User talk:Abd

-- billinghurst (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Essay on Cold Fusion Hypothesis
I have removed your essay from Talk:Cold Fusion Hypothesis; it even includes self-promotion! Opinions about topics should be peer-reviewed, or at least published in a professional venue. See WS:WWI for more details.

If you have something to say about the `text' (i.e. not the topic discussed in the text), feel free to add a much shorter comment to the talk page.

If you want, you can post your essay to a page in your userspace, as we dont (yet) have policies about appropriate use of userspace, however it is quite possible that it will end up deleted in the future. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, John. I've copied it into my user space. I'm trying to understand why the essay itself, Cold Fusion Hypothesis is okay here, but not the comment on the topic on the Talk page, and I'm just noticing the timing of this "welcome."


 * I became an expert in the field, originally, based on my older background and then intensive research on the topic of Cold Fusion for the Wikipedia article. When I saw that I was about to be topic banned there, (as have been other experts, including one quite notable one -- and the other experts wouldn't touch Wikipedia with a ten-foot-pole), I decided to start my own research/commercial kit project, as the comment explained, which now makes me COI, of course. Not that it's a big deal; still, if you are willing to explain, it's quite likely that you could help me understand local customs. --Abd (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You essay is unpublished (and to be frank, unpublishable in its current form). We are not a platform for unpublished thought.  On the other hand, Cold Nuclear Fusion: A Hypothesis is published.
 * If you are an expert in the field, we would love it if you released your published works under an acceptable license. See WS:WWI for more details.
 * The timing is brought about because I saw your post on the admin noticeboard, and I looked at your contribs to see whether you had been active here while I haven't been watching this project closely. I don't see how your essay is of any relevance to the text of the talk page you placed it on, so I removed it as inappropriate.
 * Are you interested in sources that fall within the scope of this project? If so, I'll be happy to help you settle in. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 03:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just trying to understand the policies. Where can I find guidelines on what materials are acceptable? .What I saw wasn't more than a few words, not adequate to cover many contingencies.
 * This was my misunderstanding. Discussion of the text, which is what I did, isn't appropriate here, if I'm correct. While I will have occasion to place published materials here, probably wikibooks will be more appropriate, as well as wikiversity for certain kinds of materials. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WS:WWI. If you would like to discuss a work which is on the edge of that policy, we can discuss either here or on WS:S. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

An interesting reflection
I find that it is interesting that someone can come in and (seemingly) lecture on what the community says, believes and is a local consensus. Also that this someone can clearly identify what our stand should be where that someone hasn't evidently participated in the community's discussions, and yet would appear to have a preconceived notion on what they believe is right or wrong. It didn't seem that you were here to be reflective on our decision-making, it would appear that you were here to impose your view on what action that we should take. As administrators, there is the right and, probably extend that to, the responsibility to take heed of a global block, and we have done that as they imposed and reversed their global block. If it was a series of local blocks, or where the person was of standing in our community, then it becomes specifically an issue that we would address and at that time, I would think that asking us to reflect and question our actions in that case would be suitable.

With regards to welcomes, I believe that you will see that I welcomed you to the community in April 2009 at the time of your initial contribution. With regard to having another welcome after your appearance and criticisms; if you had an expectation of joyful greetings and thanks for that contribution, then I would think that it would probably be conceived as an unrealistic expectation. If that is a disappointment to you, then maybe you could reflect on your part and your preconceived ideas, and we will reflect on our parts. Some of us are quite separated from the politics of WMF and other sites, and able to consider these aspects independently of events elsewhere. Are you to believe that you are likewise able to assess such matters dispassionately? — billinghurst  sDrewth  04:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Lucky guess. I'm operating on a meta level, always have been, even as I act locally. Do note that I was agreeing with the community consensus here (and elsewhere), and I'm not sure that you so agree. Is it offensive that an "outsider" comments and advises? Where, then, are the comments on User talk:Jeff G., who was truly insisting, with many comments? As to "disappointment," I'm not naive, billinghurst. But thanks for trying to explain. Your welcome in April was also appreciated. --Abd (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)