Gen ato

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to cold fusion, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Phil153 (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Inserting Material into Cold Fusion

Thank you for your contributions to cold fusion. Please note that cold fusion is a controversial topic - instead of constantly reinserting the material after it removed by other editors, it is best to seek consensus on the talk page before making changes to the lead. Your assertion that "cold fusion has become a reality" is totally unsupported by reliable sources and should be removed. Note that New Energy Times is not a reliable source. Below is a template that better explains our policy on reverting the edits of others. Phil153 (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Hi Gen,

Thanks for your response. You can't keep resinserting material that other editors have removed, especially on a controversial topic. Some of your sources are also not reliable according to our reliable source policy (for example, New Energy Times). Wikipedia works by consensus, and the best way to go about it is to discuss on the article's talk page Talk:Cold fusion before adding controversial material. Two editors have disagreed with your insertions and you should not continue adding it after that point.

I know it seems like a lot of rules but your first edit is on a very controversial article, so you have to be careful in what you add. Phil153 (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

OK Phil I cancelled the link to the New Energy Times (the other description that I found are all in Japanese language). But the other link are with papers, documentation and researches of the most famous scientists on this subject...

Thanks for being reasonable about everything, Wikipedia can seem arcane to new users. But there are still multiple problems with what you added. For example, most of it doesn't belong in the lead due to WP:Weight and other policies. And you definitely can't say "cold fusion became a reality" because there is no support for this statement, which is an extraordinary claim. That's original research or synthesis, and we're only allowed to quote reliable secondary sources for such claims. I honestly don't mean to give you a hard time, and I'm not removing it again, but others will remove what you've added becaues it doesn't belong in the lead of this article. Phil153 (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it pending discussion. See the talk page for my brief summarising comments. --TS 04:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with You Phil. It's very bad that you cancell all my text. If there is a controversy on the meaning of a term, and if there are (many) scientific evidence of these differences (I mean international recognised documentation of scientists and credited scientific publications from international research centers or universities) You cannot simply cancel all. If a group don't agree with another group on the interpretation of a term, You have to give them the opportunity to write at least an alternative meaning. Otherwise this is against freedom of expression. And people can easily call this way of doing "censorship". Suppose f.e. that a powerful corporation or other agencies have an interest to control a term. They will put twenty or more "watch dogs" to "control" the meaning of different "critical" words linked to it. In such a way It will be difficoult for the scientific comunity to give contributions freely. This is against the same existence of Wikipedia as a neutral witness of human culture and progress. And in a few years this will cause the people not to consider Wikipedia as neutral as it declare to be.

Hi Gen,

We edit by consensus around here. I did not revert your latest version, another editor did. The removal of your text is supported by other editors, including those who agree with cold fusion, at Talk:Cold_fusion#Revert_by_TS_of_substantial_new_material_in_lead. Please take the time to read the consensus page I linked above to get a feel for how WP works. Your edits and contributions are welcome but if others don't think they fit with Wikipedia policies of neutral point of view and verifiability then they will get removed. Phil153 (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Suppose f.e. that a powerful corporation or other agencies have an interest to control a term. They will put twenty or more "watch dogs" to "control" the meaning of different "critical" words linked to it. In such a way It will be difficoult for the scientific comunity to give contributions freely. This is against the same existence of Wikipedia as a neutral witness of human culture and progress. And in a few years this will cause the people not to consider Wikipedia as neutral as it declare to be. And the concrete danger is to transform one of the geatest intuition for propagating human culture in a "Big brother" that control the meaning of all.

P.S. I read the talk. I agree that my English it's not so nice but somebody can correct the wrong words or phrases without cancelling all. This is called cooperation otherwise it's pure "censorship". Anyway the big problem is that a member can cancel the text of another member. On the scientific point of view this is completely bad. It' antiscientific.

Wikipedia is not the place for scientists to give contributions freely; scientific journals, informal communications or even Wikisource are the place for that. This is an encyclopedia, not a science forum, and it has content policies to make everything readable and informative. Apart from that, I share your concerns about big brother. But a free content encyclopedia edited by millions of volunteers is not where the danger is. Phil153 (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Five_pillars and Wikipedia:Welcome for more information on what Wikipedia is and why your edits were removed. Phil153 (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this encyclopedya made from all and controlled from few? If an Encyclopedia don't give the opportunity to show many point of view, especially in the crucial side of the scientific arena, it's not a free encyclopedia. Please tell me exately where my text was wrong or, if You want, correct it on a rational and cooperative way. Otherwise I will consider it as a clear case of censorship!!

Sorry but, as I mentioned on my talk, I did'nt understand why the scentific publications and works of some important scientists on cold fusion are simply cancelled or not reported from the english version of the wiki. For example the fundamental works of Giuliano Preparata, Yoshiaki Arata and Yue-Chang Zhang, T. Ohmori and T. Mizuno, Francesco Scaramuzzi, Francesco Celani are not quoted. And they were cancelled when I quoted some of them on my text. In the italian version for example they all are quoted very well. Sorry but there is something that I don't understand. It seems that in the english version of the wiki the term "cold fusion" it's treated in a very "non neutral" way. Of course rules are fundamental in an enciclopedical work. But they have to grant neutrality. Another problem is related with the use of rules. If we don't use rules in a soft way, if we exceed with the legalistic use of rules, we can transform them as the best stones to cover the scientific evidences and not as milestones to spread knowledge. Different experiments were made for example in social psycholgy to demostrate the anti-social use of good social rules when we exceed on their use. This happened many times in the history of science. My text for example was completely cancelled and not trasformed or changed with a mutual cooperation. And cooperation (and not chensorship)is fundamental in every project! I agree that "New Energy Times" is not a scientific isitution (but it's quoted on the italian version...) and I cancelled this reference from the first version. But what about the others? Are they not scientists? Can You please answer on a rational basis to all of these points? (sorry the same text that I wrote here I also wrote on the talk part) Thanks

Gen ato, the article has a long history and has been edited by experts in the field. Unfortunately, you have dropped into, more or less, a "battlefield." A long-time contributor to this article, basically specializing in it, was, last month, banned by Wikipedia:Arbitration committee from editing the article, you can see the notice at the top of Talk:Cold fusion. There is a lot of attention focused here. There are people working in two different directions: on the one hand, there are those who want to see more reference to recent work, especially that work which has appeared in peer-reviewed journals; and there are others who think that this article will then be imbalanced toward a "fringe point of view." If you look at the most recent post to the talk page, there is a comment from User:Kirk Shanahan, who is a published critic of cold fusion. He thinks the article is biased toward positive results. Others think the opposite. Dropping into the middle of this and posting what you think should be said, in the lead of the article, no less, is going to elicit a very negative response. The lead of an article should represent the highest level of consensus from among the editors. It currently doesn't, in my opinion, but it will take time to fix, and patience. In any case, welcome. I suggest you read the Talk page archives, to get an idea of the controversies that have come up. Ask me, on my Talk, if you have any questions. If you revert again, you could easily be blocked. I'm an experienced editor and you might notice that even though I've been reverted making what I thought was a simple and clear and perfectly sourced it, I haven't edit warred. I discussed, and I'll continue to discuss. Whenever it's necessary to revert, make sure you don't do it on your own! A single editor against a number of editors will always lose. The only reason you weren't blocked is that you are new; it was necessary that you be warned first. --Abd (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As to the questions you asked, Wikipedia principle: Raise five points, get no answer. Raise one, maybe you will get an answer. Talk about censorship, editors, who have heard it all a hundred times, will stick their fingers in their ears, for the most part. --Abd (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

comments from banned editors

Ato, Jed is topic banned from that talk page, he's not supposed to be posting there and, as a banned editor, his posts should be reverted on sight. Please stop replying to him because it only encourages him to post more. You can add your view here but I must warn that, given Jed's history of pushing his own point of view against all wikipedia policies and total lack of repentment, I think that Jed has the chance of a snowball on hell of having his ban lifted. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ato, that's Naval's opinion, and it has no authority. The ban might stick, because Rothwell is impolitic, but you have the right to respond as you see fit. (The ban would be on Rothwell, not you, it doesn't restrict your right to independent comment.) There is some danger that you could be blocked; JzG has actually argued at the current RfAr that you are somehow connected with Rothwell, which I think is preposterous; but the political situation here is very unstable at the moment, with the community divided, that's what you dropped into with edits that, I must agree, were inappropriate. But you should have been welcomed and assisted to participate appropriately. Your arguments about censorship, etc., are largely incorrect, but there are problems of balance in the article. I highly recommend backing up and, as I suggested before, raising one small issue at a time, not many. And be patient; the time to act may be when there are other experienced editors aligned with what you might want. You can assist by finding sources in Japanese, since a lot of work has been done in Japan. But don't be surprised if you are reverted quickly; you will do your most effective work by carefully discussing each source, and you will learn what is acceptable and what is not. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Three Wikipedia's Pillars that don't seems respected at the voice "Cold fusion"

It's my opinion that 3 of the five Wikipedia's pillars are not respected in the voice "Cold fusion". (from Gen Ato):

1)Neutrality I think that, expecially if one voice is a controversial term or have controversial meanings, we have to report all the scientific point of view (and all the possible meanings if this is the case) giving them the same evidence (this means the same "dignity" in the position and length of text etc.. At the voice "cold fusion" in the english wikipedia f.e. there is not an historical timeline quoting all the different (or at least the most controverse or discussed), publiced scentifical studies (there is only a little chapter with Fleischmann and Pons and some american scientists quoted. All the international ones are not presented and this chapter ends at the year 1989!). Moreover it's not the same thing to quote an important research (or considered important from a part of the scientific comunity) on a footnote (between hundred references with a very little text) or on the main text descripting the voice. If we want to be neutral we have to give to all researches or studies the same dignity that we give to the others.

2)Free content This lak of neutrality of the voice "cold fusion" in the english Wikipedia was for me very evident, especially if You compare the content of the same voice in other languages, f.e. with the italian Wikipedia. Because of that I was sincerely trying to give to this voice a better equilibrium, in the sense of the evidence given to every "position". This is essential in a case of a very controversial voice. But my text was completely cancelled. I think Wikipedia is not the right arena to decide or to conclude wich is the best or the good research to speak about. There are other instruments or places to do that. The first aim is to show "the mountain" from every point of view. "Free content" means to give the possibility and the opportunity of free expression to every position in one scientific field. And I think this is not the case for Wikipedia at the voice "cold fusion". Let me add that if somebody simply cancell your text, without providing any correction to it, this is not a cooperative work. We have to clearly understand that, if the project it's a public one, like wikipedia seems to be, this way of doing is seen as pure censorship. Of course we have to correct, to propose and to negotiate with a mutual work to reach the goal. And what is the goal? To describe a process, a voice or anything else with a neutral clearness. Phrases like "More of the usual nonsense" or "The editor is clearly inexperienced", like I have read in this discussion are not only offensive, especially between the members of a project. Scientifically and politically not correct, because they are not propositive. If somebody want to put in evidence something You cannot simply say that his or her words are not correct. You have to propose corrections. This is cooperation. This phrases are inaceptable because in a public project nobody has to be neglected. The approach have to be inclusive and not exclusive. This is one of the main differences between public projects and private projects. Otherwise it's simply an occupation of a public space from a group (or a corporation or a club or a caste...). And this is also not ethic in a public space where many people are sincerely and freely giving something.

3)Consensus There was not any attempt to find consensus around my position. In a few minutes my text was repeatedly cancelled. None of the two or three members inserted anything to substantially support my point of view, that in a few word is: "some researches and important studies and scientists involved in cold fusion are not quoted here and I suggest to insert at least some of them". This is a political position and You don't need to be an expert of cold fusion to understand this point. It's very difficoult to find consensus in a group if You are weak and the others are very strong. What to do in Wikipedia? I give here an example: suppose that I'm a multinational corporation, with a strong interest to hide a certain experiment or research in a certain scientific field. If my interest it's very big, it will be very easy for me to have ten or twenty "watchdogs" between my employee around the world. They will build very easily a "firewall" simply cancelling text of others with different legalistic pretexts or simply saying that other members are not experts. Without proposing solution to represent their point of view, but simply censoring their text. Naturally there will be consensus, because many members of the group involved in the project are also members of the corporation. Of course I'm not sayng here that this is the case of the members involved in the voice "cold fusion" in the english Wikipedia. But if You make a little calculation of the budget involved in the nuclear fission or in the warm fusion programs We can say that, witouth doubt, a risk in this sense is also possible. For that reason my proposal is not to cancell the text of other members, but to correct his/her text respecting the different point of view and proposing something to solve the problem without censorship.--Gen ato (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

PS.What to say about the language of a member if his or her english is not very correct? We have to accept it! We have to understand that Internet it's a public and an international arena with billions of people, students and scholars of many countries. Only very few of them are of english mothertongue. They use a very basic english only as a tool to express ideas. Of course people of english mothertongue are strongly advantaged (but what if we used spanish that is the first spoken language in the USA?). In a cooperative project different competences are an opportunity to reach the goal and not a fact of discrimination. As many people in Europe I spoke fluently five languages but I don't write well english german and french. I was involved in different researches with collegues of many countries and language was never a big problem. When You work around an international project at first point are ideas, creativity and cooperative approach.--Gen ato (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

continues from Talk:Cold fusion

About getting the policies wrong, see for example: "If a voice is controversial it's not the goal of wikipedia to decide if a scientifical experiment or position it's better of another one"[1]. You are mixing two different things here.

One is: wikipedia does not leave out controversial stuff just because it's controversial. However, the reliable sources guideline WP:RS demands to back up the controversial statement so it can be verified (as per the verifiability policy. If there are no published secondary sources stating it, then it goes out. (notice that wikipedia gives preference to WP:SECONDARY sources, and in your first edit here you were using only experiment papers, which are considered primary sources)

The other is: deciding if an experiment or position is better than another (independently of controversy). The Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV) demands that:

a) we represent "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". In your last edit to the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=266651857&oldid=266633571 you provided primary sources that were not independient from the person doing the claims on the source.

b) the views that wind up represented are given due weight depending on their weight on reliable sources (the WP:UNDUE section, with mainstream sources being the "majority view"). Looking again at your last edit [2], you dumped a long paragraph on the lead about an unverified claim that has not been covered by reliable secondary sources, which would give this experiment more weight even that Fleischmann and Pons own experiment. It's also held by a tiny scientific majority when compared to the whole scientific community, which still remains skeptic that any of those experiments is actually having nuclear effects on them.

Your edits are still packed with minor and major errors, but that's cured with experience, so you need to get lots more experience on other articles before you can start making this sort of bold changes on disputed articles and asking that the other editors respect them. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Enric. For the errors (minor or major) I remember You what it's written on the [Wikipedia introdution][3]: "Don't be afraid to edit — anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better". So I think I'm not wrong.--Gen ato (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I write here my text, you can make all the corrections that You want. Of course You can also add somethyng:

On May 2008 Yoshiaki Arata, a senior japanese Physics Professor and his colleague Yue-Chang Zhang, made a demonstration in front of many journalists and researchers. They presented a reactor that was able to move a Stirling engine. Yoshiaki Arata and Zhang Yue-Chang performed on 1998 a previous experiment on cold fusion. Before Arata's experiment theoretical studies was made from himand many others. We quote those of Giuliano Preparata professor at the [[INFN][4](Faculty of Nuclear Physics - University of Milano Italy), autor of "Coherent theory of cold fusion" and the research work of Francesco Celani and others. If those studies and experiments are to be considered as cold fusion or not it's still a controversial matter.

Phil has already answered below --Enric Naval (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank You, My experiment was successful!

This are my last words in this talk. I'm an expert in technolgy and in science communication. My partecipation on this talk was a part of one experiment that I'm carring out with other international researchers. The aim of the experiment was:

1)To verify if in the en.wiki, as it's reported from different sources, there is a sort of firewall to "protect" the description of many "hot articles" from new insertions of other scientifically credited and published points of view (if You look for in Internet You will find editors that have written lists with many of this terms). And, if yes, to describe how this system works. 2)To verify if the system of rules given in Wikipedia is sufficient to grant a neutral description in the controversial articles. 3)To verify If there are possibilities that some strong entities can directely or indirectely enter on the play, transforming the process of comunication, consensus and neutrality (for example corporations interested in mantaining or changing the text of an article, or to hide or to distort parts of it for personal or private interests etc.)

My work was to check the first point. The metod consists in 3/4 hours discussion of all my talk (that I have on this days here, in the discussion section of this article) with 3 dishomogeneous focus groups of about 12 persons each. (those are the components of the first FG: 2 normal persons, 3 students in different areas of science, 3 professors of different matters, 3 theachers of different school levels, 1 coordinator and me as an observer). The work will be completed with about 10 interviews (3 with leaders on the scientic communication field, 3 with experts on group working and planning, and 4 experts on the side of cold fusion). The laguage spoken is the italian language but the experts and the members of the focus are italians but also german (7 persons), french (1 person) indian bengali (1 person) russian (1 person) and polish (1 persons) speaking.

The results of the first focus group of this morning was that: a)In this talk there is strong evidence of a lack of cooperative work. The tex proposed from Gen was a traslation of a part of the article included in the it.wiki. The content of this text was not a Gen's opinion. The aim was to rappresent a part of the scientific comunity that it's not reported in the en.wikipedia's article. b)Gen asked to correct or transform or add his text. His text reported and quoted studies and famous researcher's names involved in the cold fusion. They wasn't included in the main text of the article. His text was very essentyal but condivisible becouse it's seems to reflect the point of view of a part of the scientific world in this sector. But his text was repeatedly cancelled from a member. Gen proposed new points in the to-do list to overcome the problems. But they were cancelled from the same member (Phil) without asking his opinion on how to change these points. c)We agree with Gen when he argued that this is a sort of "censorship". d)It's impossible to find consensus in a project were there is not cooperation and mutual respect of other positions, e)It's not a part of a cooperative work to advice other members with words as "you need to get lots more experience on other articles". In a wikipedia's talk every member don't know exately the experience of the others. And Gen is the nik-name of a respected researcher in his sector, with experience in science comunication and technology. He contributed with many research groups and published many works. d)If a new member is not considered able to write a text because of his/her opinion this is pure discrimination. We agree with Gen when he pointed out that if his or her text is not correct (because he is not an english-speaking member) the other members have to cooperate correcting/adding the text but not simply cancelling it. e)In the case of a controversial article: If the insertion of some published studies, or scientifical researches (validated from research centers or big universities) are proposed from an editor, there should be proposal for corrections or addictions but not cancellations of all words. The text have to be inserted, to respect the neutrality of it.

CONCLUSIONS: "we observe that, in the case of the text included in the article "Cold fusion" on the en.wikipedia there was a lack of neutrality. Gen, as a new member of the project, proposed changes to overcome this lack. It's seems clear, as Gen repetedly observed during his talks, that there wasn't a systematical respect of many rules, taditionally observed in the field of mutual cooperation: his text, that reported the positions of respected scientifical researchers and scholars, was repetedly cancelled. Or, as he said, "censored". We confirm, that in the case of this article, it was impossible to insert new text, in order to grant other scientifically based points of view. It was impossible, in other words, to grant neutrality in a controversial article because there was a legalistic work of a few members to hide other researcher names and researches in this contrversial scientific field".

I give to You all my best wishes to work your best to present this voice in a more neutral way. I'sorry that somebody cancelled my possibility to openly give this message on the talk page. Another probe of censorship? Good luck--Gen ato (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There are many elementary errors in your text above.

1. You were not reverted by the same person (me) but by three different editors, and the reverts were agreed to by others, including those who think cold fusion is real. So your claims of suppression of POV that rely on this point are based on a false understanding of the situation and contrary to the facts.
2. There is no particular reasons to assume that the Italian Wikipedia is more NPOV or balanced than the Enlglish one. So you don't have any kind of prima facie case to claim that the text you inserted from the Italian Wikipedia was NPOV, balanced, or relevant. In short, you're assuming your conclusion, a basic fallacy.
3. Point (b) is false. The references you tried to add were already in the article, they just weren't given the same wording and prominence that you gave them.
4. This is a volunteer project, and no one is obliged to do anything. A certain basic level of intelligence and skill is required to work effectively in a collaborative environment, and it's not anyone's job to make sure that your particular voice gets heard. We're all here to write a high quality, unbiased encyclopedia, and sometime efficiency means ignoring those who can't communicate coherently or collaboratively, or understand the meaning behind policy.

Have fun with your school project. Phil153 (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"A certain basic level of intelligence and skill is required to work effectively in a collaborative environment, and it's not anyone's job to make sure that your particular voice gets heard." - This sounds dagerously close to a WP:NPA violation to me. Just sayin'. As for the rest, well you are entitled to your POV. --GoRight (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it helps if you WP:ABF :). Seriously though, in case of doubt, one should use good faith interpretations of that passage, of which there are plenty. Especially since it responds to a list of general comments about collaboration, and comments that editors are obliged to fix up everything they come across rather than deleting it, and that deletion of something, no matter how bad, is necessarily censorship. Perhaps I should have said "one's particular voice" instead of "your particular voice", but I've always thought that sounded like the Queen, even if it does avoid misunderstanding. I'd agree it could sound personal if I was responding to Gen ato's complaints about his own contributions, but as you can see I've said nothing of the sort in the past before he revealed it was an experiment and made general comments, so there is clearly nothing personal intended. :) Phil153 (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take you at your word here. My reaction was more focused on the "certain basic level of intelligence and skill is required" portion of that which I took to be directed at the editor to whom you were responding. Even so, I have not WP:ABF. I didn't claim it WAS a violation. I only pointed out that it sounds dangerously close to one, IMHO. Now that you have clarified your meaning I don't have a problem with it. --GoRight (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's entirely my fault for using imprecise language. Thanks for pointing it out. Phil153 (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Gen ato, above, draws conclusions that are unwarranted from the limited experience of this incident. I'd agree that the present article on Cold fusion is imbalanced, but balancing it is not necessarily as simple as an apparently inexperienced editor inserting text imbalanced in the opposite direction. I took Gen ato as being as presented, a single user. I suggested procedures, not followed whereby changes might be accomplished. Thus the experiment did not show that, as Gen ato claimed above, It was impossible, in other words, to grant neutrality in a controversial article because there was a legalistic work of a few members to hide other researcher names and researches in this controversial scientific field. The analysis of "legalistic work" may be correct, it seems to be true of some editors who have impacted this article in the past; however, to make significant changes in the presence of serious pressure (from either side) becomes difficult and requires patience with consensus process. If one thing is known about consensus process, it is that it takes time and patience. To conclude as Gen ato did from a few interactions over a short time is, essentially, preposterous. Difficult, yes. Impossible, no. This, in fact, mirrors the condition of the whole field of Cold fusion. There is an apparent consensus, it might be asserted, yet it's an old one that seems to be largely assumed in the absence of evidence and knowledge of current research and publications. It takes time to change something like that. I and others, I assume, will be working to ensure that what can be verified from normal reliable sources is, indeed, included in the article in a balanced way. And while I did not revert Gen ato's edits, I concurred with the reverts because they violated Wikipedia guidelines in ways that created opposite bias. We do not improve the project in this way.

Test edits on a modest scale I would not consider offensive; however, a massive edit to the lead section of a highly controversial topic could be considered disruptive, and, if this behavior were repeated after warning, it would be proper to block the user. However, the editor did retreat to Talk for the most part, and this is exactly where controversial discussion can take place. The discussion has now been archived; in my view that was premature; however, Wikipedia operates by editorial consensus, and two editors concurred with the archiving, and I'd have to think it worthwhile to escalate this to involve more editors in order to legitimately assert my own position, and, with the acknowledgment above, that would seem to be a foolish thing. On the one hand, it seems that a goal of improving the article existed in Gen ato's edits; but on the other hand, there was a complicating motive: a test of Wikipedia. --Abd (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)