User talk:Cullen328/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Admin?

How about you, Cullen? When will you be ready to ask for a mop? I will enthusiastically co-nominate you, if you like, although you'll want an admin as nominator. Think about it. --MelanieN (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Ohhh, Melanie, you have really put me on the spot, now, haven't you? Are you familiar with the very old comic strip, Alphonse and Gaston? Check it out. I guess I will ask for the mop only after you ask for the mop, and you can take the same polite stance. It would go on and on and on, and be droll and mildly entertaining for all the observers. Of course, the thought has crossed my mind. The honest answer is that I might consider it after my wife has certified that my Wikiaddiction is under control, and that I will not attempt to edit Eight Days a Week. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Harry Yount to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this your first Good Article? If so, double congratulations are in order. Thanks for this high quality contribution. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is my first Good Article, and I am deeply honored that you have recognized this article, which I've been thinking of submitting for a long time. Thank you so much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Cullen - And congratulations from me. I am glad this article has achieved GA. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Congratssss!!!! Yai!!!! :D Good One!! Miss Bono (zootalk) 12:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy the Grump

Jim, I see you have encouraged AndyTheGrump to be grumpy on the Dispute Page I opened concerning the E-CAT,

His sole response to me, apart from saying he wasn't interested, was "you clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about."

As I have headed engineering for two fortune 200 companies and invented the ATM card (UK Patent #959,713) amongst other things, I don't think he requires further encouragement.

I wouldn't normally bother with trying to correct errors in Wikipedia but I am persuaded that LENR has now been proven beyond reasonable doubt and so clearly the E-CAT is very important indeed. It still has control problems and I don't know what the real COP is. Thanks to people like AndyTheGrump, the Patent Office has not allowed patents on cold fusion since 1989 and so the whole field is in an unbelievable mess.

The problem is that thousands of people now seek information from wiki about Rossi and LENR in general, and I fear that they are being badly mislead by the extremely biased, non factual piece.

Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 03:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Adrian,

You are entirely incorrect about my comment to Andy. I made that comment to Andy on his talk page, not on any dispute page. My comment was general with regards to his editing, and didn't mention E-CAT. Both Andy and I edit in hundreds of different topic areas, so I have no idea why you think I was referring to E-CAT in any way. I haven't paid any attention to that topic for a year or so.

Our articles on scientific topics summarize what the reliable, independent sources say about the topic. Wikipedia's role is not to promote what a few people see as cutting edge research. If and when major physics journals report on this "stunning breakthrough", then Wikipedia will most certainly summarize such coverage. We are followers, not leaders. We are an encyclopedia, not an advocacy website. There are plenty of those. We have an entirely different role. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Jim, Thank you for your invitation to discuss this.(E-CAT) I am new to contributing to Wikipedia and proper procedures and so will probably transgress some unintentionally. For example, I don't know how to answer your comment short of starting a new section. I apparently now have a talk page without doing anything to start it.

I seek your advice on what to do to take this to the next level. My Dispute Notice was closed in less than half a day on the grounds that compromise was unlikely. That is true, but it wasn't given much of a chance.

Comments were also made that LENR is fringe science and a frankly ridiculous comparison to perpetual motion. You might just as well claim that nuclear power is perpetual motion. I linked hundreds of peer reviewed papers on the subject. LENR is not understood yet but possibly involves the weak atomic forces, unlike the strong force involved in fission or fusion.

This is not the place to debate whether LENR is fringe science unless you want to do so. There is now voluminous proof that it is not and even Pons and Fleischmann's experiment has been replicated.

My dispute is factual. There is proof that the E-CAT has undergone independent testing. If you won't believe ELFORSK who is next? NASA? (In passing NASA is now working on LENR and Chief Scientist Bushnell has stated the effect is real.)

Secondly, the selection of Ugo Bardi's negative blog piece, when there are better qualified scientists who say the opposite. Bardi is apparently getting his information from Krivet and Lubos Motl (who deleted his comment after his error was pointed out.) I have no reason to think Bardi has any first hand experience in this area. Parallel (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Parallel, you started out by mistaking the location and the context of my comment to Andy. Now, you have inferred from my earlier remarks an "invitation to discuss" E-CAT. Let me be clear: I have no interest in discussing this topic at this time. Please read carefully what other editors write about their intentions.

You have a talk page because every editor here has a talk page. You don't start it.

To respond to another editor's comment, simply click the "edit" button for that section, scroll to the bottom, and make your comment. You can indent, as I have done here, with colons in the Wiki markup, at the far left before each paragraph.

Regarding E-CAT, Wikipedia will summarize what reliable, independent, secondary, mainstream scientific sources say about the topic. If and when there is broad consensus among mainstream physicists that the effect is significant, I am sure that Wikipedia will reflect that coverage. Let me repeat that I have no interest in delving further into this topic at this time. I am not a physicist or a scientist of any kind. I am an encyclopedist in this regard.

I see nowhere else for you to go with this matter at this time. You asked for dispute resolution regarding two editors who are far more experienced than you are. They declined as is their right. Consensus is against you at this time. If I was you, I would spend a couple of weeks studying core Wikipedia policies and guidelines, staying away from E-CAT entirely. See how productive debates take place here, and see how Wikipedia weeds out bad content. Then we'll talk again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Jim, Thank you for responding. I did mistake your label "let's discuss it" as meaning something else. I don't like misinformation, particularly on a subject as important as this one. At least I tried to correct it but didn't start with much hope of changing beliefs. I regret wasting precious time and am unlikely to pursue interaction with Wikipedia any further. Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Sandom and associated Talk Page". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 01:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sandom Fracas

Hi, Jim. I am afraid that things are not improving over on the Article page about me, nor on the associated Talk Page. Although I am highly skeptical of the results, I have initiated a formal Resolution. Just wanted to let you know that I added your name to the list of those involved. Hope that's okay with you. Best wishes, J.

The more I read the comments on your page, the more I like you! As a Wikiskeptic, I'd love your take (when you have the time) on why you devote so much time and effort to Wikipedia. In all likelihood, I will be doing an article about my experience here with Wikipedia, the Article about me, and the associated Talk Page. I would love to have a chance to interview you, if you have a moment. Anyway, I think you're swell and represent what is best about Wikipedia. I especially like the fact that you are not anonymous, that you're willing to stand behind what you say/write. If I may bother you with this first question: Do you feel that crowd-sourcing (leveraging the hive) is a superior way to create an encyclopedia than using recognized, accredited experts? If so, why? Sandom (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

J.G., I will be happy to talk with you about these matters once the dispute resolution process has been completed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)