Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I have requested at WP:COIN#Request for injunction against Cold Fusion investor Pierre Carbonnelle that you be banned from editing cold fusion due to your investment in both cold fusion companies and your crowing about your successes at POV-pushing in New Energy Times. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the confusion about whether you had deliberately disassociated your name from your ID, I suggest you consider putting your real name back on your user page to avoid such in future. Thanks for turning up at the noticeboard and clarifying matters by re-associating your name and ID. ++Lar: t/c 11:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pcarbonn, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pcarbonn and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Pcarbonn during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC) ScienceApologist (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Cold_fusion/1. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Verbal chat 16:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for refactoring. All the best, Verbal chat 16:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pcarbonn, hi, is it alright if I setup an archive bot for your talkpage? It's currently at 90K, and some people's browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K. But I could set up a bot that would auto-archive any threads which had gone inactive for a period of time (30 days?) and then you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore. Let me know, --Elonka 20:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine. Thank you. I did not realize it was so big. Pcarbonn (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.  :) I started a new archive page for you, as well as an automated archivebox, which has the pre-2008 threads. The rest will get picked up on the next pulse, which should happen in the next 24 hours or so, and then it'll review your page daily. If you'd like any adjustments, let me know! --Elonka 22:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pcarbonn. I just suggested on the MfD for your user page that moving it to a subpage of your userspace would demonstrate a great willingness on your part to minimize the drama that always attends commenting on other users. Would you be willing to do that? If you need technical help I am happy to assist you. --John (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of the MfD was to keep your page, but that doesn't mean you should keep what is on it. Please consider removing the timeline section as it is causing problems. Wikipedia is not a webhost - you can put this information on your own website or save it in a text file on you hard disk, and email it to anyone who asks for a copy. Just please remove it from your wikipedia page where it is only doing harm. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider removing the timeline, but considering the lack of consensus for that request on the MfD, I have decided to keep it, for the reason I explained. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The MfD was about deleting the page, not removing the timeline. Why not remove it anyway, and add a diff for anyone who is interested? Verbal chat 17:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because an inordinate amount of editors' time is lost repeating the errors of the past. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very sad. Verbal chat 10:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the timeline would only be positive in my opinion. Widefox (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're up: WP:ANI#Please review this case. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pcarbonn, I've been looking through your contribs, Pcarbonn (talk · contribs), and though I realize that you've been participating on Wikipedia for years, I have to admit that it does appear a bit unusual that all of your recent energies on Wikipedia are devoted solely to one article (and a controversial one, at that). Just as a friendly suggestion, it might help reduce tension, if you could also from time to time put some effort into working on other articles as well? Even if you're just helping with something at Category:Articles that need to be wikified or one of the other cleanup categories, it would help show other editors that you were here to help with the project as a whole. Plus, it can be very therapeutic to work on non-controversial articles, in places where editors are actually grateful for the help! :) Just wanted to toss that out to you as a suggestion, --Elonka 03:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. As I've said elsewhere, I have written 2 user scripts recently.[1][2] I may consider stopping editing the main Cold Fusion article, but still contribute to the talk page. Would that be OK ? Pcarbonn (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pcarbonn. Elonka's suggestion seems very constructive to me. I consider contributions to article talk pages as contributions to the article. Why not take a break from the article for now? Just my thoughts after editting the article for the first time. Widefox (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just curious as to your experience and background in basic science? Thanks.--OMCV (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMCV, I have noticed that you have voted for banning me from contributing on cold fusion, despite a request from Jehochman to stop that vote. This is not the way to solve a content dispute. See Galileo. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out my vote was in the wrong place, my bad. If you displayed competence in evaluating and weighting scientific information I would reverse my opinion (and find the right place for it). So far it seems you are ignorant of the finer points or choose to ignore them. The way you edit right now displays a distinct agenda and pushes a POV with a willingness to use policy (similar to SA) and sophism to seek your ends. What I'm trying to determine is whether you need to be taught or stopped. Finally, I didn't ask if you knew the history of science. I just wanted to see if I need to correct my judgment on your block proceedings.--OMCV (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you contributed to the ANI discussion that led to this, you may wish to contribute to the topic ban discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_topic_ban:_User:Pcarbonn_from_Cold_fusion_and_related_articles. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested arbitration of the disputes surrounding Cold fusion. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 19:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is customary to restrict your comments at ArbCom, including responses to comments by other contributors, to your own section. I suggest you consider reformatting. Ronnotel (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pierre. You’ve no-doubt seen my post on the Arbcom. From a cursory glance over the talk pages, I am unable to discern your expertise in CF. I can see from newenergytimes that you seem well placed and in the thick of things, but I still can’t tell what your involvement is at the technical level. What first-hand expertise do you have in CF? If not any first-hand, what is your interest in it? Greg L (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any first hand expertise in CF, in the sense that I have not conducted nor participated in any cold fusion experiment. My interest in it, as I explained, is that I see it as a way to provide a better world for my children. Pcarbonn (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for that pithy candor. Unfortunately, my previous posts on the Arbcom wouldn’t apply in this case. My recommendation for you is to listen more carefully to what other editors are saying. High-grade heat (high temperatures) are required in order to generate steam. Everything I’ve seen on CF suggests we’re talking about awfully low-grade heat so far. So it’s all dependent upon discovering and understanding the underlying mechanisms and optimizing them to get some serious power densities. It’s all so embryonic at this stage. CF-generated power is 30+ years in the future—if ever.

  In the mean time, we could require that all automobile manufacturers have a fleet average of 35 MPG and we’d cut our foreign-oil dependence to zip. We could also do as France did, and have one single standard fission plant design that is replicated dozens and dozens of times. France did it that way and now has a 90%+ nuclear share in electrical production. Clean stuff. No mercury in the air. The old American system of having free-market competition in the construction of nuke plants (Babcock & Wilcox Company v.s. G.E. for instance) resulted in each plant being a one-off, custom design for each utility. Cost overruns were exorbitant. There are at least two intrinsically safe fission reactor designs (a GE design and a Swedish design) that I know of which are incapable of melting down—even if all pumps stopped working. We could also have Congress guarantee that crude oil prices won’t dip below $70 per barrel for instance (by taxing imported oil if it goes below that point). This would provide long-term assurances for companies looking at billion dollar investments into coal shale and coal-to-oil conversion processes; they have had the price rug pulled out from under their feet by OPEC before to kill these trends so OPEC can keep the gravy train going. My personal interest is in geothermal. I recently did a calculation of the entrained energy underneath Yellowstone. Just the entrained energy (assuming zero additional heat comes up from below) would be enough to satisfy the entire U.S. electrical consumption for many, many centuries. All these solutions require a national consensus to do any real good. What is clear is that your advocacy here on Wikipedia won’t advance the state of the art in cold fusion and therefore can’t impact the nation’s energy problems.

  I’m just suggesting you go with the flow some more. I’m struck with the amount of effort being expended by so many others to deal with an issue that you are at the center of. KnowwhutImean? Greg L (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although my initial posts to the arbitration request were--hoping you'll agree--quite fair toward you, I've withdrawn the statement based upon these words of yours:

If I get banned from Wikipedia, I could certainly build up a similar attack on ScienceApologist, and I believe I could succeed. So far, I have refrained from going that route, and I believe that the ArbComm should avoid it too. I'll be happy to provide evidence, if asked, or if pushed to do it. But, what would we gain from it ?

Please note that what has been proposed against you is a topic ban, not a siteban, and no motion has been proposed that would prohibit you from interacting with ScienceApologist on any other part of the site's millions of pages. Yet your statement is not only an admission to having violated the no personal attacks policy, it treads uncomfortably close to the following.

Wikipedia:BAN#Coercion: Attempts to coerce actions of users through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite, are grounds for immediate banning.

That clause was written into policy over a year ago as a direct result of an incident in which I had been threatened. In a situation where your conduct is under scrutiny, it is a poor presentation that raises greater concerns than already exist. Please clarify your statement or amend it suitably. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 05:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing this. I agree with your analysis. Under attack, and when I drink some good wine, I sometimes loose my rationality. This is what happened yesterday. Thanks for correcting me. Pcarbonn (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]