yourself be directly identifiable with other online accounts. As you know, I have always edited under my own name, with my own email and web site addresses clearly posted on my user page. People can easily figure out my phone number and street address from that - and thus far, that's never been a problem for me. I do get the occasional phone call, text message or personal email from fellow Wikipedians and they are always interesting and worthwhile. I did once get a very weird letter in the mail from a recently banned user - but I was able to laugh and subsequently ignore it. Point being that if you act honestly and fairly, and don't hide WP:COI issues - stay away from topics where you have a personal axe to grind - then why would you want Wikipedians to have less access to your personal data than you grant the whole of the rest of the Internet?
So I don't know.
I think it should be possible to appeal the decision to demand your previous account information in order to leave the way clear for you to subsequently appeal the topic ban...you could do that on the grounds that this would be (in a sense) a WP:OUTING of your personal identity. If that appeal succeeded then the way would be open to appeal the topic ban itself. I'd support your right to appeal the demand for previous account info (although I'm not sure I'd grant it) - but I think the actual topic ban is probably justified. Perhaps you'd be better off staying away from Cold Fusion/Fringe topics - you are clearly not dispassionate about them - and if I'm honest, I do suspect that you have a WP:COI that you seek to conceal here (why else would you splatter your personal information all over the Internet - yet seek to conceal it from editors of cold-fusion/fringe topics on Wikipedia).
SteveBaker ( talk) 14:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I've copied these comments across to my talk page (I hate split discussions) and added some comments there about possible ways forward. Roger Davies talk 18:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This edit to Martin Fleischmann violates the result of an Arbitration Enforcement case against you, in which you were "indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions related to cold fusion or fringe sciences ... " . I suggest that you self-revert. Cardamon ( talk) 07:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I have filed an arbitration enforcement request that concerns you. It is at: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#POVbrigand. Cardamon ( talk) 23:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
This is to notify you that your arbitration enforcement action appeal to WP:AE has been closed as unsuccessful. Sandstein 07:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
It looks like you were trying a German citation template over at Cold fusion. You seem to have figured it out, but in case it helps - the most common templates can be accessed by clicking the Cite button above the edit window, then selecting the desired template from the drop down box. The page describing the templates is at Wikipedia:Citation templates, and the category is Category:Citation templates. I assume de.wiki has similar, so it should be mostly familiar. Ping me at User talk:2over0 if I can help with anything. 2over0 public ( talk) 02:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The beast that is cold fusion tries to hide under the name of LENR or CANR or LANR or CMNS, but we know it is the beast. It cannot hide from us.
The beast tried to infiltrate our golden path of science in 1989, but we smashed the beast and cast him out.
The servants of the beast are still among us, they will take any chance to pervert our golden way once more.
The servants try to lure innocent souls into the claws of the beast with their foul lies.
But we know know their foul lies and the lies from the beast are not believed by most scientists.
Brethren, we must ever be prepared for the beast will not relent.
-- POVbrigand ( talk) 11:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (POVbrigand) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it may be seen as disruptive, or intending to show a disruptive intent. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account to use for editing. Thank you. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) ( talk) 21:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
-- POVbrigand ( talk) 21:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
This personal attack is not very civil [1]. Olorinish ( talk) 04:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Using bad language is also not very civil. [2] Olorinish ( talk) 03:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Claiming that other editors don't have common sense is also a personal attack. [3] Please don't that again. Olorinish ( talk) 01:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the Wikipedia guidance on "common sense" does not describe it as "middle of the road." It states, "Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons." and "you should be careful not to imply that other editors are lacking in common sense, which may be seen as uncivil." Olorinish ( talk) 23:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Here is another personal attack [4]. In the future, please direct your comments at comments and content and actions rather than people. Olorinish ( talk) 03:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I have requested guidance on how to respond to your behavior [5]. Olorinish ( talk) 03:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:POVbrigand_reported_by_User:AndyTheGrump_.28Result:_.29 AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Greetings , thanks for removing my citation on Cold Fusion with a reference to PESN saying it is not RS. Please help me understand which sources are RS and which are not. For example, in this google search I have found 155,000 alternative references to Bushnell citing Widom-Larsen as the energy behind eCat. Which if any of these would you say is a "RS"? Thanks.
I'm giving up on the eCat wiki. Good luck, if you go on with it. Alanf777 ( talk) 19:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Now hosts: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/LENR_at_GRC_2011.pdf Is the GRC considered a "reliable source"? 62.30.137.128 ( talk) 14:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Here's a link that should be considered superior (there has been some prejudice against lenr-canr links), partly because it isn't a preprint: http://www.springerlink.com/content/9522x473v80352w9/fulltext.pdf The publication info is: Naturwissenschaften, 2010, Volume 97, Number 10, Pages 861-881. I'll copy this to the CF Talk page to see what the other editors think about it. V ( talk) 06:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you might be interested in reading my recent comment on my talk page User talk:DVdm#list of cold fusion researchers. As others have told you, be careful. Good luck. - DVdm ( talk) 08:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering,
If I look at the notability guidelines I would say the Pons and Fleischmann event should be deserving of it's own article. Pretending this content will one day seamlessly blend in with cold fusion and low energy nuclear reactions is not realistic. It wont do any of those topics justice. The issue is trying to document a historic event on the same page as current developments.
This while we obviously want a static representation of the historic event. Nothing that happened in 1989 is changing, the article shouldn't have to change either. Doing so would create a different picture.
The biggest problem the " cold fusion" article has is that it claims to cover LENR. It's been repeated often enough, any attempt to cover LENR in the same article will make cold fusion look more credible. The opposite should be true also, any attempt to cover the Pons and Fleischmann press release drama in the LENR article would make LENR look less credible. While this might be deserving it isn't neutral.
Should we perhaps try write the LENR article in stead of just our dull list? 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 14:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I just found this: [7] And this: [8] And this: [9]
The plot thickens :D
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 15:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
hi,
It might seem a bit odd, for the Patterson Cell the Television coverage is the note worthy media coverage. This is why the article exists. Prominent scientists reported they replicated the cell on Television. Without this there is no reason to have an article. No one would have known about about it if that didn't happen. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 15:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Your large list of researchers seems to be a potential BLP issue. I have brought a discussion to the BLP noticeboard. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Cold_Fusion_BLP_issues. IRWolfie- ( talk) 20:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I am not able to assess the possibility of "success" of this attempt. To me it seems frivoulous at best, but wikihounding, tag-team, harrassment, griefing, gaming etc are things that I have looked into. Kindly review and let me know how I should react. I am currently trusting the Noticeboard to "rightly assess" the situation. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 09:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
no BLP issue - nobody responded to the claim -- POVbrigand ( talk) 13:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
About this: [12]
I found D. Gozzi here initially: [13]
I thought the paper was a better ref.
I was thinking we should continue to use User_talk:POVbrigand/list to discuss the article. That way when it gets deleted the content isn't all over the wiki. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 15:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Good work guys. Keep it up. Well done. Lovely reading. I'll bookmark and come back often. And thanks for the support in the jungles of www.wikipedia.com/Energy Catalyzer. Whew! there are some big demons there for sure!
Love and peace, and a Merry Happy Christmas with your loved ones.
Solmil ( talk) 01:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Energy Catalyzer. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet ( talk) 14:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi I just had a quick look at the Cold Fusion article and gave it a good appreciation. :-) However, I checked out the controversy and then, as I had not noticed the part about NASA, checked for it. But I cannot find it... I thought that it was reinserted with general agreement?? If it doesn't happen I must correct my positive appreciation, and that would be a pity! Harald88 ( talk) 18:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. IRWolfie- ( talk) 09:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
You are not an English native, so you might not have noticed that this should be "Response to arbitration case", not arbitrary. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 23:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Please stop speculating what other wikipedians will say or do. [19] If we want to know what they say we can ask them. Even if it is 100% predictable it is still their decision.
How to put it... you will probably thank me later?
ha-ha
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 06:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
As a result of the recent AE thread, this is to remind you that Wikipedia is not a battleground, and that you should maintain an appropriate level of decorum in your conduct here—especially on controversial articles. Continuing to unnecessarily comment on editors and their motives rahter than the substance of a dispute may well lead to a topic ban should you be brought to AE again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
[21] ;-) AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Brigand! I cordially approved of your suggestion, made at the "policy" page of the Village pump earlier this month. You'll no doubt recall that another editor closed the discussion by "hatting" it there, however ( permalink). But I wanted to let you know that I've modified ( permalink) that "close/hatting" a bit; have copied the thread to a more appropriate sub-page at the Village Pump; have re-opened it there and, per wp:rtp, have removed some of the off-topic commentary it included.
Here's a link/ permalink to the discussion at its new location. I thought you might like to follow it there, and perhaps contribute additional comments in response to any remarks by other editors that may be posted to the thread. As you probably know, the process would be to kick the idea around with other interested editors at the Village Pump's "ideas" page, where it is now, and then move a more completely specified actual proposal to the VP's "proposals" page if there seems to be sufficient interest in doing so.
I very much doubt you'll see additional participation from a particular editor whose comments in the original version of the thread were objectionable to you, btw. But if that editor does show up, I'd take it as a particular favor if you'd simply not respond. I assure you I know how difficult that can be when one feels wikistalked or baited, but I'm strongly of the opinion that doing so in that case would just derail discussion of a really good suggestion that I'd like to see make it to implementation. If such behavior remains an ongoing problem, I'd suggest your best course would be to post a single, very polite request to desist, on his talk page. If that doesn't do it, then a calmly-worded post to AN/I would certainly be in order. Most cordially, – OhioStandard ( talk) 22:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Breakthrough in free energy: the B-Cat ;-) [22] AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello POVbrigand. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi Brigand, I saw your actions on this article and think the unfair Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masreliez’s theorem deletion concensus is the reason for C. J. Masreliez' low notability. The afr was initiated and "executed" by the same VansishedUser314159. I am not so versed in wp dispute resolutions as to have the issue questioned and changed. But that must be possible, or? / 77.219.195.79 ( talk) 21:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I see you say this has now been published in a journal. I can't seem to track it down with Google scholar. Do you have a title and/or link? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Re Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Ugo_Bardi.27s_blog_as_.22mainstream_science.22.3F. I suggest you reply promptly. Put up, or shut up. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I notice you appear to be involved in discussions outside the area of cold fusion. Can you please highlight the nature of your disclosure to ArbCom on your other account. I am considering asking for clarification at ArbCom on this. IRWolfie- ( talk) 17:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm here following a request on my talk page. POVbrigand is a Wikipedia:Clean start account not, strictly, an alternate account. The older account was disclosed to ArbCom last year. There's no time overlap (ie the older account was abandoned several weeks before POVbrigand started editing); there are no overlapping article edits; and the previous account's block log is clean. Roger Davies talk 17:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
See this. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 14:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
(Continued from User_talk:Roger_Davies#POVbrigand)
To be honest, the problem was that you were not particularly forthcoming about your old account - which raised suspicions through the roof - then someone speculated as to what that previous account was - and you didn't actually deny it. You should have more clearly and promptly explained:
The majority of people who use clean-start are (as the name implies) attempting to be reformed characters following some kind of wiki-punishment. Clean-start does not make guarantees that your original account wouldn't be detectable. This is especially true when you misbehave to a sufficient degree to cause admins to get involved (as you undoubtedly did in this case). Under such circumstances, it is 100% guaranteed that the existence of a prior account will raise monumental concerns amongst the admins. A further concern is that (in general) people are deeply suspicious of single-purpose accounts - mostly because they are very often created by someone who wants to anonymize themselves so that they can edit from a controversial POV despite harboring an unstated conflict of interest. Your choice of user name definitely doesn't help that! This is undoubtedly the root cause of suspicions against you here...Wikipedia is so much a matter of trust and credibility. Using a clean-start, single purpose account with a contentious name - then diving into some of the most contentious material on the website - is without doubt going to raise gigantic red flags about your motives...and that's what happened here.
As to your clean start: IMHO, there is no huge problem with having yourself be directly identifiable with other online accounts. As you know, I have always edited under my own name, with my own email and web site addresses clearly posted on my user page. People can easily figure out my phone number and street address from that - and thus far, that's never been a problem for me. I do get the occasional phone call, text message or personal email from fellow Wikipedians and they are always interesting and worthwhile. I did once get a very weird letter in the mail from a recently banned user - but I was able to laugh and subsequently ignore it. Point being that if you act honestly and fairly, and don't hide WP:COI issues - stay away from topics where you have a personal axe to grind - then why would you want Wikipedians to have less access to your personal data than you grant the whole of the rest of the Internet?
So I don't know.
I think it should be possible to appeal the decision to demand your previous account information in order to leave the way clear for you to subsequently appeal the topic ban...you could do that on the grounds that this would be (in a sense) a WP:OUTING of your personal identity. If that appeal succeeded then the way would be open to appeal the topic ban itself. I'd support your right to appeal the demand for previous account info (although I'm not sure I'd grant it) - but I think the actual topic ban is probably justified. Perhaps you'd be better off staying away from Cold Fusion/Fringe topics - you are clearly not dispassionate about them - and if I'm honest, I do suspect that you have a WP:COI that you seek to conceal here (why else would you splatter your personal information all over the Internet - yet seek to conceal it from editors of cold-fusion/fringe topics on Wikipedia).
SteveBaker ( talk) 14:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I've copied these comments across to my talk page (I hate split discussions) and added some comments there about possible ways forward. Roger Davies talk 18:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This edit to Martin Fleischmann violates the result of an Arbitration Enforcement case against you, in which you were "indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions related to cold fusion or fringe sciences ... " . I suggest that you self-revert. Cardamon ( talk) 07:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I have filed an arbitration enforcement request that concerns you. It is at: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#POVbrigand. Cardamon ( talk) 23:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
This is to notify you that your arbitration enforcement action appeal to WP:AE has been closed as unsuccessful. Sandstein 07:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)