| Revision as of 06:02, 27 October 2008 editPcarbonn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,444 edits IwRnHaA's alleged sockpuppetry← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 09:36, 14 January 2010 edit undoPcarbonn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,444 edits rmv criticism of wikipedia | ||
| (45 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | Hi, my name is Pierre Carbonnelle and I'm a member since April 2004. | ||
| <!-- Please do not remove or change this MfD message during the discussion. | |||
| -->{{mfdtag|User:Pcarbonn}}{{ombox | |||
| |type=delete | |||
| |image=none | |||
| |text='''This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Misplaced Pages's ]]'''{{#if:|<br />This nomination is part of a discussion of several related miscellaneous pages.}}<br />Please discuss the matter at ''']''' on the ] page.<br /> | |||
| You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move this page (without knowing exactly what you are doing), or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the ]. | |||
| :''<small class="plainlinks">] use only: Subst either {{tlsx|mfd}} OR {{tlsx|mfdx|2nd}} into the page nominated for deletion.<br/>Then subst {{tlsx|mfd2|pg={{FULLPAGENAME}}|text=...}} into ].<br/>Finally, subst {{tlsx|mfd3|pg={{FULLPAGENAME}}}} into the .<br />Please consider notifying the by placing {{subst:MFDWarning|{{FULLPAGENAME}}{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{FULLPAGENAME}}|||{{{page}}}}}}} ~~~~ on their talk page(s).</small>'' | |||
| }}] | |||
| === Il ne suffit pas d'avoir raison contre l'erreur, il faut en avoir raison. === | |||
| {| | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| *I have and developed the ] mechanism | |||
| * I the view that cold fusion is an ongoing scientific controversy, not pseudoscience, in ] over ]. | |||
| In particular, I would like to thank ] and ] for their help. I also thank Steve Krivit and the many Cold Fusion researchers who have given me valuable information. | |||
| |{{userscripts|* ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ]}} | |||
| |} | |||
| ==Timeline of the cold fusion dispute== | |||
| Here is a timeline of the cold fusion dispute. To explore the history of an article, I recommend ]: | |||
| * Dec 13, 2001 : the article | |||
| * April 26, 2004 : to the topic | |||
| * Aug 16, 2004 : ] to Featured Article status, and goes on the front page of wikipedia | |||
| * Dec 2005 : Jed Rothwell, of obtains from Edmund Storms, a cold fusion researcher. | |||
| * Jan 3 2006 : after | |||
| * 7 April 2006 : that half the DOE did find the evidence of excess heat convincing, a statement that extremely important | |||
| * April 2006 : Jed Rothwell after the reality of cold fusion, despite to calm him down. | |||
| * April - Dec 2006 : a lot of discussions: what did the DOE really say ? Should we quote the main conclusion only, or also the conclusion of the Charge Elements ? do the conclusions of Charge Element 1 and 2 seem so different ? Can we quote their evaluation of the evidence of excess heat ? | |||
| * Oct 2006 : The skeptics reject . The ArbComm introduced by the same | |||
| * 2007 : the article is , and represents the full 2004 DOE review | |||
| * Oct-Nov 2007 : I update the : that's too much, say the skeptics | |||
| * 6 Dec 2007 : by JzG. | |||
| * 14 Dec 2007 : Total despair... Luckily, Itsmejudith to continue : thanks !! | |||
| * Dec 2007 : I introduce a , which rejects it . Ron Marshall . | |||
| * Jan-April 2008 : Skeptics finally accept ]. Seicer accepts to mediate. for incivility. | |||
| * May 2008 : I write in New Energy Times | |||
| * May 2008 : Dank55 helps bring it to | |||
| * July 2008 : that cold fusion is not pseudoscience. | |||
| * July 2008 : ScienceApologist because of my article in New Energy Times. It is rejected. | |||
| * July 2008 : JzG . This time it is rejected by the community. | |||
| * September 2008: Dr. Shanahan wants his work to be promoted in our article. , on the basis that scientists should not contribute content about their own work. | |||
| * October 2008 : ScienceApologist , this time alleging that I have financial interest in cold fusion. It is rejected. ] adds favorable peer reviews in the lead section. ScienceApologist says this is a ] account. His plea is rejected. ScienceApologist then ]. It is rejected. | |||
| ==How to defend a fringe science on wikipedia== | |||
| Here are some recommendations based on my experience with ]. | |||
| :* first check ]. | |||
| :* seek to demonstrate that the science is fringe , but not pseudoscience, and then use what the about significant alternative to scientific orthodoxies : "Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience." | |||
| :* to demonstrate that, seek reliable scientific sources that are independent from the researcher in the field. Skeptics are often the best source to establish that. | |||
| :* if someone still pretends that it is pseudoscience, relentlessly ask him for a source for that view, emphasising that wikipedia is based on reliable, written sources. He will keep saying "everybody knows that it is pseudoscience": repeat that this does not meet wikipedia standards. They will come with statements from editorials saying that "most scientists rejects it as pathological science"; respond by saying that "most scientists" does not constitute a verifiable source, because they don't write on the subject in scientific peer-reviewed journal. | |||
| :* make sure that you prepend each favorable sentence by "proponents say that..." for proper attribution. | |||
| :* write also ]. | |||
| :* stick to journal papers, avoid self-published sources. | |||
| :* be perseverent ! | |||
| Good luck ! | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 09:36, 14 January 2010
Hi, my name is Pierre Carbonnelle and I'm a member since April 2004.