User talk:Zedall

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * If you have any questions you can always go here for help too:WP:Village Pump Aaron Bowen 11:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Bearden quaternion quote
Hi - just saw that you've removed the quaternion quote from Tom Bearden. I actually liked the quote collection before, because it ranged from "hard-headed physical scientist" to pseudoscience advocated by Bearden. I suggest to keep the Bearden quote, but instead change his classification to Category:Pseudoscience. Agreeable compromise? Too controversial? For an encyclopedic entry, I find it notable enough to keep. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger 00:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a good compromise. I've removed his scientist classification as well, okay? Zedall 23:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Perfect with me. - Good luck :) Thanks, Jens Koeplinger 00:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: Regarding your "has received little support" notice, you may be asked for providing reference. In preparation for this, I've did a brief search; while he didn't publish with the American Physical Society or American Institute of Physics, I tracked down 3 articles that were submitted through the British Institute of Physics, where Bearden was coauthor: (from www.iop.org > journals > search > author T. E. Bearden). Here from home I can't see which articles are citing these, but these can be looked-up. That would be a good gauge, to see how many responses and what their tone are. Koeplinger 03:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * PPS: NASA's Astrophysics Data System only shows one of the three IOP articles being cited once, in the past 7 seven years: . That would qualify as little support from the scientific community. The inability of providing a working model of a revolutionary and grandious concept is an obvious concern. Anyway - we should have our backs covered (I've also added some more concern about the patent received to the article). Thanks again, Jens Koeplinger 03:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I can check out which articles are citing his IOP articles tomorrow. Zedall 04:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)