Jump to content

User talk:Enric Naval: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→NOR: I will comment there
Abd (talk | contribs)
14,259 edits
→lenr-canr.org: new section
Line 213: Line 213:
rather than RfCing it at this point I brought the issue up [[Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#quote-diving|here]] at wp:NOR for further discussion. maybe we can resolve this just by talking it out. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 18:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
rather than RfCing it at this point I brought the issue up [[Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#quote-diving|here]] at wp:NOR for further discussion. maybe we can resolve this just by talking it out. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 18:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
:I will comment there. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval#top|talk]]) 09:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
:I will comment there. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval#top|talk]]) 09:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

== lenr-canr.org ==

It might now be impossible to edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion#lenr-canr.org_link_in_article this] without removing or altering the link, as JzG just repeated his action of more than two years ago, unilaterally blacklisting the site, ignoring multiple decisions about copyvio to the contrary, and ignoring ArbComm's prior remedy about his use of tools while involved. I will ''not'' be able to handle this here. Thought you should know. He's also trying, again, to globally blacklist the site at meta, I suspect that won't fly this time. I'm not at all restricted at meta, and almost certainly will not be.

I've mentioned you, as I recall, very peripherally, at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Abd-William_M._Connolley RfAr/Clarification]. This was purely a request for lifting the topic bans for myself and Pcarbonn, but it was obviously necessary to mention JzG, as he was behind much of the mess. He seems to be pushing his point, however, with today's blacklisting. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 17:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:50, 29 April 2011



Davkal?

Who is the User:Davkal sock? ps: where did you get the picture of my cat from ;-? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sock [1][2]. Is that your cat? :-) It was already like that when I found it, I swear it :-) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah that one. Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"dash" vs "hyphen" in RM

McLarrister has jumped all over your alleged self-contradiction which I believe, as stated, was a "brain-fart", as it's clear that you meant "hyphen" in the opening phrase (before the all caps "ALWAYS"). In case you hadn't noticed, just thought I'd bring it to your attention (I tried earlier in the edit comments, but that was quickly submerged by other posts).....as I said, why else would you have launched the RM - to change the dash to a dash? These people are even worse at debate than they are at logic, or humility....Skookum1 (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

di stefano

Hi, just a note in case you didn't notice - I moved the pic to commons as it is accessible to multi projects and suchlike there, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment on 'Santa Claus'

hey, I removed the section again - it was an apparently misplaced query answered by someone seeking to soapbox their views (see the edits in the article, wherein the user is fighting to incorporate non-neutral language in section titles, despite an alteration to address their concerns of accuracy). Your edit about how the matter belonged elsewhere was removed as well. No offense was intended. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enric, I'm not sure how writing factual information qualifies as "soapboxing". I have not broken any policies, Jack doesn't want children to see what I have written and discover the objective truth about Santa Claus; however, this is an encyclopedia, not an elementary school and we are bound to tell the objective truth, not coddle children. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenan son of Noah

Why don't we move the information of the page to Islamic view of Noah? The name Kenan can be removed--Imadjafar (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Could you please help with some of the other references on the pages that have to do with Islamic figures? Your edit to the references in Parable of the Hamlet in Ruins looks far better than the previous version.--Imadjafar (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Back in December, you were one of the people who supported User:QuackGuru when a site ban for disruption and POV pushing was proposed. There are once again serious disputes involving this editor. Please consider helping to resolve the current dispute at Talk:Chiropractic. I am hoping that since you are one of the few editors on record as supporting his involvement, that he will be inclined to listen to what you have to say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Fusion Discussion

Enric, I left a note for you here, soliciting your guidance and feedback on how best to employ the talk page discussion on Cold Fusion, to make it as educationally valuable as possible for all participants and observers. —Moulton (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alma-0

I think technically you're supposed to re-nominate, but whatever. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, most probably. But I don't have Twinkle or anything installed. Have you ever tried to make an AfD by hand? It's fairly painful. No wonder that so many newbies have problems making a correct nomination. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you figured it out though. As far as all the hoops you have to jump through to nominate an article for deletion goes, many view that as a feature. It forces those who want to make articles go away to do a little homework first. Imagine how many AFDs we would have if there was a convenient button that any passerby could push if they think an article "sucks"? Also, how many "newbies" are familiar enough with our deletion and inclusion guidelines to know whether or not an article should be deleted? A good example is this AFD which I initially declined to complete on behalf of an IP editor who simply thought it was "cruft". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all images at Commons have a "Nominate for deletion" link..... --Enric Naval (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

"Cradle"

Hi. That Kosovo was the secular and ecclesiastical centre of mid to late medieval Serbia is beyond dispute. The capitals were there, as was the archbishopric. See added reference. That it was the "cradle of identity', of course this was a Serb belief, subjectivity is the norm when it comes to national heritage and historical narratives (no different for any other country). The point is Serbs beleived and saw it as their "cradle" - & this belief is a reality. The sentence is not there to judge whether such a beleief was historically justified, or if other countries also believed this. Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are valid. I thought it was implicit that it meant enshrined by "Serbs". I will add that, just for clarity; and will also make sure that it is clear that Kosovo became the centre of Middle Age Serbia (indeed, later, its focus shifted toward the Danube) Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

Nomination of season one episode articles of House for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articles Paternity (House), Occam's Razor (House), Maternity (House), Damned If You Do, The Socratic Method (House), Fidelity (House), Poison (House), DNR (House), Histories (House), Detox (House), Sports Medicine (House), Cursed (House), Control (House), Mob Rules (House), Heavy (House), Role Model (House), Babies & Bathwater, Kids (House), Love Hurts (House) and Honeymoon (House) are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paternity (House) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Xeworlebi (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

Talk:Croats

Well since a discussion is brewing down there you might be interested in the History Channel documentary on the person :). Its the only documentary ever made about him outside Yugoslavia (and I think the only documentary ever made about any Croat outside Yugoslavia :)), and features such published experts as Stevan K. Pavlowitch (Emeritus Professor of Balkan History at Southampton University, Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, etc...) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

24.116.75.36 "reference does not check out" edits

Seems to be an astute form of vandalism. I'll check the one he removed at electric shock (print-only), but I suspect he's bullshitting us. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also find those edits suspicious (I could say more, but I have WP:BEANS in mind). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence he had removed from electric shock was actually present ad litteram in the source. It's true that it needed a bit more context to be less surprising. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

Just curious

Is there a particular reason why the Cold fusion article seems to generate more controversy than other science related articles on wiki? There seem to be several RfC's and arguments Pass a Method talk 00:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's because there is a very vocal group of people who keeps defending cold fusion. And they decided that the wikipedia article was "wrong" and that it had to be "fixed". And when one proponent is banned, another one takes the turn.
Also, cold fusion promises a lot of things, see Cold_fusion#Announcement. People make a Pascal's wager and they decide to bet a lot of effort on cold fusion. In the very improbable case that CF is correct, the return on investment would be fabulous (solving all energy needs of mankind, forever, all for a few millions of dollars in research. And a few years of being ignored and insulted while you pursue it, in exchange for immense fame when you succeed, saviour of humanity and stuff). So, there is always new people who hears about CF, and they become proponents, and they replace the old proponents. An endless trickle of "true believers", who are doing it for the wellbeing of humanity. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a consensus in the scientific community on whether cold fusion is correct or not? Pass a Method talk 12:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is consensus that there was nothing ever in those cells, and that it's pathological science, and that it's not worth looking at the new results presented by cold fusion researchers. Except
a) as a curiosity and
b) just in case they discover some small new phenomena that nobody noticed before.
In short, nobody expects a sudden discovery of a new energy source, since all those experiments should have already uncovered it.
Note the small detail: it's not that they think that it's wrong or right, they simply think that it's so out of normal science that it's not worth entertaining its correctness.

Most scientists simply haven't passed judgment because they don't think that there is anything to judge. They simply assume that the CF phenomena was only a flawed experiment, that it died time ago, and that's it's a fossilized example of bad science. And then they are surprised that CF is still an active research field.

And then there is a (very significant) share of the scientific community that simply thinks that CF is utter crap, that it won't be solved by any amount of research, and that sends into ostracism any scientist who decides to investigate CF. Which is why some CF researches got their carreers severely damaged. Because they were told to drop it, and they refused, and the other scientists blocked their funds and promotions because they think that researching CF is a waste of resources that only crackpots would pursue it. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Edit-warring warning

You are now warned against pushing your personal agenda at Mexican–American War. I will report you to ANI if you persist. Tony (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you chose to remove my warning from your talk page[3]. That's fine with me. My warning still stands. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Topic ban proposal concerning the lame "Mexican-American War" hyphen/en-dash dispute".Thank you.  Sandstein  20:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terribly sorry to have ever involved Sandstein at this point. I feel his involvement is simply unhelpful and making things more painful and more trouble. :( -- Avanu (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, don't feel bad about it. When one requests admin action, there is always the possibility that it backfires badly. You couldn't know that this would happen. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not what I see; not how library catalogs list it. But if you disagree after consideration, put it back - if you think that the best thing for the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean the actual scanned pages. Look inside the book in Amazon and check the first visible page with text in it. There is a hyphen, an endash and an emdash in the same page, and you can compare their relative lengthz. That book uses very short hyphens. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 April 2011


American Academy of Financial Management

Can you somehow use all of the government links and references and citations to improve the AAFM Article. Nobody wants to whitewash the article, but rather include government links, the top US accreditation agencies, and FINRA and US Government referneces to AAFM.

Hundreds of news articles have been published about AAFM. Interpreting the one negative article as a negative event is Black Washing. Please do not black wash the AAFM Article.

Most of the information that is included in todays article was OK with you last year. Not sure why you think it should be deleted at this time?

Please help get this article right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.102.39 (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied in User_talk:173.17.102.39. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

NOR

rather than RfCing it at this point I brought the issue up here at wp:NOR for further discussion. maybe we can resolve this just by talking it out. --Ludwigs2 18:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment there. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lenr-canr.org

It might now be impossible to edit this without removing or altering the link, as JzG just repeated his action of more than two years ago, unilaterally blacklisting the site, ignoring multiple decisions about copyvio to the contrary, and ignoring ArbComm's prior remedy about his use of tools while involved. I will not be able to handle this here. Thought you should know. He's also trying, again, to globally blacklist the site at meta, I suspect that won't fly this time. I'm not at all restricted at meta, and almost certainly will not be.

I've mentioned you, as I recall, very peripherally, at RfAr/Clarification. This was purely a request for lifting the topic bans for myself and Pcarbonn, but it was obviously necessary to mention JzG, as he was behind much of the mess. He seems to be pushing his point, however, with today's blacklisting. --Abd (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enric_Naval&oldid=426595371"