User talk:Gregory Goble

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add personal opinions to articles, like you did here. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solicit views[edit]

P>S> Any suggestions before I move forward with this? Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wiki Forum may value?--Gregory Goble (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you will get useful answers. --POVbrigand (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)--Gregory Goble (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

Thank you--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

poll[edit]

Hello, Gregory Goble. You have new messages at Greg L's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Gregory Goble! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! GFHandel ♬  05:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

And please read Wikipedia:Indentation. As a general rule, don't change previous comments (and that includes your own edits as much as other editor's comments). Instead, indent accordingly and add comments in a coherent fashion following previous comments. GFHandel ♬  05:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you edit your user page (User:Gregory Goble) you don't need to add a signature (i.e. you don't need to add ~~~~). Your User Page is a page where you can write (just about) any old thing about yourself. For example, you can describe yourself, your philosophy, your aim at WP, your personal interests, etc. Every page at WP comprises two parts: the page itself and an associated talk page. This message is going on the talk page associated with your User page. It is on talk pages that you must put a signature at the end of your posts. GFHandel ♬  06:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have a close interest in cold fusion. I'd suggest paying close attention to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, WP:SCIRS and WP:FRINGE, cheers. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edit "Cold Fusion" Nine Refefences to Pathological Science Should Be Moved to Historical Footnotes[edit]

The Cold Fusion article links create a reverse relevance problem. The links progression should go forward in time from Cold Fusion to the present state of affairs for this subject. LENR and the Widom Larson Theory, and works known as Condensed Matter Nuclear reflect a deeper contemporary understanding of these phenomenon. The NASA patent for a device based on LENR Science provides a clear pointer that Wiki links should progress forward on this subject. Cold Fusion was a historical birth of this initially misunderstood science. The links should progress forward into the Science of LENR. For this to be allowed by Wiki the Wiki Forum needs to: 1)Recognize it as a Science. 2)Recognize quality Peer Review Journals used by department heads of universities and researchers in this field.

My hope is to improve the article Cold Fusion.

Therefore over the next few weeks I will solicit views of the deans of physics departments of universities.

LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear

1) Is this science or quackery? 

2) Do you offer a class in this discipline? If so, please provide information.

3) Are you developing a curriculum of this science? If so, when will you offer it? 4) What peer review journals do you source in this field?

P>S>

A) Any suggestions before I move forward with this?

B) Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wiki Forum may value?--Gregory Goble (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

A bit of input from a few editors has helped me in this endeavor. To date, here are my (perhaps final) edits to the questions and a bit of the input.

input> As to your “B” question, above, yes; I should think your poll would be valuable… if you received a response. I should think that you would also need to validate the authenticity of your response by having it vetted by one of our ‘crats. Some will argue that the results of your poll are Original Research but I don’t think that would be a genuine shortcoming. By definition, O.R. is …facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. The deans of science and engineering departments are reliable; the only trick is in establishing that their conclusions are somehow published, and it shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how to accomplish that. The whole point of OR is to ensure that the point is being made by a reliable expert and is not the work product of a mere wikipedian. <end input

I hope for a high percentage of responses and am basing that on an assumption that most directors of physics departments are following this closely. The published Widom Larson Theory has elevated the theoretical science of LENR such that it should be on their radar.--Gregory Goble (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

input> As to your “A” question, I would suggest calling the secretaries for the department heads to solicit who exactly you should direct your emails to. Also, I suggest the following tweaks to the wording of your poll:

1) Is the discipline of cold fusion, in your opinion, generally regarded as having a “pathological science” nature to it?

2) Does your university offer cold fusion as a for-credit class? 3) Are you developing a curriculum focused on cold fusion? If so, when will you offer it? 4) What respected, peer review journals do you source in this field?

other input>While surveying department heads is an interesting exercise, since Wikipedia discourages original research [34], it is very possible that the results will not be very useful for improving the article, unless you publish the results somewhere, preferably in a reputable publication. Good luck! Olorinish (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC) <end input

other input> > LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear, historically misnamed "Cold Fusion" 

> > 1) Is this science or pathological science?---

People will be confused because pathological science is also science. It would be clearer to ask "Is this good science or pathological science?"

> 2) Do you offer a class in this discipline? If so, please provide information.--- > 3) Are you developing a curriculum of this science? If so, when will you offer it?--- They look like good questions.

> 4) What peer review journals do you source in this field?--- I don't understand this last question. Instead of "do you source" it should be "do you see as good sources"? And there are also books, consider "What books or peer reviewed journals do you see as good sources for this field?"

> > Enric, > P>S> > 1) Any suggestions before I move forward with this? > 2) Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wikipedia forum on Cold Fusion may value?

The people on the Vortex-l mailing list will be very happy of seeing the results of this query. But, in wikipedia, the articles are based on published sources. The result of this query ought to be published on some source that we could quote.<end input

Thank you for your good suggestions. Implimenting elements of them will improve the correspondence. This is not research. I am not going to compile results or do an analysis. It's copies of individual correspondence that I will post, Someone sends a letter to me and I post it with contact info for your verification. A list of classes offered would be considered published. I will make sure to include a link to the published catalog the class is found in. --Gregory Goble (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Asking for an "opinion" is not research. Looking for classes offered or curriculum being developed is not original research; it's called investigative reporting. Compiling correspondence for posting is allowed, I hope. I imagine the Directors of Departments of Physics of Universities have done their research and have informed opinions on this subject. I will post their correspondence, positive or negative. I am sure I will be better informed on this subject after this query, quote "interesting exersise". Do you consider it "interesting" enough to see copies of my correspondence? With further effort you could verify each to see if I've been honest? >>> "Wikipedia discourages original research [35], it is very possible that the results will not be very useful for improving the article."<<< I'll keep this in mind though. Thanks! --Gregory Goble (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. After consideration I have edited accordingly...

1) Is the discipline of LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear or Lattice Enabled Nuclear, aka historically inaccurately called "Cold Fusion", in your opinion: A) Good science, or B) Pathological science? A or B

If A... Continue...

2) Does your university offer instruction in this field as a for-credit class? As a not for credit class? If so. please provide class information.

3) Are you developing a curriculum focused on this discipline? If so, when will you offer it?

4) What peer review journals do you utilize or source in this field (for publication or review) and what books do you recommend for information?

I steer away from "cold fusion". This subject and article has a Wiki links reverse relevance problem. Cold fusion should link forward to LENR and the Widom Larson Theory which represents the "Current State of Affairs" for this subject.

I steer away from eliciting responses that are second person speculative such as " in your opinion, generally regarded" or " What respected, peer review journals do you source ". I want to know if the respondee thinks it's good science or not. I want to know what journals they utilize (for publication or review) and what books they have found to have pertinent information. I assume that their opinion (respondee) is the only one they are qualified to give. I also assume that they respect the publication if they list it as part of their "reading material" on LENR. Both assumptions seem sound to me.--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i answer your question on my talk page.[edit]

Thanks, Just read the cold fusion section on your talk page. Made me a bit perturbed. Then I realized you had learned to accept Wiki dysfunction and your reflections on the impotant thing is that research in the labs and science still goes on, progress is being made. I remember my great Aunt, who till her death in the 90's would still argue that they had faked going to the moon. She would have loved to be a Wiki Editor on that subject. Luckily there are better encyclopedias than Wikipedia. Sadly Wikipedia is slowly making them go broke. Be well, be good, and thanks for the useful suggestions. I'll carry this torch for awhile and pass it on when weary.--Gregory Goble (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions regarding editing at Wikipedia[edit]

The following are points that I believe will help you to have a better long-term future editing at WP. (These are based on quite a bit of personal experience.)

  • Don't make the mistake of thinking that articles are in a finished state. It's easy to be critical, but be mindful that the current state of an article has probably taken thousands of edits by hundreds of editors over many years, so please tread gently when you first approach an article. Have a thorough read of an article's talk page history to discover sensitive issues. If new to an article, consider asking (instead of, or prior to, telling).
  • Understand primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. In summary, your editing should be based overwhelmingly on reliable secondary sources.
  • Understand that WP must have policies and guidelines (and that sometimes those won't support what you want to do). Sorry, but just because you know something to be correct, doesn't mean that it can end up on WP.
  • If you disagree with a policy or guideline, don't argue the point on an article's talk page. Instead, argue the point on the policy talk page. You will get zero traction by trying to change policy on an article's talk page.
  • The goal of WP is verifiability, not truth. How closely fact and truth coincide over a long enough period of time is an interesting philosophical debate.
  • It's not your Wikipedia—it's everyone's. Never lose site of the fact that editors are here to service the readers of WP. For every editor there are thousands of readers.
  • Develop a thick skin and don't bite back. WP is a collaborative environment, and like it or not, you will rub shoulders with a diverse range of editors. It's inevitable that you will get into conflicting situations, so the short version of this one: don't edit angry. Problems don't have to be solved immediately, and things always seem better the next day. If you continue to have issues with other editors, seek help from an admin (as opposed to trying to solve problems yourself). Realise that some battles you will win, and some you will lose.
  • Respect the fact that WP is the work of unpaid volunteers. You should try to encourage others at WP. Always being civil is a great start towards that. In a debate, stick to the topic, and under no circumstances personalize a debate.
  • Tread gently at the start. Your username and its reputation are valuable to you at WP. The greatest chance you have of putting a large dent in the reputation of your username is when you first start editing at WP. It would be a shame if you had to look back in the years to come (when you've settled into editing at WP), and have to cringe at your earlier efforts at editing. Also remember that everything is forever at WP, so your editing history, comments, blocks, and other logs will always be available for everyone to scrutinize. That said, WP is very tolerant towards editors who show a desire to reinvent themselves (e.g. after a rocky start).
  • Never stop learning. There are a large number of policies and guidelines at WP, and they are constantly evolving. Your success and development at WP will hinge on how well you keep in touch with the policies and guidelines.
  • Work hard to learn the syntax and codes used at WP. Being able to indent and sign on a talk page is just the first step, but do you know how to: upload and add a picture to an article, use a quotebox, insert a reference, format a web reference, insert a non-breaking space, use the various types of dashes, format text (color, bold, italics, etc.), use templates and categories, use info-boxes, insert a diff on a talk page (of a previous edit), link to other articles, create section headings at various levels, use diacriticals, redirect pages, etc., etc., etc.? This is all rhetorical because you are new to WP, but you will greatly enhance your editing experience when you are comfortable with the syntax and codes. Yes, it can take years.
  • If in a rut, consider reinventing yourself. There are a large number of areas at WP, and it's possible that you might enjoy doing something different. You can add content, but you can also: program (scripts and bots), do corrective work (e.g. fixing the use of templates and categories), move into "management" (admin, clerk, arbitrator), become an uploader of photos, help at WP:FAC and/or WP:GAC, join a project, and heaps more. Also, perhaps you are too close to the trees by editing in one particular topic area at WP? Can you switch to editing somewhere else (e.g. about a hobby)? It might be too draining to work all day in one field (in the real world) and then edit in the same field when away from work (on WP). Consider taking a Wikibreak from time to time.

Of course, as any experienced editor will tell you, the guidelines of Be Bold and Ignore All Rules provide limited push-back on some of the above points. You have to find a balance that keeps you wanting to contribute to WP.
Anyhow, I hope that some of the above helps. If there is anything with which I can help, please don't hesitate to ask.
GFHandel ♬  21:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... this is rich material you present and I value the fact that if I can squeeze it into this little brain of mine I may be richer for the experiance. The editors who contributed to Cold Fusion have done a good job in that they are correct "Cold Fusion" does not take place.... theoretically... or in nature. The science, theory, experimental phenomenon, and observation of LENR belongs in another article... It's a different puppy. To do this 1) Wiki needs view it(where it is of course)as good science when performed following strict scientific method. 2) Recognize papers submitted from secondary (separate institutions) duplicating another scientists experiment and observational data, presented in scientific journals and at conferences by scientists in the disipline of LENR. If Wiki cannot arrive at that minimum acknowledgement of the current state of affairs... That here are scientists in the field of LENR, doing good science presented in peer review journals allowing secondary sources to experiment, verify or not, and publish. Is this a policy problem? If so who do I talk to.... I certainly am not spinning my wheels here... traction is often in the timing, and the time seems right. As I said we have an amazing opportunity here. The fact is cold fusion does not work. Anyone care to add to this or give me some insight?--Gregory Goble

Indentation 101[edit]

Kindergarten for me.

How do you do that indent thing by the way? Went to the the Indent Guidelines sent to me. Still clueless. I asked that a number of times till a bunch of us got worried. (I believe I was worried the most) Finally I caught on. This is how it went...

"How do you do that indent thing by the way"? Now I'm starting to get a bit worried. You've asked this a number of times now, but my post over a day ago gave you the link that explains how to indent. You do realise that you also have to make an effort to learn if you want to become an effective editor at WP? GFHandel ♬ 23:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I was sweatin' it as I read the explanation and still couldn't figure it out. Directions in computer shorthand evades me but eventually I caught on. One less worry for me... more to come. Sorry 'bout the slow learn.--12.189.21.162 (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Then I went to Wikipedia:Indentation(for the forth time)to scratch my head and figure out what the heck!! I'm so slow in some things.. it's sometimes a bit worrisome. I discovered the talk page on Wiki Talk Indent. Wow! The wonder of discovering this thread... after I had figured it out... Finally! Here is what I found...

I feel stupid asking this, but how do I indent? Vampyrecat (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Just put a colon (:) in front. Angrysockhop (and a happy new year) 07:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
One colon at the beginning of the paragraph indents a small amount; two colons indent a bit more; three colons even more etc. This is illustrated at WP:Talk page formatting. Dolphin51 (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, this small bit should be added to this article? I can see it would make more easier for editors who have to come here to learn how to indent. warrior4321 12:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed! I've added it now, as the first line under 'See also'. Shreevatsa (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful... I'm not the only one who's slow in some things. I instantly had an EDIT inspiration! Yea!! (specially for people like me)So I posted the following here...

Wow I just read the discussion page... wish I had earlier. An example is shown on the instruction page for outdenting, could one be added to the indenting instructions? Just for someone like me who couldn't realize the white box showing the shortcut was telling me instructions (I thought it was a white box I was to find and click on, when on the edit page.) Silly me.
Edit suggestion: Indent examples: One colon :before the first word for one indent. Two ::for two. Three :::for three - etc. note: Your indenting will not appear till you post.--12.189.21.162 (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Revision to 'note' note: Your indenting effects will not appear till you 'review' or 'post'.--Gregory Goble (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I love the fact that anything anyone publishes anywhere gets peer reviewed. Gregory

DISCOVERY
It's of great use to wonder
Why our minds wander in awe of it all
Being forever true
Seeking what's new
We are just now discovering
That which has always been
Impatiently awaiting us
Craving our attention
And hoping for deeper understanding
Awesome is the power of discovery
And the power of awe...awwww!
gbgoble'08

Indentation 102[edit]

Please also take note of the WP Help system. In this case you would find assistance at Help:Using talk pages#Indentation (which was a link in the "See also" section at the bottom of the page I suggested). GFHandel ♬  04:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice and the review of my Wiki work, criticisms and concerns. Today I have studied Wikipedia, as per your suggestion. You are right, it takes time. I also am researching encyclopedia information on these intertwined subjects, I am almost finished with my compilation of deans of physics departments in the U.S. and coordinating a similiar inquiry of deans in Asia and Europe.
  • LENR is not Cold Fusion
  • CANR is not Cold Fusion
  • LANR is not Cold Fusion
  • CMNS is not Cold Fusion
The bold impications that these disciplines are asserting, through robust research and intense peer review, is that nuclear reactions, that are neither fission nor fusion, are taking place. The published Widom Larson Theory supports this.--Gregory Goble (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing Scientific Work"Often they prefer to name their field 'Low Energy Nuclear Reaction' (LENR) or 'Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reaction' (),[76] also 'Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reaction' (LANR) and 'Condensed Matter Nuclear Science' (CMNS), one of the reasons being to avoid the negative connotations associated with 'cold fusion'." [75][77] The new names avoid making bold implications, like implying that fusion is happening on them.", these are the bold assertions being made on
Wikipedia "Cold Fusion".--Gregory Goble (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have helped me to improve through your advice as is seen by my work above. Time for more Wiki Study... thanks--Gregory Goble (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012[edit]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Talk:Cold fusion. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Do not use Wikipedia as a platform for your original research. Do not post personal information of others on Wikipedia talk pages. Do not engage in activism; this is an encyclopedia, not a bulletin board or a soapbox. Binksternet (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory, user:GFHandel is correct that posting your own personally identifying information is ill-advised and discouraged, and posting others' information is absolutely unacceptable. Arbitration Committee member and Oversighter Risker has oversighted the email address list from talk:cold fusion after it was removed by user:Binksternet. This means it is no longer available in the history, even to administrators. I very strongly suggest you avoid posting personally identifying information in the future, and if you are thinking of making such a post that you review the relevant policies beforehand. EdChem (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for original research[edit]

I put a collapse box around your proposal for polling physics departments. The proposal goes against WP:ACTIVISM, WP:FORUM and WP:NOR. Rather than enclosing future proposals of yours I will remove them. Please do not use Wikipedia as a forum. Binksternet (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC):[reply]

I find your post troubling. I have been told by a couple of editors that some information (such as classes offered or curriculum being developed on the science of cold fusion is pertinent and acceptable to the article. Please clarify, " Rather than enclosing future proposals of yours I will remove them." do you intend to remove them unilaterally without discussion? Please see my present proposal, Remove Sentence from Conferences Section - Cold Fusion--Gregory Goble (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if there are any specific parts of WP:ACTIVISM, WP:FORUM and WP:NOR which you do not understand. I will then see if I can explain them and relate them to what it is that you want to do with Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer my question. Please clarify, "Rather than enclosing future proposals of yours I will remove them." do you intend to remove them unilaterally without discussion?--Gregory Goble (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will do whatever I think best at the time. Removal of off-topic posts is a respected method of keeping Wikipedia free from activism or original research. Binksternet (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If your going to post in an article talk page something which is not directly related to the article it may be removed. Article talk pages are the location to discuss the article in relation to futher changes to it. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

remove sentence from Conferences Section[edit]

Remove sentence from Conferences Section

hey Enric Naval, waddya think of my edit proposal? Any questions? Please read the paper and the book sourced in the sentence I propose to remove. Let's open it up for discussion (I thought I did) and post comments to: discource one, discource two, and summary on this edit request (no new sources are referenced). I welcome your input and clarifying comments or requests. Simply put, the sentence takes the authors (of referenced material) statements out of context and should be removed.--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your talk page. Enric Naval may not see your comments here. Are you a native english speaker or are you making use of a service such as google translate? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Cold fusion shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions on the talk page are incoherent ramblings. It is impossible for other editors to understand your wish to delete the text you keep removing. Binksternet (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory, I have reported your WP:3RR violation here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gregory Goble reported by User:EdChem .28Result: .29 You are welcome to post in that section should you wish. EdChem (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can not find it at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Can you help me?--Gregory Goble (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: discretionary sanctions on cold fusion[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Cold fusion. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley#Final decision section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! ok so far... I hope?--Gregory Goble (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

I mentiond you here. Cardamon (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the issue being resolved; and am I supposed to do something to assist, or just be aware and full of care?--Gregory Goble (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi[edit]

hey!

You shouldn't sign your edits like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=prev&oldid=477541685

The signature is only for the article talk page ;)

note:

If you want to change anything in an article it is usual to provide a source with it. With this specific article is it 100% likely for anything you write without a source to be challenged. Even reasonable sources are often not enough.

If you want to work on controversial topics it would be wise to start by learning all the details of the edit guidelines. A more usual approach would be to start by working at non controversial topics then learn how all those rules work slowly. Working on controversial topics you wont be given such a chance. You've eliminated all doubt (for me) but you might even be mistaken for a banned editor if you go straight for the controversy.

It is useful to know which postings should be answered and which should be ignored. I sometimes have to keep reminding myself when editors misbehave not to join them. It can be tempting but it doesn't help wikipedia AT ALL.

I havent used it but the Wikipedia:Feedback_request_service looks nice.


You can also just use the Wikipedia:Requests for comment to find interesting things to do.

good luck :)

84.106.26.81 (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This is good observation, advice, and cheer which I hope you know is appreciated by me.
Weather Laughter
I'm so glad that the weather driven waves of laughter...
Are still crashing on your shore
Laughter Crests...
rising to the top
With illuminated bubbles throughout
Receding down into the...
Whispering swishing sands of time
gbgoble'2012
The sentences I added were from the same book, Undead Science, as is the rest of the text from 'In popular culture - Cold Fusion'. I think they add to the article by showing the relationship between popular culture and cold fusion that lead to it existing as 'undead science'. --Gregory Goble (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012[edit]

Thank you for your edit to a disambiguation page. However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation do's and don'ts, you should:

  • Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
  • Use short sentence fragment descriptions, which should not end with punctuation
  • Use only one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry, and avoid red links
  • Do not pipe links—keep the full title of the article visible
  • Do not insert external links

Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Cold fusion has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr. LeadSongDog (see ya finally, thanks!) Actually I am allowed to post every title, author, and publisher found in any catalog ever printed and it is not a copyright violation. (I love lists and compilations of lists) The body of text is something else altogether... do you read?--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Please be advised of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Gregory Goble LeadSongDog come howl! 08:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS for the warning! Please keep me posted... With warm regards and electrifying anticipation. I will patiently wait, observe, and comment now and then. I hope to improve the article and thwart those who don't. Great source code.... thanks.--Gregory Goble (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gregory, if you are hoping to avoid sanctions it would be best for you to join in the thread at Arbitration enforcement mentioned above, and offer to observe consensus in the future. A statement like 'thwart those who don't' is probably against your interests, since it shows you are planning to conduct an edit war. Since the cold fusion articles are very carefully watched, you can't make large changes there unobserved. The only sensible approach is to try persuading others. I see above that you've already been notified of the Cold fusion arbitration decision, so you are eligible for a topic ban from cold fusion if one is found to be necessary. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; time constraints have tardied my response. In consultation while formulating dialog; two or three more days, Thank you so much for your patience.--Gregory Goble (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification[edit]

Per this AE thread, you are banned from all articles and discussions pertaining to cold fusion, broadly construed, for 90 days. I'll also add that after it expires, should you return to the behavior which led to this ban you will likely be indefinitely banned from the topic area. In addition, you really need to read over NLT, as some of your recent comments have come very close to running afoul of it. If you have any questions regarding the scope of your ban, let me know and I'll respond as soon as possible. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even after a pledge to never bring legal action against Wiki or Wiki editors... hmmm. Three months seems like time to reconsider one's position, on Cold Fusion/LENR. Thank you. No harm done to Wiki, cold fusion science, or me... of course a good question must follow. The following was submitted by me via the ANS E-mail Contact Form:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Query to General Information ANS
Hi,
Who is in charge of updates to the glossary and how can I engage in this process? The entry on Cold Fusion contradicts recent papers published at CERN. Thanks, Gregory Goble - note I sent the following to your 'Nuclear News' contact:
Please update your glossary.
From the ANS glossary
Cold fusion: Combining (fusing), at essentially room temperature, the nuclei of two light atoms into a heavier nucleus. This has never yet been attained and most scientists believe it is impossible.
From recent ANS publications
“A Dialogue on Chemically-Induced Nuclear Effects: A Guide for the Perplexed About Cold Fusion” Nathan J. Hoffman Item ID: 690041 / ISBN: 0-89448-558-X Hardcover / 1995 / 240 pages. “Coulomb Barrier Total Screening by Bose-Einstein-Condensed Deuterium in Palladium Blisters and Reaction Chains in High-Density Hysteresis” Francesco Premuda Fusion Science and Technology / Volume 33 / Number 3 / May 1998 / Pages 350-366 - Technical Paper. A theoretical model is proposed in order to explain, via ordinary physics, fundamental aspects of the cold fusion phenomena experimentally observed. These phenomena include unexpected high fusion reaction rates at low temperatures, “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions: Exciting New Science and Potential Clean Energy” David J. Nagel, Kamron C. Fazel Fusion Science and Technology / Volume 61 / Number 1T / January 2012 / Pages 463-468 Other Concepts and Assessments / Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Emerging Nuclear Energy Systems. “Low energy nuclear reactions” or LENR is the name now given to what was initially and poorly called “cold fusion”. Over twenty years of scientific research on LENR have resulted in some instances of energy gains exceeding 10…
The gossary should reflect the research to date, Please notify me of your actions on this. Thank you, G.B.Goble
Additional note 5-23-12
The research of Cold Fusion/LENR includes gas loaded environments, metals besides nickel, nanopartcles, thin films, and various excitation methods; many at well above room temperature yet well below hot fusion environments. (low energy nuclear reactive environments) Perhaps mentioning respected peer reviewed journals specializing in this should be mentioned to guide those engaging in scientific method of this art. gbgoble--Gregory Goble (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been temporarily blocked from editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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."

WikiLove is a term that refers to a general spirit of collegiality and mutual understanding among wiki users. It was coined over time on the mailing lists. Because people coming from substantially different perspectives work on Wikipedia together—religious fundamentalists and secular humanists, conservatives and liberals, et al.—it is easy for discussions to degenerate into flamewars. But we are all here for one reason: we love accumulating, ordering, structuring, and making freely available what knowledge we have in the form of an encyclopedia of unprecedented size. Wikipedia is not just another discussion forum, it is a project to describe and collect what we know.

If we keep this common goal, this love of knowledge, in mind, if we concentrate on achieving a neutral point of view even when it is difficult, and if we try to actually understand what the other side has to say, then we can reach the state of "WikiLove". If we fail to achieve WikiLove, this will only mean that the encyclopedia and its mission as a whole will suffer. Constant flamewars will scare contributors off, biased articles will drive readers away, and both will harm our reputation in the long term.

Is this account compromised, or is this really you? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
gbgoble at g mail com or 415 seven two 4 6702... Hi it is me uncompromised lovevolvestillovevolvestillovevolvestillovevolvestill learningregoble--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Some of your comments are quite bizarre and unusually written. Are you a native English speaker or do you use Google translate? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wolfe... you are repeating yourself. Do you not remember floating this same question at me earlier... short term memory loss perhaps? Actually, I am about to translate the following to Latin (for easier understanding) from my native language; which is what? If you answer correctly you will recieve a blond star. It is argued that both LENR and Hydrino Capture are not cold fusion, yet for many reasons the term cold fusion exists in popular vernacular encompassing nuclear reactions that happen in environments less hot than the sun. For many people the term has sentimental value as well… that’s the logic of it.

Often what accompanies discovery and truthfulness in science is confusion, anger, and persecution; as is seen in the history of cold fusion research. Yet good science has gotten us this far; cold fusion research has overcome adversity through strict adherence to scientific method and consistent first-rate scientific review.

Thanks to the fact that scientists are basically tenacious creatures, we now have solid cold fusion science and engineering behind the LENR devices entering the marketplace.

The Blood of the Martyrs

‘The Blood of the Martyrs’ is a one-act play by Percival Wilde based on the short story by Stephen Vincent Benet, later adapted by Donald MacFarlane for the radio, and broadcast over station WQXR in New York City, Dec 7, 1938.

The play stars Professor Malzius and is a story about truth in science that sheds relevant light on possible reasons for the falsification of data at MIT and the subsequent persecution and perseverance of cold fusion researchers.

Mr. Wilde summarizes for the press…

“Mr Benet is a poet who has brought to his prose writing the spiritual and imaginative qualities that characterize his verse. His conception, in the short story, which became the basis of the present play, may be stated concisely… If the scientist does not teach the objective truth as he knows it, there will be an end to continuity and to science. Many men have sought the truth, but have, in these horrible days, compromised with their consciences so that they may continue to work; but to the true scientist compromise is unthinkable. It is better for him to die at his post than to lend the weight of his authority to the spread of false beliefs, and this is both the tragedy and triumph of Malzius: if there are enough men like him the world will emerge from the quagmire of expedient creed into which the dictators have led it. ‘The blood of the martyrs,’ declared Tertullian, ‘is the seed of the Church.’ In these times the blood of the martyrs is seed of liberalism and science and truth.”


For further reflection are the words of Louis Pasteur, in his last speech, given upon being awarded the Diamond Cross of Saint Anne from the Czar of Russia. Louis Pasteur addresses his words to the students in the crowd, his voice ringing with conviction…

“You young men, doctors and scientists of the future, do not let your selves be tainted by a barren skepticism, nor discouraged by the sadness of certain hours that creep over nations. Do not become angry at your opponents, for no scientific theory has ever been accepted without opposition. Live in the serene peace of libraries and laboratories. Say to yourselves first: ‘What have I done for my instruction?’ and as you gradually advance: ‘What am I accomplishing?’ until the time comes when you may have the immense happiness of thinking that you have contributed in some way to the welfare and progress of mankind.” (Vallery-Radot 1901, vol. 2, pp. 297–298)


Cold Fusion – LENR Engineering

NASA states that the science and engineering encompassing cold fusion LENR is “not a narrow band set of physical phenomena” and that “devices are being engineered in real time”. (link)

With 3-D printing and nano engineering being utilized to create the lattice; we will see many unique devices entering the marketplace, both thermal and electrical (hardy, robust, and scalable), for every imaginable application.

One might posit that two categories of ‘cold fusion’ devices will gain hold in their respective markets:

LENR/Thermal – heat without a carbon footprint LENR/Electric – electricity without a generator


Co-generation (where both heat and electricity is needed) will likely utilize LENR thermal devices along with electrical generators. Waste heat will be utilized for environmental needs.

LENR Marketplace

Ecat.com, defkalion-energy.com, brilliouinenergy.com, and others are poised to enter the LENR/Thermal market.

NASA, blacklightpower.com and others are poised to enter the LENR/Electric market.

LENR/Electric – Transportation Earthbound

Cold fusion electricity without generators is a boon for transportation. It is well known that series hybrid systems (where torque is exclusively supplied by electricity) saves fuel and reduces emissions. Yet few people know the extent that series hybrid systems are currently utilized; electricity is the sole source of torque in oceangoing vessels, trains, hybrid buses, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, and the next generation of airplanes.

All these vehicles will benefit from LENR/Electrical devices. They require little engineering for conversion from fossil fuel powered generators and batteries to LENR electrical power.

Oceangoing Vessels: “As in most modern cruise ships, Queen Mary 2′s (link) propulsion machinery is electrically decoupled from her propeller shafts and her propulsion arrangement can therefore be more accurately described as “CODAG-electric” (by analogy with turbo-electric and diesel-electric). The diesel engines and gas turbines drive electrical generators, which provide the power to drive four 21,500 kW (28,800 hp) Alstom electrical motors located inside the podded propulsors (and thus entirely outside the vessel’s hull).” Trains: “The main reason why diesel locomotives (link) are hybrid is because this eliminates the need for a mechanical transmission. By going with a hybrid setup, the main diesel engine (3,200hp) can run at a constant speed, turning an electrical generator. The generator sends electrical power to a traction motor at each axle, which powers the wheels. The traction motors can produce adequate torque at any speed, from a full stop to 110 mph (177 kph), without needing to change gears. This 270,000-pound (122,470-kg) locomotive is designed to tow passenger-train cars at speeds of up to 110 miles per hour (177 kph). The diesel engine makes 3,200 horsepower, and the generator can turn this into almost 4,700 amps of electrical current. The four drive motors use this electricity to generate over 64,000 pounds of thrust.” Hybrid Buses: “San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom states that Muni hybrid buses (link) are essentially electric buses just like Muni’s electric trolley buses. Rather than get their electricity from overhead wires, they use a small diesel engine (5.9 liter Cummins ISB found in pick-up trucks) to turn a generator that, together with traction batteries, supply the necessary electrical energy to move the bus through the streets of San Francisco. Muni’s hybrid buses are “series hybrids” meaning there is no mechanical connection between the engine and wheels.” Cars: “Top 10 Electric Car Makers – United States 2012 EV Market Leaders (link)“ Motorcycles: “Electric motorcycles (link) include the Zero DS, Brammo Empulse, Native S, Moto Czysz E1PC and Vectrix scooter. Electric motorcycles, though still in their infancy, are starting to gain a foothold in the marketplace.” Bicycles: “Electric bicycles (link) are part of a wide range of Light Electric Vehicles (LEVs) that provide convenient local transportation. Generally designed for one person and small cargo capacity, electric bike range, speed, and cost are moderate.” Planes: Cold Fusion – NASA – LENR Part ll Flight (link)


NASA Offers LENR/Electric Technology to Private Companies

In this technology roadmap by NASA, LENR is targeted as an energy source.

DRAFT Launch Propulsion Systems Roadmap Technology Area 01 (pdf) For LENR see page 18

Langley’s Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) Technology Available (link)

“The advantages of the present invention are numerous. Devices/systems made in accordance with the present invention control the frequency of the SPP resonance and its uniformity over large surface or volume regions. This will allow an entire device to participate in heavy electron production and ensuing energy generation.” “The present invention is adaptable to a variety of physical states/geometries and is scalable in size thereby making it available for energy production in a wide variety of applications (e.g., hand-held and large scale electronics, automobiles, aircraft, surface ships, electric power generation, rockets, etc.)” from patent, line [0032]… NASA’s patent to Produce Heavy Electrons with LENR (patent)


LENR/Electric – Transportation Spacebound

In 1958, the “SPACE HANDBOOK: ASTRONAUTICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS” (link), by the Rand Corporation, was presented to the President at the birth of NASA. It clearly states that electricity produced without generators through some unknown nuclear process will enable astronautic transport with advanced electric drive.

“The primary consideration in obtaining useful thrust from ion or plasma rockets is the construction of lightweight electric power supplies. A gross reduction in electrical generation equipment, as compared with the most advanced of present equipments, is required to make the electric rocket really interesting for flight in the solar system.” “It is contemplated that some type of nuclear fission (or fusion, farther in the future) could be used to supply the energy for the electric powerplant, although this step would still not eliminate the need for heavy electrical generators, unless direct conversion of fission to electrical energy in large quantities be came practical.” “2,100 kilovolts of electric power to produce 1 pound of thrust, assuming good efficiency. Optimistic estimates of electric-power-supply weight in dictate that the power unit would weigh about 8,500 pounds.” (or 4 lbs for each kilovolt using old technology)


Cold fusion electricity without generators is a boon to astronautics; for both launch and space drive. Electricity is the sole source of thrust for acceleration in advanced propulsion technologies.

Thrust and the energetics of acceleration can be understood as G – Force. Electricity provides more thrust than any other known vehicle propulsion technology. 

      3 g -  Space Shuttle, maximum during launch and reentry
 7.19 g -  Apollo 16 on reentry
  100 g -  Sprint missile

1,800 g - Quicklaunch Maglev


Launch Platforms

Magnetic Levitation and Beamed Energy Launch platforms both have large electricity requirements. Low cost LENR electricity will enable utilization of these platforms for space flight.

Maglev Launch

The inventors of magnetic levitation, Dr. James Powell (bio) and Gordon Danby (bio), are the folks behind the Startram Project.

Vacuum Maglev Test Train Breaks Speed Record (link)

“The test model of the vacuum maglev train was able to run in trial use at a speed equal to the speed of a plane, between 700 and 1,200 kilometers per hour. According to Science Pictorial, the Maglev trains would be even able to run –theoretically- at speeds of 20,000 kilometers per hour in vacuum tubes.”


Amazing Magnetics (video)

The Startram Project (link)

Beamed Energy Launch

“Lasers and microwaves are among the beamed-energy propulsion concepts the Advanced Space Transportation Program is pursuing. If the energy to propel a spacecraft doesn’t have to be carried on board the vehicle, significant weight reductions and performance improvements can be achieved. Beamed-energy propulsion uses a remote energy source — such as the Sun, a ground- or space-based laser or a microwave transmitter — to send power to the vehicle via a “beam” of electromagnetic radiation. Presently, beamed energy is the most promising technology to lower the cost of space transportation to tens of dollars per pound. Research into this technology is a joint effort of the Marshall Center, the Air Force Research Laboratory Propulsion Directorate at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute of Troy, N.Y.” (link)


Lightcraft Technologies, Inc. (link)

A Lightcraft is a 1kg launch vehicle, made from high temperature ceramic materials, that flies into space on a megawatt laser beam. The Lightcraft, shown here in flight, is both a single-stage-to-orbit launch vehicle and a satellite. (video)


Electric Space Drive

Ion Propulsion (link) is an electric space drive. Lightweight and dense, LENR/Electric devices will enable the use of stronger ion motors.

“The ion propulsion system’s efficient use of fuel and electrical power enable modern spacecraft to travel farther, faster, and cheaper than any other propulsion technology currently available. As new power sources become available, higher power thrusters will be developed that provide greater speed and more thrust.”


30KW Hall Ion Thrusters are in use today and high-powered thrusters are in development.

Ion Propulsion — 50 Years in the Making (link)

Benefits of Power and Propulsion Technology for a Piloted Electric Vehicle to an Asteroid (pdf)

Summary

LENR/Electric and LENR/Thermal will ultimately transform the energy marketplace for transportation and environmental heat and electricity. This will take place quicker than any other technological revolution. I predict that by the end of the year Pesident Obama will announce the emergence of LENR engineering and that his administration, if elected, will do everything in its’ power to usher in nearly free non-polluting LENR power and a newly empowered NASA charged with assisting humanity’s colonization of space. This will become a major plank in his election platform.

President Obama is the top excecutive in the hierarchy of NASA.

National Space Policy – Commerce (link)

NATIONAL SPACE POLICY of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA (pdf)

“Fifty years after the creation of NASA, our goal is no longer just a destination to reach. Our goal is the capacity for people to work and learn and operate and live safely beyond the Earth for extended periods of time, ultimately in ways that are more sustainable and even indefinite. And in fulfilling this task, we will not only extend humanity’s reach in space—we will strengthen America’s leadership here on Earth.” —President Barack Obama, April 15, 2010 

Gregory Goble (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked the question before but I never got an answer. You haven't answered the question. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What, was this a question you can not reason yourself? I do not play chess. Please do not invite me to your game. Answers are there... not for you or me to battle. Please IRwolf... ie. Thanks but no thanks. Yes I speak English (Boston Charter - Thomas Goble and subsequent Gobles) as a native language... could not you tell? DUH cough eh hem.. Do tell... what a riot. Are you a genious type (delete) that does not manifest (destiny) wisdom? How about prose? Need I not answer... utterance of a fool, like me? I certainly have delusions of grandour,,, the earth is grand, humanity is grand, true science is grand, all life as a whole is grand, and I love yous' and your'n ... of 'course myself included. Thanks for source code. Get Over It! Wiki Love... shi... till then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Goble (talk • contribs)
Thanks, Yes "I am a native speaker of English" was all I was looking for. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See the topic Legal threat at Talk:Cold fusion? Ravensfire (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The gist of the topic is that your comment on the cold fusion talk page could be perceived as a threat of legal action which is not permitted on Wikipedia. At best, it seems intended to have a chilling effect on discussion. As you've been recently sanctioned on that page, it would probably be best for you to strike that part of your comment and retract any possible threat. Ravensfire (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I restored this for you, you seem to have accidentally deleted this in an edit conflict. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly intend you to perceive this. Information is powerful. Control of information is profitable... for many reasons. It is also important to be aware of the historic use of dis-information as a tool. (see Wiki) I also intend you to know this... I will never take legal action against Wiki although Wiki ignorance or lack of oversight, and risk, in this type of thing may be worth taking a look at.
A case point is this... First you each must read "Undead Science: Science Studies and the Afterlife of Cold Fusion (illustrated ed.), Rutgers University Press, p. 49, ISBN 978-0-8135-3154-0 Simon, Bart (2002) This book is referenced 7 times in the cold fusion article supporting that the science is bad, pathological, or quackery, and that the science is just the grist for silly movies, fiction, and jokes within popular culture. Read the book, I have bought a few copies fulfilling the need to gift such to people who counsel me, I also have a well worn one at hand. Bart Simon is writing about cold fusion research as an "Undead Science" a good science, new in that it was announced through the media, and wrongly perceived for that and other reasons, yet still going forward... as science... i,e, "Undead Science". Read the book, study my edit history and explain why this book is still taken out of context. --Gregory Goble (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since I neither have the ability to edit ANI at the moment nor a keyboard that has curly brackets, I will have to put my rationale here without a block template and someone will have to link to it at ANI. I'm blocking you for the non-stop disruption and serious CIR issues you've displayed, and for showing no willingness or ability to rectify said problems. If you want to be unblocked, use the unblock template, but read WP:GAB first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent, serious disruption and competence issues; no sign of improvement after coming off topic ban. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gregory_Goble&oldid=1090518564"