User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere

 Hello and Welcome to Wikiversity Insertcleverphrasehere! 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! --atcovi (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Cold fusion (Wikipedia)
Watch out for the faction active there, they will look for reasons to block an editor, and they now have two reasons. Cold fusion is under discretionary sanctions. The administrator you have been arguing with won't block you, but ... he has friends who will. The two excuses, a bit of "rough speech," and that entire section on Current Science. It's not published yet, not usable. And this is all, then, about the overall tenor of the article, which is classically what gets users blocked, because talking about that can easily be considered "POV pushing."

You are discussing the *topic* of cold fusion there, and they will say that the Talk page is only for discussion changes to the article.

By the way, it was *never* allowed before to call cold fusion "pseudoscience," that had been explicitly rejected. Notice how "pathological science" gets shaded into "pseudoscience." Cold fusion *has* been called, in WP:RS "pathological science." And that claim has *also* been refuted in RS. Guess which gets emphasized?

All this stuff has been discussed ad nauseum on Wikipedia. I got the RSN to approve Storms (2010) as a Reliable Source, and, essentially, it was simply ignored (and I was "community banned" in short order. Too many words. I.e., I would make a request, they would pile in, I would respond to the arguments raised, and it would be too much. But I got the results I was going for. I got lenr-canr.org unblacklisted on meta. Notice all the convenience links? That there are none is one very clear sign of bias. They repeat the arguments that were rejected at meta, and elsewhere. Notice the sister wiki link to Wikiversity? Really, no sister wiki link? Why not? Again, policies and guidelines are violated, and excuses are made up ad-hoc, and it doesn't matter how preposterous they are.

You *could* attempt to add a sister wiki link to the cold fusion resource here. Do *not* revert war, do *not* argue tendentiously. When the papers are out, there are some articles of high interest. And Current Science is all public access. So all those papers will be readable.

Improving the Wikipedia article is tricky. It could be better to write an article here as a student project. Invite participation. Here, if there is conflict, we will fork the versions. And then, in the end, it is possible to RfC an all-at-once edit of the article there, picking the best version. Instead of trying to pick at one edit at a time with a huge mess. It's been done, with Optics. That revised article was actually written by a banned editor (at the time).

As to the Current Science process, two scientists from India were editors of the Special Section on cold fusion. They invited cold fusion researchers to submit articles for review. They decided which of these articles to then submit to peer review, which was normal, anonymous review.

So first I had to get through the editors. I put off writing it until near the deadline. And then one of the editors didn't like it. I was able to mollify him. So then the Indian reviewer contacted me. He was knowledgeable about physics, not about cold fusion. He was skeptical. So, great! I had to convince him, by working on the article, making it concise and clear, etc. It was a great experience, my first peer-reviewed article. In the end, he gave it a glowing review.

So what is fascinating to me is how the faction you are dealing with on Wikipedia is really quite ready to believe that an arguably important journal would publish a section like that without peer review, based on the thinnest circumstantial evidence, a drastic misreading of the editorial policy pages. It shows what they want to believe.

There have been *many* reviews of cold fusion in peer-reviewed journals, and relatively recently, and negative reviews disappeared long ago. See Cold fusion/Recent sources. That is out-of-date, but it gives the idea. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The thing to avoid in Wikipedia talk page discussions is attempting to convince others you are right, and that they are wrong. Don't go there, no matter how tempting. Just focus on covering what is in reliable source, in the article, if you are going to edit it. If you make an edit, absolutely, do not revert war. If you don't have the support of other editors, you will lose, and can easily be blocked. So engage other editors. There are ways to do that. Develop collaboration and cooperation. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sister wiki template, for article pages: w:Template:Wikiversity. For article talk pages: w:Template:Wikiversity-t. This one is really important. People who want to discuss cold fusion or report original research should be directed to Wikiversity. That is almost never done. Instead they block them. The guideline covering sister wiki links: w:Wikipedia:Wikimedia_sister_projects. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)