User:Pcarbonn

This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy .
Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for Deletion page.

You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move this page (without knowing exactly what you are doing), or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the Guide to Deletion.

Maintenance use only: Subst either {{subst:mfd}} OR {{subst:mfdx|2nd}} into the page nominated for deletion.
Then subst {{subst:mfd2|pg=User:Pcarbonn|text=...}} into the newly created subpage.
Finally, subst {{subst:mfd3|pg=User:Pcarbonn}} into the log.
Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing {{subst:MFDWarning|User:Pcarbonn}} ~~~~ on their talk page(s).

=== Il ne suffit pas d'avoir raison contre l'erreur, il faut en avoir raison. ===

Hi, my name is Pierre Carbonnelle and I'm a member since April 2004. With the help of many others,

I have proposed and developed the To-do list mechanism
I have successfully defended the view that cold fusion is an ongoing scientific controversy, not pseudoscience, in the dispute over cold fusion.

In particular, I would like to thank User:Itsmejudith and User:Seicer for their help. I also thank Steve Krivit and the many Cold Fusion researchers who have given me valuable information.

User scripts

I'm using these userscripts:

Timeline of the cold fusion dispute

Here is a timeline of the cold fusion dispute. To explore the history of an article, I recommend TimeTraveller:

Dec 13, 2001 : the article is created
April 26, 2004 : my first contribution to the topic
Aug 16, 2004 : this version is promoted to Featured Article status, and goes on the front page of wikipedia
Dec 2005 : Jed Rothwell, of lenr-canr.org obtains a contribution defending the reality of cold fusion from Edmund Storms, a cold fusion researcher.
Jan 3 2006 : first reversal to 2004 FA version after poll
7 April 2006 : SCZenz finds that half the DOE did find the evidence of excess heat convincing, a statement that I found extremely important
April 2006 : Jed Rothwell withdraws from wikipedia after defending vehemently the reality of cold fusion, despite my effort to calm him down.
April - Dec 2006 : a lot of discussions: what did the DOE really say ? Should we quote the main conclusion only, or also the conclusion of the Charge Elements ? Why do the conclusions of Charge Element 1 and 2 seem so different ? Can we quote their evaluation of the evidence of excess heat ?
Oct 2006 : The skeptics reject the mediation proposed by Ron Marshall. The ArbComm rejects the case introduced by the same
2007 : the article is pretty stable, and represents the full 2004 DOE review
Oct-Nov 2007 : I update the theory section : that's too much, say the skeptics
6 Dec 2007 : reversal to FA version by JzG.
14 Dec 2007 : Total despair... Luckily, Itsmejudith encourages me to continue : thanks !!
Dec 2007 : I introduce a second case to the Arbitration Committee, which rejects it . Ron Marshall quits Wikipedia.
Jan-April 2008 : Skeptics finally accept mediation. Seicer accepts to mediate. ScienceApologist blocked multiple times for incivility.
May 2008 : I write my account of the mediation in New Energy Times
May 2008 : Dank55 helps bring it to Good Article status
July 2008 : a RfC concludes that cold fusion is not pseudoscience.
July 2008 : ScienceApologist asks that I be banned from the cold fusion page because of my article in New Energy Times. It is rejected.
July 2008 : JzG reverts the page again. This time it is rejected by the community.
September 2008: Dr. Shanahan wants his work to be promoted in our article. I resist, on the basis that scientists should not contribute content about their own work.
October 2008 : ScienceApologist again wants me banned, this time alleging that I have financial interest in cold fusion. It is rejected. IwRnHaA adds favorable peer reviews in the lead section. ScienceApologist says this is a sock puppet account. His plea is rejected. ScienceApologist then wants to delete this history of the cold fusion page. It is rejected.

How to defend a fringe science on wikipedia

Here are some recommendations based on my experience with cold fusion.

first check Wikipedia:PSCI#Pseudoscience.
seek to demonstrate that the science is fringe , but not pseudoscience, and then use what the ArbComm unanimously said about significant alternative to scientific orthodoxies : "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience."
to demonstrate that, seek reliable scientific sources that are independent from the researcher in the field. Skeptics are often the best source to establish that.
if someone still pretends that it is pseudoscience, relentlessly ask him for a source for that view, emphasising that wikipedia is based on reliable, written sources. He will keep saying "everybody knows that it is pseudoscience": repeat that this does not meet wikipedia standards. They will come with statements from editorials saying that "most scientists rejects it as pathological science"; respond by saying that "most scientists" does not constitute a verifiable source, because they don't write on the subject in scientific peer-reviewed journal.
make sure that you prepend each favorable sentence by "proponents say that..." for proper attribution.
write also for the enemy.
stick to journal papers, avoid self-published sources.
be perseverent !

Good luck !