User talk:Gregory Goble

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't add personal opinions to articles, like you did here. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

OK--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Solicit views

P>S> Any suggestions before I move forward with this? Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wiki Forum may value?--Gregory Goble (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you will get useful answers. --POVbrigand (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)--Gregory Goble (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

poll

Hello, Gregory Goble. You have new messages at Greg L's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome

Hello, Gregory Goble! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! GFHandel ♬  05:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

And please read Wikipedia:Indentation. As a general rule, don't change previous comments (and that includes your own edits as much as other editor's comments). Instead, indent accordingly and add comments in a coherent fashion following previous comments. GFHandel ♬  05:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

When you edit your user page (User:Gregory Goble) you don't need to add a signature (i.e. you don't need to add ~~~~). Your User Page is a page where you can write (just about) any old thing about yourself. For example, you can describe yourself, your philosophy, your aim at WP, your personal interests, etc. Every page at WP comprises two parts: the page itself and an associated talk page. This message is going on the talk page associated with your User page. It is on talk pages that you must put a signature at the end of your posts. GFHandel ♬  06:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You appear to have a close interest in cold fusion. I'd suggest paying close attention to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, WP:SCIRS and WP:FRINGE, cheers. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

edit "Cold Fusion" Nine Refefences to Pathological Science Should Be Moved to Historical Footnotes

The Cold Fusion article links create a reverse relevance problem. The links progression should go forward in time from Cold Fusion to the present state of affairs for this subject. LENR and the Widom Larson Theory, and works known as Condensed Matter Nuclear reflect a deeper contemporary understanding of these phenomenon. The NASA patent for a device based on LENR Science provides a clear pointer that Wiki links should progress forward on this subject. Cold Fusion was a historical birth of this initially misunderstood science. The links should progress forward into the Science of LENR. For this to be allowed by Wiki the Wiki Forum needs to: 1)Recognize it as a Science. 2)Recognize quality Peer Review Journals used by department heads of universities and researchers in this field.

My hope is to improve the article Cold Fusion.

Therefore over the next few weeks I will solicit views of the deans of physics departments of universities.

LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear

1) Is this science or quackery?

2) Do you offer a class in this discipline? If so, please provide information. 

3) Are you developing a curriculum of this science? If so, when will you offer it? 4) What peer review journals do you source in this field?

P>S>

A) Any suggestions before I move forward with this?

B) Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wiki Forum may value?--Gregory Goble (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

A bit of input from a few editors has helped me in this endeavor. To date, here are my (perhaps final) edits to the questions and a bit of the input.

input> As to your “B” question, above, yes; I should think your poll would be valuable… if you received a response. I should think that you would also need to validate the authenticity of your response by having it vetted by one of our ‘crats. Some will argue that the results of your poll are Original Research but I don’t think that would be a genuine shortcoming. By definition, O.R. is …facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. The deans of science and engineering departments are reliable; the only trick is in establishing that their conclusions are somehow published, and it shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how to accomplish that. The whole point of OR is to ensure that the point is being made by a reliable expert and is not the work product of a mere wikipedian. <end input

I hope for a high percentage of responses and am basing that on an assumption that most directors of physics departments are following this closely. The published Widom Larson Theory has elevated the theoretical science of LENR such that it should be on their radar.--Gregory Goble (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

input> As to your “A” question, I would suggest calling the secretaries for the department heads to solicit who exactly you should direct your emails to. Also, I suggest the following tweaks to the wording of your poll:

1) Is the discipline of cold fusion, in your opinion, generally regarded as having a “pathological science” nature to it?

2) Does your university offer cold fusion as a for-credit class? 3) Are you developing a curriculum focused on cold fusion? If so, when will you offer it? 4) What respected, peer review journals do you source in this field?

other input>While surveying department heads is an interesting exercise, since Wikipedia discourages original research [34], it is very possible that the results will not be very useful for improving the article, unless you publish the results somewhere, preferably in a reputable publication. Good luck! Olorinish (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC) <end input

other input> > LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear, historically misnamed "Cold Fusion"

> > 1) Is this science or pathological science?--- 

People will be confused because pathological science is also science. It would be clearer to ask "Is this good science or pathological science?"

> 2) Do you offer a class in this discipline? If so, please provide information.--- > 3) Are you developing a curriculum of this science? If so, when will you offer it?--- They look like good questions.

> 4) What peer review journals do you source in this field?--- I don't understand this last question. Instead of "do you source" it should be "do you see as good sources"? And there are also books, consider "What books or peer reviewed journals do you see as good sources for this field?"

> > Enric, > P>S> > 1) Any suggestions before I move forward with this? > 2) Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wikipedia forum on Cold Fusion may value?

The people on the Vortex-l mailing list will be very happy of seeing the results of this query. But, in wikipedia, the articles are based on published sources. The result of this query ought to be published on some source that we could quote.<end input

Thank you for your good suggestions. Implimenting elements of them will improve the correspondence. This is not research. I am not going to compile results or do an analysis. It's copies of individual correspondence that I will post, Someone sends a letter to me and I post it with contact info for your verification. A list of classes offered would be considered published. I will make sure to include a link to the published catalog the class is found in. --Gregory Goble (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Asking for an "opinion" is not research. Looking for classes offered or curriculum being developed is not original research; it's called investigative reporting. Compiling correspondence for posting is allowed, I hope. I imagine the Directors of Departments of Physics of Universities have done their research and have informed opinions on this subject. I will post their correspondence, positive or negative. I am sure I will be better informed on this subject after this query, quote "interesting exersise". Do you consider it "interesting" enough to see copies of my correspondence? With further effort you could verify each to see if I've been honest? >>> "Wikipedia discourages original research [35], it is very possible that the results will not be very useful for improving the article."<<< I'll keep this in mind though. Thanks! --Gregory Goble (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. After consideration I have edited accordingly...

1) Is the discipline of LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear or Lattice Enabled Nuclear, aka historically inaccurately called "Cold Fusion", in your opinion: A) Good science, or B) Pathological science? A or B

If A... Continue...

2) Does your university offer instruction in this field as a for-credit class? As a not for credit class? If so. please provide class information.

3) Are you developing a curriculum focused on this discipline? If so, when will you offer it?

4) What peer review journals do you utilize or source in this field (for publication or review) and what books do you recommend for information?

I steer away from "cold fusion". This subject and article has a Wiki links reverse relevance problem. Cold fusion should link forward to LENR and the Widom Larson Theory which represents the "Current State of Affairs" for this subject.

I steer away from eliciting responses that are second person speculative such as " in your opinion, generally regarded" or " What respected, peer review journals do you source ". I want to know if the respondee thinks it's good science or not. I want to know what journals they utilize (for publication or review) and what books they have found to have pertinent information. I assume that their opinion (respondee) is the only one they are qualified to give. I also assume that they respect the publication if they list it as part of their "reading material" on LENR. Both assumptions seem sound to me.--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

i answer your question on my talk page.

• User_talk:Kevin_Baas#edit_References_to_Pseudoscience_Should_Be_Moved_to_Historical_Footnotes Kevin Baas^talk 17:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Just read the cold fusion section on your talk page. Made me a bit perturbed. Then I realized you had learned to accept Wiki dysfunction and your reflections on the impotant thing is that research in the labs and science still goes on, progress is being made. I remember my great Aunt, who till her death in the 90's would still argue that they had faked going to the moon. She would have loved to be a Wiki Editor on that subject. Luckily there are better encyclopedias than Wikipedia. Sadly Wikipedia is slowly making them go broke. Be well, be good, and thanks for the useful suggestions. I'll carry this torch for awhile and pass it on when weary.--Gregory Goble (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions regarding editing at Wikipedia

The following are points that I believe will help you to have a better long-term future editing at WP. (These are based on quite a bit of personal experience.)

• Don't make the mistake of thinking that articles are in a finished state. It's easy to be critical, but be mindful that the current state of an article has probably taken thousands of edits by hundreds of editors over many years, so please tread gently when you first approach an article. Have a thorough read of an article's talk page history to discover sensitive issues. If new to an article, consider asking (instead of, or prior to, telling).
• Understand primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. In summary, your editing should be based overwhelmingly on reliable secondary sources.
• Understand that WP must have policies and guidelines (and that sometimes those won't support what you want to do). Sorry, but just because you know something to be correct, doesn't mean that it can end up on WP.
• If you disagree with a policy or guideline, don't argue the point on an article's talk page. Instead, argue the point on the policy talk page. You will get zero traction by trying to change policy on an article's talk page.
• The goal of WP is verifiability, not truth. How closely fact and truth coincide over a long enough period of time is an interesting philosophical debate.
• It's not your Wikipedia—it's everyone's. Never lose site of the fact that editors are here to service the readers of WP. For every editor there are thousands of readers.
• Develop a thick skin and don't bite back. WP is a collaborative environment, and like it or not, you will rub shoulders with a diverse range of editors. It's inevitable that you will get into conflicting situations, so the short version of this one: don't edit angry. Problems don't have to be solved immediately, and things always seem better the next day. If you continue to have issues with other editors, seek help from an admin (as opposed to trying to solve problems yourself). Realise that some battles you will win, and some you will lose.
• Respect the fact that WP is the work of unpaid volunteers. You should try to encourage others at WP. Always being civil is a great start towards that. In a debate, stick to the topic, and under no circumstances personalize a debate.
• Tread gently at the start. Your username and its reputation are valuable to you at WP. The greatest chance you have of putting a large dent in the reputation of your username is when you first start editing at WP. It would be a shame if you had to look back in the years to come (when you've settled into editing at WP), and have to cringe at your earlier efforts at editing. Also remember that everything is forever at WP, so your editing history, comments, blocks, and other logs will always be available for everyone to scrutinize. That said, WP is very tolerant towards editors who show a desire to reinvent themselves (e.g. after a rocky start).
• Never stop learning. There are a large number of policies and guidelines at WP, and they are constantly evolving. Your success and development at WP will hinge on how well you keep in touch with the policies and guidelines.
• Work hard to learn the syntax and codes used at WP. Being able to indent and sign on a talk page is just the first step, but do you know how to: upload and add a picture to an article, use a quotebox, insert a reference, format a web reference, insert a non-breaking space, use the various types of dashes, format text (color, bold, italics, etc.), use templates and categories, use info-boxes, insert a diff on a talk page (of a previous edit), link to other articles, create section headings at various levels, use diacriticals, redirect pages, etc., etc., etc.? This is all rhetorical because you are new to WP, but you will greatly enhance your editing experience when you are comfortable with the syntax and codes. Yes, it can take years.
• If in a rut, consider reinventing yourself. There are a large number of areas at WP, and it's possible that you might enjoy doing something different. You can add content, but you can also: program (scripts and bots), do corrective work (e.g. fixing the use of templates and categories), move into "management" (admin, clerk, arbitrator), become an uploader of photos, help at WP:FAC and/or WP:GAC, join a project, and heaps more. Also, perhaps you are too close to the trees by editing in one particular topic area at WP? Can you switch to editing somewhere else (e.g. about a hobby)? It might be too draining to work all day in one field (in the real world) and then edit in the same field when away from work (on WP). Consider taking a Wikibreak from time to time.

Of course, as any experienced editor will tell you, the guidelines of Be Bold and Ignore All Rules provide limited push-back on some of the above points. You have to find a balance that keeps you wanting to contribute to WP.
Anyhow, I hope that some of the above helps. If there is anything with which I can help, please don't hesitate to ask.
GFHandel ♬  21:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you... this is rich material you present and I value the fact that if I can squeeze it into this little brain of mine I may be richer for the experiance. The editors who contributed to Cold Fusion have done a good job in that they are correct "Cold Fusion" does not take place.... theoretically... or in nature. The science, theory, experimental phenomenon, and observation of LENR belongs in another article... It's a different puppy. To do this 1) Wiki needs view it(where it is of course)as good science when performed following strict scientific method. 2) Recognize papers submitted from secondary (separate institutions) duplicating another scientists experiment and observational data, presented in scientific journals and at conferences by scientists in the disipline of LENR. If Wiki cannot arrive at that minimum acknowledgement of the current state of affairs... That here are scientists in the field of LENR, doing good science presented in peer review journals allowing secondary sources to experiment, verify or not, and publish. Is this a policy problem? If so who do I talk to.... I certainly am not spinning my wheels here... traction is often in the timing, and the time seems right. As I said we have an amazing opportunity here. The fact is cold fusion does not work. Anyone care to add to this or give me some insight?--Gregory Goble

Indentation 101

Kindergarten for me.

How do you do that indent thing by the way? Went to the the Indent Guidelines sent to me. Still clueless. I asked that a number of times till a bunch of us got worried. (I believe I was worried the most) Finally I caught on. This is how it went...

"How do you do that indent thing by the way"? Now I'm starting to get a bit worried. You've asked this a number of times now, but my post over a day ago gave you the link that explains how to indent. You do realise that you also have to make an effort to learn if you want to become an effective editor at WP? GFHandel ♬ 23:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I was sweatin' it as I read the explanation and still couldn't figure it out. Directions in computer shorthand evades me but eventually I caught on. One less worry for me... more to come. Sorry 'bout the slow learn.--12.189.21.162 (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Then I went to Wikipedia:Indentation(for the forth time)to scratch my head and figure out what the heck!! I'm so slow in some things.. it's sometimes a bit worrisome. I discovered the talk page on Wiki Talk Indent. Wow! The wonder of discovering this thread... after I had figured it out... Finally! Here is what I found...

I feel stupid asking this, but how do I indent? Vampyrecat (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just put a colon (:) in front. Angrysockhop (and a happy new year) 07:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

One colon at the beginning of the paragraph indents a small amount; two colons indent a bit more; three colons even more etc. This is illustrated at WP:Talk page formatting. Dolphin51 (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, this small bit should be added to this article? I can see it would make more easier for editors who have to come here to learn how to indent. warrior4321 12:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! I've added it now, as the first line under 'See also'. Shreevatsa (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful... I'm not the only one who's slow in some things. I instantly had an EDIT inspiration! Yea!! (specially for people like me)So I posted the following here...

Wow I just read the discussion page... wish I had earlier. An example is shown on the instruction page for outdenting, could one be added to the indenting instructions? Just for someone like me who couldn't realize the white box showing the shortcut was telling me instructions (I thought it was a white box I was to find and click on, when on the edit page.) Silly me.

Edit suggestion: Indent examples: One colon :before the first word for one indent. Two ::for two. Three :::for three - etc. note: Your indenting will not appear till you post.--12.189.21.162 (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Revision to 'note' note: Your indenting effects will not appear till you 'review' or 'post'.--Gregory Goble (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I love the fact that anything anyone publishes anywhere gets peer reviewed. Gregory

DISCOVERY

It's of great use to wonder

Why our minds wander in awe of it all

Being forever true

Seeking what's new

We are just now discovering

That which has always been

Impatiently awaiting us

Craving our attention

And hoping for deeper understanding

Awesome is the power of discovery

And the power of awe...awwww!

gbgoble'08

Indentation 102

Please also take note of the WP Help system. In this case you would find assistance at Help:Using talk pages#Indentation (which was a link in the "See also" section at the bottom of the page I suggested). GFHandel ♬  04:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and the review of my Wiki work, criticisms and concerns. Today I have studied Wikipedia, as per your suggestion. You are right, it takes time. I also am researching encyclopedia information on these intertwined subjects, I am almost finished with my compilation of deans of physics departments in the U.S. and coordinating a similiar inquiry of deans in Asia and Europe.

• LENR is not Cold Fusion
• CANR is not Cold Fusion
• LANR is not Cold Fusion
• CMNS is not Cold Fusion

The bold impications that these disciplines are asserting, through robust research and intense peer review, is that nuclear reactions, that are neither fission nor fusion, are taking place. The published Widom Larson Theory supports this.--Gregory Goble (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing Scientific Work"Often they prefer to name their field 'Low Energy Nuclear Reaction' (LENR) or 'Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reaction' (),[76] also 'Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reaction' (LANR) and 'Condensed Matter Nuclear Science' (CMNS), one of the reasons being to avoid the negative connotations associated with 'cold fusion'." [75][77] The new names avoid making bold implications, like implying that fusion is happening on them.", these are the bold assertions being made on

Wikipedia "Cold Fusion".--Gregory Goble (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You have helped me to improve through your advice as is seen by my work above. Time for more Wiki Study... thanks--Gregory Goble (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

January 2012

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Talk:Cold fusion. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Do not use Wikipedia as a platform for your original research. Do not post personal information of others on Wikipedia talk pages. Do not engage in activism; this is an encyclopedia, not a bulletin board or a soapbox. Binksternet (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Gregory, user:GFHandel is correct that posting your own personally identifying information is ill-advised and discouraged, and posting others' information is absolutely unacceptable. Arbitration Committee member and Oversighter Risker has oversighted the email address list from talk:cold fusion after it was removed by user:Binksternet. This means it is no longer available in the history, even to administrators. I very strongly suggest you avoid posting personally identifying information in the future, and if you are thinking of making such a post that you review the relevant policies beforehand. EdChem (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for original research

I put a collapse box around your proposal for polling physics departments. The proposal goes against WP:ACTIVISM, WP:FORUM and WP:NOR. Rather than enclosing future proposals of yours I will remove them. Please do not use Wikipedia as a forum. Binksternet (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC):

I find your post troubling. I have been told by a couple of editors that some information (such as classes offered or curriculum being developed on the science of cold fusion is pertinent and acceptable to the article. Please clarify, " Rather than enclosing future proposals of yours I will remove them." do you intend to remove them unilaterally without discussion? Please see my present proposal, Remove Sentence from Conferences Section - Cold Fusion--Gregory Goble (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me know if there are any specific parts of WP:ACTIVISM, WP:FORUM and WP:NOR which you do not understand. I will then see if I can explain them and relate them to what it is that you want to do with Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please answer my question. Please clarify, "Rather than enclosing future proposals of yours I will remove them." do you intend to remove them unilaterally without discussion?--Gregory Goble (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I will do whatever I think best at the time. Removal of off-topic posts is a respected method of keeping Wikipedia free from activism or original research. Binksternet (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If your going to post in an article talk page something which is not directly related to the article it may be removed. Article talk pages are the location to discuss the article in relation to futher changes to it. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

remove sentence from Conferences Section

Remove sentence from Conferences Section

hey Enric Naval, waddya think of my edit proposal? Any questions? Please read the paper and the book sourced in the sentence I propose to remove. Let's open it up for discussion (I thought I did) and post comments to: discource one, discource two, and summary on this edit request (no new sources are referenced). I welcome your input and clarifying comments or requests. Simply put, the sentence takes the authors (of referenced material) statements out of context and should be removed.--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This is your talk page. Enric Naval may not see your comments here. Are you a native english speaker or are you making use of a service such as google translate? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Cold fusion shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Your contributions on the talk page are incoherent ramblings. It is impossible for other editors to understand your wish to delete the text you keep removing. Binksternet (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Gregory, I have reported your WP:3RR violation here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gregory Goble reported by User:EdChem .28Result: .29 You are welcome to post in that section should you wish. EdChem (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Notification: discretionary sanctions on cold fusion

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Cold fusion. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)