User talk:Parallel

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page
You seem to have misunderstood my comment on Andy the Grump's talk page. I responded as well on my talk page. What I said to Andy had nothing whatsoever to do with E-CAT directly, and I am unsure why you thought it did. Spend a while dealing with determined people promoting crank theories, miracle cures, get rich quick schemes, answers to the meaning of life, con games, and next year's rival to the Beatles, and you may understand Andy's style a bit better. That garbage pours into Wikipedia like effluent gushing from a 19th century sewer pipe, and Andy has volunteered to deal with it. You should be thanking him, not criticizing him.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have responded on my talk page to your latest comment.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  17:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Warning
Please stop using talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I recommend that you take this excellent advice given by Dominus Vobisdu.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  18:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Single purpose account WP:SPA
It's a good idea to try editing lots of different articles on wikipedia. That way you get to know how things work while fixing lots of articles. If you get stuck on a single topic it can be frustrating for everyone. Just a suggestion. You can read some of the bad things said about single purpose accounts here WP:SPA Bhny (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to the above
I only attempted to correct what was obviously wrong, biased, or misleading information on the E-Cat page, that misleads thousands of viewers interested in this topic. That is to say, trying to improve the article. It rapidly became clear the main editors will not allow views other than their own to appear. The only edit I made to the article was to correct the error that stated there had been no independent test. This was immediately deleted, even though later the error was acknowledged and corrected by another. That, combined with the ad hominems shows my effort is unwelcome. Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

What part of "I'm not interested in debating this" is so hard to understand?
Please do not post irrelevant waffle on my talk page. Wikipedia articles on fringe topics reflect the consensus of mainstream knowledge, and unless and until LENR/cold fusion/Rossi's magic teapot is recognised by mainstream science, our articles will not suggest otherwise. Even if you could convince me that there was something to it (not that anything you have said has done anything remotely like that), it wouldn't affect the article - WP:FRINGE is Wikipedia policy, and it isn't open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Harassing other editors and threatening to reveal their identities
This is your only warning for harassing other editors and threatening to reveal their personal information. Because of an editing dispute, you posted at Talk:Energy Catalyzer "How would yo like to be made out to be a criminal, by name, on WIkipedia?" This constitutes harassment, a violation of the policy WP:HARASSMENT and revealing the name of another editor who wishes to be anonymous would violate the policy WP:OUTING. Any repetition of such behavior will result in your being blocked from editing. Such comments are not a reasonable part of improving the article, which is the only purpose of the talk page. If you intended to complain that another editor had called you a criminal, there are other venues for that, such as first asking the editor on his talk page to remove the offending text or second, complaining at WP:ANI. In any event, it would be well to remove or strike through the text in question. Edison (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Energy Catalyzer
I recently looked at your comments at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 72. I think you made some excellent points, when you cited Semmelweis, H. Pylori, etc. Another example would be the theory of continental drift. The Whole Earth Review devoted an entire issue, in the late 1980s, to the Fringe of Reason, that made this point, over and over again. That issue was republished as a book.

In discussions where someone seems to think they are entitled to excise material because they personally thought it wasn't credible, I sometimes suggest to them a thought experiment. Suppose industrial level slavery -- like in the Confederate States of America, or Brazil up to 1900, was still legal, and popular -- how would we cover slavery, and abolitionism?

If it were still legal the executives of Big Slavery would be able to hire the meanest, trickiest lawyers, and the meanest, trickiest spin doctors. Those spin doctors would try to get the media to stop calling slaves, slaves. They would want everyone to call them something like "grateful receipients of lifetime job security".

I'd like to be able to count on the wikipedia being able to cover abolition fairly, even if the idea was extremely unpopular.

On the other hand, there is great skepticism over cold fusion. While I agree when genuine scientific journals, popular science magazines, or respected Science columnists, write about Cold Fusion, that merits coverage here, WP:UNDUE means the voice of the skeptics merits coverage too. And if skeptics outnumber proponents and fans, the article's coverage should support that.

I see you only made one actual edit to the Energy Catalyzer article. I would have cited that abstract like this:

All you can hope to succeed at here would be to get whatever WP:Reliable sources that talked about success in the field covered as an alternate view. And I think you will find more success if you write about those sources as if you see them as representing an alternate view. Your challengers are representing you as a proponent, who is not complying with the neutral voice WP:NPOV requires.

AndyTheGrump would be correct that it would have been a mistake if you had copied an extended passage, even if you only copied in onto the article's talk page -- because that would still be a violation of the original author's copyright. If you did that, and you were a newbie, that would certainly be forgiveable.

You have been accused of being a WP:Single purpose account -- which shouldn't really be a problem, if all your edits are policy compliant. Nevertheless, if there are other topics you are interested in, where you think you can make a positive contribution, why not weigh in there -- as well?

You have been accused of being a sockpuppet. The wikipedia has a principle, "the right to disappear". I am not sure I fully agree with this principle, but it is the current standard. You are allowed to abandon a previous wiki-ID you used, and create a new one -- so long as you never use the earlier ID(s) again. I've been accused of being a sockpuppet about a dozen times, when I have only used this one ID. It is unpleasant. But if you edited the Energy Catalyzer article under an ID you abandoned, and that never overlapped with your editing as User:Parallel, I think that you haven't lapsed from the policy that prohibits sockpuppetry.

Best wishes! Geo Swan (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I took a closer look at the Energy Catalyzer article -- I had only taken a cursory look at it before.


 * There seems to be very significant references casting doubt on the discovery.


 * I first read the interesting story of N-rays in an article in Scientific American, in my youth. It is an example of what appeared -- at first -- to be a ground-breaking advance, that had a replicators around the world, who later recanted when a wily young American Physicists was able to expose the initial discoverers as careless, credulous and not following good protocols.


 * Those N-ray discovers had dozens or hundreds of third party labs who initially reported they could replicate the discovery. Am I reading the article correctly -- no third party lab has replicated this discovery.  The article currently says the discoverers keep their apparatus under wraps, and the exact nature of how it workds a secret.  If that is true it would seriously erode anyone's ability to replicate their discovery.  That shifts the discovery out of pure science.  If they think there is a massive fortune to be made from their discover -- but only if they keep it secret -- you'd think they would approach some rich industrialist to partner with them, and supply the working capital to make that fortune.


 * So, the link you tried to put in the article was to an abstract. Is the full article available?  Have you looked at it?  Geo Swan (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban from cold fusion and low-energy nuclear reactions
Based on discussion in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=559273998#User:Parallel_and_the_Energy_Catalyzer_article. this thread], there appears to be support for topic-banning your account from articles, pages, and other Wikipedia content related to cold fusion. I'm formally imposing this topic ban, which includes material related to Energy Catalyzer and other topics touching on low-energy nuclear reactions, broadly construed. If you edit any page related to these topics, your account may be blocked from editing. You are free to work in any area of Wikipedia except those touching on cold fusion and LENR. If you are unsure whether a given topic breaches your topic-ban, please feel free to request feedback at the administrator's noticeboard. You may also use that noticeboard to appeal this sanction if you feel it has been placed unfairly. MastCell Talk 19:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to clarify two things about the topic ban. First of all, it's indefinite. That doesn't mean "infinite" - it can be appealed at any time, and lifted if there's consensus to do so - but it will not expire on its own with the passage of time. Secondly, the topic ban applies to all pages on Wikipedia. Discussing E-Cat-related content on another editor's talkpage violates the topic ban. You are meant to avoid the topic entirely on Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 17:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Your appeal against the topic ban at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive250 has been overwhelmingly rejected, and I have closed discussion on that basis. Your topic ban, as outlined by MastCell above, remains in full force. BencherliteTalk 20:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)