User talk:Derenek

 Hello and Welcome to Wikiversity Derenek! You can contact us with questions at the colloquium or me personally when you need help. Please remember to sign and date your finished comments when participating in discussions. The signature icon above the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy, Civility, and the Terms of Use policies while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may


 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.


 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You do not need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Your user page
You have blanked your user page. If you want it deleted, put at the top.

However, you may have a self-promotional user page. Be careful about putting anything there that is misleading, I'd suggest less peacock language and more fact.

The PhD from Harrington University will lower people's opinion of you, not raise it, unless they do not bother to check. However, you are free to place fact that will lower opinion of you on your user page.

Saying that you work at Go-Parts is fine. That promotional material about Go-Parts, however, may raise some hackles. If you want your user page to be a resume, then make it like a professional resume, I suggest, and a professional resume certainly would not be written like that.

WMF wikis are full of people who will see something like this and research it. I did. This is very easy. So I know who is listed as part of the team at go-parts.com (not you), and I know who owns the domain name. And I see your claim to be a former CEO at the owner corporation. I have not confirmed that, because it really doesn't matter. The owner corporation is small, and the web site provides no address, but there is an address in the domain registration, which is open. And there are piles of complaints about Go-Parts. Now, a CEO is a CEO, it would belong on a resume. But the hype about Go-Parts, no. It makes you look bad, in fact.

Good luck. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC) Thanks for being so patient with me while I'm learning the ropes.Derenek (discuss • contribs)
 * This is what we do. And the reward of patience is patience. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ummm, Professor Abd, that certain someone placed the delete link on my page again. What's your advice on what I should do?User talk:AbdDerenek (discuss • contribs)


 * Not a professor, no degree. I'd say School of Hard Knocks, but, in fact, life is good and learning is easy if we don't resist it.


 * Glad you asked instead of just reverting. Normally you could revert it; anyone may remove a speedy deletion tag. They are for uncontested deletion. However, you had already done that. He replaced it. That was the beginning of revert warring. However, here was no rush. The page would not be deleted by any of our active administrators, and even if it was, it would be restored on request. By asking and not acting, you provided time for me to notice it and remove it. The user is fighting with Wikiversity, not you. Be very careful to avoid getting sucked into a battle. We have some very careful and ethical administrators. The user started up revert warring with one, Dave.


 * On many sites, the user might have been blocked already. However, Dave might not do that, because he could be considered involved and there is no emergency. Rather, he may file a request for custodian action like any other user, as one option. I am, however, assuming that the user will smell the coffee and stop. If not, and if I have time, I'd file a request myself. This was a very high contribution count user on Wikipedia and is banned there, and, as I recall the reason, incivility and revert warring were involved. I have warned him elsewhere. He did not respond well there, but nothing came of it. Here is a bit different. We have less tolerance for incivility, particularly because it is relatively rare here, and we like to keep it that way. Incivility breeds incivility.


 * By avoiding revert warring yourself, you make yourself safe. Seek consensus, which also means seeking help.


 * This is counter-intuitive. Don't defend yourself. You are not at risk. Your content will not be lost. (Even if deleted, an admin would give you a copy, but it's not likely to be deleted, at all.) You can only be harmed if you react in certain ways. Be civil. We can hope this for the user: that the user decides to actually tell you what is wrong with your work, which is much more work for him than just making accusations. Then you can discuss it. Be careful, he has been insulting. Don't return the favor. Be thoughtful. Gravitas. Like any real scientist. Watch out for sarcasm. It can reflect badly on you. I removed that bit about trolling from a resource talk page. Please don't make this a battleground. Work on your resource! And help with other resources. Got some physics? Great. There will be work to do here.


 * I've looked a bit at your contributions. You reverted a user on Wikibooks who is an administrator here. Be really careful about this. Discuss, and be slow to revert. Wikibooks is reasonably safe, but does prohibit original research. We allow it and even encourage it.


 * My recent work has been with Cold fusion. Once a skeptic came and argued extensively on subpages there. He was a highly uncivil user, he's actually defacto globally banned, but at that point he had temporarily been allowed to edit here. Those discussions were quite useful. We developed questions that were then taken to experts, the people who had actually done lab research and who were highly knowledgeable. Out of this inquiry, an electrochemist who is actually skeptical about cold fusion responded, checked out the hypothesis of the skeptic. No. Not tenable. Other questions were asked and answered.


 * This is Wikiversity. We can actually learn here, we can create knowledge. Just as with any university. Dave is a tenured professor, if I'm correct. We have serious academics working here. And ordinary people interested in some topic.


 * Knowledge is not something that exists as text. It is in people. Text is a device that people use to communicate.


 * I have not reviewed your work, I don't have time for it at this point. What I'm doing with you does take some time, but it's easy and I've been doing this for years, and Wikiversity and people are important to me. Wikipedia is about articles, verifiable, an encyclopedia, which must be, essentially, mainstream. Encyclopedias may cover fringe, but will always do so conservatively. And original research is prohibited there. No matter how obvious you might think something is, if it's not in reliable source, it is likely to be excluded from Wikipedia, and that is totally proper for an encyclopedia. But Wikiversity is not an encyclopedia, we are a place to create educational resources, which includes facilitating learning-by-doing. So *education* is our product, and text is only a means. People matter here. That is unlike any of the other WMF wikis, which are all about product. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again, and I agree with your point completely. While I am certain my final theory after all is said and done won't be the same as it is posted presently, it is precisely for the purpose of creating knowledge. I have always been interested in cold fusion as well and would love to be able to read your work on it. As a private scientist, I can't afford the huge equipment and complex labs that full universities possess. However that shouldn't be a block from attempting to expand the frontiers of knowledge. When it comes to science anyone who is working on problems to which there is no current answer, there will always be some extraordinary claims.

I worked as a military scientist for many years doing satellite research and other topics, so I know that there is always resistance to even giving time to what is not known. I appreciate greatly your open mind and willingness to engage in discourse. Maybe when you do have time in the future you will get some time and be able to sharpshoot my ideas and equations so I can continue to develop my hypothesis into something more solid. Right now I am working n a means to establish a high voltage gradient on a magnetic object without setting fire to my house or blowing out the neighborhood's transformer lol.

On the small scale though, I have managed to get some very promising results utilizing a combination of gyroscopic precession and tesla coils. While the results seem to support my hypothesis, it s possible that I am way off base for attributing the results to the causes I have thought of. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that over the next year I'll get enough people making productive criticism of my ideas to be able to scale things up and be sure of success, since tesla coils and magnets are far from cheap.

Collaborative learning and the progress of science and learning are so important to me, and I feel gratified to know that you feel the same way because of your research into such an exciting and controversial subject like cold fusion.

Who knows? Maybe we'll be able to collect enough information by doing this to be able to convert it one day into an actual encyclopedic essay.

You're awesome, thanks!Derenek (discuss • contribs)

Your cross-wiki editing
Derenek, to support the steward unlocking your account, I agreed to report cross-wiki problems with your editing. This is about that. It is not about Wikiversity, and should not affect your editing here, which is welcome. It is simply what I notice about your recent Wikipedia editing, which could create problems.

You were warned on your talk page about original research and promotion. Wikipedia has, for example, conflict of interest policies. If you have a conflict of interest, as you do with respect to your own theories, you would be obligated to not edit the relevant article, and you made other mistakes there, too many to list. If you wish to request user attention, you would do so on the Talk page, not on the article. However, even on Talk pages, your prommotion of your own original research can lead to sanctions.

That warning was titled: "June 2015". That is a Wikipedia code for a warning. The date was June 11. You then violated the warning with your editing on June 13. You would probably be warned at least once more before being blocked, but not always. I recommend that you apologize, underneath the warning. Your edit was reverted by a long-time, highly experienced, antifringe editor. He knows what he's doing and he has arranged for the block of many users.

Until you learn more about Wikipedia policies, I highly recommend that you stay away from any controversy there. You don't know enough about the policies, and your tendencies will get you in trouble. And that *could* ultimately affect your editing here, if someone complains to a steward. One of the arguments for your unlock was that you were not blocked anywhere. Keep it that way! So far, this has not risen to the level that I'd be obligated to inform the steward, and that is why I'm telling you here.

You are doing what I've seen many do. If nobody helps them, the outcome is predictable, they are blocked and sometimes banned if they do this cross-wiki. You are safe here, if you work here.

As to Wikipedia, one way to get involved there is to do Recent Changes patrol. Consider it like a video game, you are looking for vandalism and spam. Be careful and respect warnings, if you make a mistake, apologize. Be conservative in this; you will build up a history of positive and wide participation.

Another way is to correct simple errors on pages you read. You have some knowledge of physics, for example. On your Wikiversity page, you will begin linking to Wikipedia for things mentioned where there is an article there. Read those articles, and fix actual errors. Do *not* add your own original research, I'm talking about spelling corrections or interpretive error where the mainstream position has been misunderstood by an editor. Happens all the time. Fix it. Don't revert war. Be useful. This will create a background that will enable you to recover more securely from mistakes. Along the way, you might read policy pages, and seek to understand why Wikipedia is the way it is. It makes sense, it is not stupid, though policy is not always evenly enforced. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I've actually been trying to say away from other people's articles since I've been learning from you guys the etiquette of doing things. All those things occurred prior to this controversy heading out. I do apologize for any misinterpretation of my intent. Any reversions I can think of were reactions to blanket erasure of my own article. As you can tell from the time we started talking to the present I have abided by your rules and to the suggestions you have made to me. I did add some notes to talk pages (like asking doctor fedosin to help explain some of his euations), are those not allowed?Derenek (discuss • contribs)
 * What is "allowed" on wikis is often unclear. Rather, it may depend on who you are and other factors that will not be obvious to a newcomer. Generally, discussion of mainspace article content is allowed on attached talk pages. Generally, not discussion of the topic itself. This can be fuzzy. On User talk pages, what is welcomed by the user is generally allowed, what is not welcome may cause problems. So unwelcome comments should be justified by necessity. Basically, do not insist or debate on a user talk page unless the user consents. I recommend taking plenty of time to understand Wikipedia, in particular, before attempting anything difficult. Treat it like a game to explore, and play it conservatively. Spend some time watching WP:ANI and learn what the community considers disruptive and what sanctions are applied. If you decide to become active on Wikipedia, more than making occasional corrections, do some WP:RCP. Again, treat it as a video game. The goal in playing the RCP game is to be the first to notice vandalism or obvious error. If you hesitate, you will not win any points. Don't worry, in the first part of this game, about whether you are *right* or not. Just revert with edit summary "rvv" if it looks like vandalism. However, with each page you look at, you can abandon the goal of upping your general edit count, and go into page improvement mode. If an edit was not vandalism and you reverted it, undo the revert as soon as you realize it, and you actually will have gained two points in the game, one for the revert and one for reverting yourself. It is a wiki, mistakes can be fixed. If you see other problems you can fix with a page, fix them. Avoid controversy in this game. The goal is page improvement, and transient error is of little importance. So review your work carefully, and don't leave mistakes in place.
 * In page improvement mode, check sources. If you reverted an edit that might be good, google for source. If you find a source, replace the text you removed, or otherwise add reliably sourced information, linking to the source. Don't worry too much at first about what is "reliable source." You will learn. Do not argue about this, but behave fully collaboratively.
 * You may also play the RCP game on en.wikiversity. We have many fewer people watching for vandalism here, and sometimes, if you look, you will find old vandalism (that also happens on en.wikipedia, but it is much rarer). This is part of how to build your experience as a wiki editor, and your reputation as a reliable participant.
 * Be very aware of your own conflicts of interest. Even if you don't have a formal conflict (such as employment with the subject of a page!) you will generally present at least an appearance of COI with topics where you have strong opinions. So cultivate reserve in those areas, and be especially respectful of what looks like opposition. Welcome it, and if it looks like this intervention might be causing harm, get help. Ask others to look at it. DefendEachOther is a foundational wiki principle. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Debate on Talk:Nonstandard physics/Vortex Science
It looks like you have copied an extensive discussion from somewhere else, either another web site or private email. This is potential copyright violation. We are not terrible sticklers on Wikiversity, and copying may be justified here as fair use, but the source should be explicitly given. In particular, if possible, permission should be claimed for copying from the other author. If not, then a fair use claim should be made.

This discussion is quite the kind of thing we want to see here, particularly for anything fringe or outside the mainstream, particularly for original research. As I think you realize, you have the opportunity to learn from this, either to recognize errors of your own, or to develop your skill at communication. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)