User talk:Abd

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search

Draft ethics[edit]

See Wikiversity:Ethics for pages concerning illegal or physically dangerous activities. Is anything more needed? Leucosticte (discusscontribs) 17:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Because Leucosticte properly asked about this, the draft was reviewed and rejected as inadequate. Because the user was globally banned and unable to continue discussion, I adopted the page rather than seeing it deleted. The draft may be seen at permanent link. It was discussed at User talk:Abd/Ethics for pages concerning illegal or physically dangerous activities.
Leucosticte was a "disruptive user," but we work for the education of all users on Wikiversity, and Leucosticte was always responsive to warnings and corrections. The major disruption that occurred here arose because of others who attacked him based on off-wiki considerations and a related extreme response to his proposals or w:WP:Bold editing. Because he was watched, there was no significant danger here, and, long-term, there may be benefit. However, he was globally banned, January 17, 2015. One might notice that I suggested that if he continued, he'd be globally banned, it's on that Talk page.
Did he continue? No. He was banned together with a series of users, see the Global ban policy page.
The reason give in his block notice on meta was "'Consistent with the Terms of Use, this user has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing Wikimedia sites." The WMF Global bans are not consistent with the Terms of Use, which explicitly reserve global bans for the m:Global ban community process. Rather, they are, if proper, taken under general discretion. The WMF has refused to discuss any of the global bans; the most disruptive of the bans was that of Russavia, who was a very popular administrator on Commons. Fallout from that continues, a very active administrator and checkuser just resigned, LANCB, over community support for Russavia. Russavia continues to edit using open proxies. This was all predictable.
Leucosticte had continued to edit Wikipedia using new accounts. However, there was no tradition of global ban based on socking at a single wiki. Russavia had done this, and was certainly provocative. For example, he would place grossly uncivil text in his user agent string. That would only be visible to a checkuser. Hence, I'm sure, the checkuser who took on -- without community consensus -- enforcing the global ban on Commons was seeing grossly uncivil comments, and was prohibited by policy from revealing them. At the same time, he was seeing criticism from the community (while others criticised the critics, and it has been a huge mess there).
The global bans have been seen by many long-term users as an intrusion on local wiki autonomy. I saw this coming, years ago, with the ban of Poetlister, which only affected Wikiversity. That was, at least, a community ban, though there had been no prior tradition of allowing the global community to control a local wiki. The steward who closed that global ban discussion -- I asked -- considered that Wikiversity could exempt itself by allowing a known sock to edit here. The community here never developed consensus, but this is remarkable: when I found support for allowing that user to edit, on discussion, and unblocked, I was immediately reversed without discussion, and the two admins here supporting that position went to meta, and I was emergency desysopped. I had not wheel-warred. I had followed local policy. And the kicker: the sysop who had blocked had previously made it clear that it takes consensus to block, not consensus to unblock.
Apparently, if you don't like the banned user, it's okay to disregard policy. This was about Poetlister. At that point, the blocking sysop was very active on Wikipedia Review, and Poetlister was banned there, and any support for Poetlister was ridiculed as preposterous. Wikipedia Review -> Wikipediocracy, for the most part, and Poetlister is allowed to edit there. I'm not, I was banned for defending Wikipedia editors against scurrilous charges of violating child protection policy.
And the Wikipediocracy House Position on the global bans is that finally the WMF is doing something about These Horrible People. The last listed WMF global ban is of Meco. Wikipediocracy still hosts the attack page that probably led to his Wikipedia block, a block with no stated reason, just a note to consult ArbCom before unblocking. That is exactly what would be done if the Wikipediocracy page was believed. What's on that page? A set of facts -- they are facts -- combined with misleading implications from them. Meco was not a risk to children. He was not an advocate of "inappropriate adult-child relationships." So far, anyway, I've seen no evidence of it, and no evidence of that is on the Wikipediocracy blog page. But he had done something recently.
He had put up an image on Commons titled "Blurred child porn image." It was promptly deleted and apparently oversighted (so even administrators cannot see it.) Was this "child porn." No. I have seen what was apparently the source image, hosted where Meco said it was, he had put it on scribd. It had apparently been a child porn image, part of the official record of a trial in Norway. He blurred it so much that it was completely unrecognizable as anything. Had he created this image? Had he knowingly possessed it? Probably not. Meco is compulsively honest, that is part of his problem -- or our problem with him, he doesn't see it as a problem --, he's autistic, my opinion. He would agree, and has (I'm in direct communication with him, though it's difficult, he's homeless and uses a library for internet access.) The image was, from the evidence we have, from a CD seized in his home at the time, and it had been left there by a teenager. It apparently contained some ordinary pornography and some "child porn" a sometimes-misleading category. He calls it child porn, though, which simply means pornographic photography of a legally under-age subject.
He did not violate the Terms of use, almost certainly -- this image was not pornography at all --, and this lack of actual TOU violation is very likely with certain other globally banned users. So this is the serious problem: the WMF is losing the trust of the community. While many (and probably a very substantial majority) still trust the WMF, the more highly informed core is becoming suspicious that there are other agendas being followed than the goal of "empowering" the community, for which the WMF was founded.
Meco was promptly banned by the WMF upon the appearance of that Commons discussion. The is obviously based on it (and the discussion referred back to the old Wikipediocracy blog). Yet what was the offense? It appears to be "having 'child porn' in the name of a file upload," and then being accused of being a pedophile. (He's not a pedophile, but many are very sloppy about what they call "pedophilia.") The real offense, of more legitimate concern, would be creating disruption. People respond viscerally to "child protection" issues. This is a Sexual politics/Mirkin Phase 1 topic, which means that it may not even be possible to discuss it. The discussion here was over suicide, but the basic issue had been raised before, here over child protection issues. We can see the vehemence of response in history here, reviewing the block log of Leucosticte would show it. "Creating disruption" does not accuse the user of misbehavior, it's about how the wiki responds. One might call such a block the wiki equivalent of "protective custody." If a person's presence on the street will cause a riot, the police may prevent that presence, under some conditions. But it is not a crime to be disruptive like that. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thorcon[edit]

Can you take a look at Thorcon? It was deleted from Wikipedia as advertising / promotional. The only sources are the company promoting the technology. Perhaps it can be renamed (Thorium Energy) or moved to a subpage somewhere, or perhaps it's just promotional and should be deleted. But it seems closer to your area of expertise. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I will investigate. I am familiar with thorium power, it's a known technology, but I don't know about the company yet. I would not suggest Thorium Energy as a resource, it's too specialized. I will look at what we have on nuclear fission or nuclear power. --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
As usual, our resource structure is a mess. We have Nuclear power greener but not Nuclear power. It is possible that the "greener" page should be a subpage of Controversies in Science. (In fact, likely all those pages listed on the Controversies page should be subpages of Controversies or of the more general topic. Cold fusion was academically called "The scientific fiasco of the century," and is still a huge mess, unresolved.
"Greener" It could also go under a new Nuclear power resource, that is a sufficiently broad topic. There are many forms of nuclear power, and w:Thorium fuel cycle is one.
w:Thorcon was speedy deleted. There is a protest on w:Talk:Thorcon from a long-term regular user. Don't know why he has not formally requested undeletion, it should be immediately granted if properly requested. The user may have a COI, it's possible, I'll communicate with him here. We allow COI users to edit, but COI must, by WMF policy, be disclosed. The user needs assistance, appears clueless how to proceed, image files uploaded on Wikipedia don't have proper licensing information. The images should be on Commons and permission should be confirmed through OTRS.
World Nuclear News could be reliable source. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you ever planning on requesting an unban at Wikipedia?[edit]

I honestly don't know the case very well but what I've seen (which is little) you didn't need to be blocked. --atcovi (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

What you can readily see is the tip of the iceberg. In the community ban discussion, there is an apparent cause. I had socked with a single undeclared sock, for a short time. None of it was disruptive, but ... that is considered a blockable offense. Normally, it would not result in a ban, but there was a long history here. ArbComm is involved. (That is part of what that sock demonstrated. Old policies and practices that would have led to a different result are not followed.) To understand the situation would take a lot of study. I'm certainly willing to discuss it. However, to be unbanned, I would need to request it from ArbComm, though there is an alternate path. I do not expect sympathy from ArbComm, though possibly from individual members. I saw the ArbComm members who would have opposed a ban picked off, one by one. The underground politics of Wikipedia is ugly. It doesn't affect most editors, so most editors won't believe it exists. Why that would violate policy!
The alternate path is that someone sets up an unban discussion on the Administrator's Noticeboard. My guess is that the faction behind the ban is still quite active and would react quickly. Even when I was unbanned and even when I was successful in confronting administrative abuse, discussions were going 2:1 Ban Abd even when what I had done was open-and-shut proper and they lost before ArbComm.
And why would I want to edit Wikipedia? What interested me most about Wikipedia was the process, I had seen the potential of such process for decades before. I know how it would work and how it could fail. Working in the content salt mines, wikignoming, great thing to do, and I did some of it for a time, just because I could. I do it on Wikiversity, sometimes. But it is not what really interests me. As to anything wiki, I'm quite happy with Wikiversity, where I can build resources and structure without fighting off hordes of Lilliputians who really don't care about the subject, or who have some old POV to push (plenty of those among Wikipedians "in good standing," including administrators. Who are welcome here.) We just don't need to fight here, there is no scarce space, no single page that has to be complete and neutral. And I can help out on, say, Wikiquote, where I was recently active because there was controversy that I knew how to handle. It worked. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
So, thanks for the thought. Maybe someday I will be invited. I'm not planning on holding my breath. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Huh, alright. No problem. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you help me with this essay at Wikibooks please?[edit]

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Atcovi/Interactive_Wikis_Goals - I know you know all about how an interactive wiki works like. Maybe you can help me with this essay at Wikibooks? Thanks! --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Its me[edit]

I want you at en WP again. Your action plz + my service (u r "still" in my heart) Nannadeem (discusscontribs) 14:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You may ask questions about Wikipedia here, or you may email me. I am unable to directly edit Wikipedia, because I am banned there and have not appealed the ban. Nevertheless, I have been, on occasion, able to assist editors with handling Wikipedia process. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
It is my desire to appeal for lifting up ban. Do you allow me plz. (I think after one year appeal can be made easily). Can I initiate such a proposal?Nannadeem (discusscontribs) 21:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
You mean my ban. Why do you want me on en.WP? I would consider cooperating with such a request, but coming from a user with little experience, the chance of success is small. I'm quite happy with Wikiversity, and I worry that harm might come to you if you attempt such a thing. Simply being unbanned, by the way, would not be satisfactory. I would still be under the community ban on cold fusion, and the "MYOB ban" set up by ArbComm, as it came to be interpreted (not as it was formulated, I actually thought it was fine when it was first passed), made it impossible for me to do what I was good at. That MYOB ban was indefinite.
I'm not seeing value that is worth the energy. However, there are many possible projects that involve cooperation between Wikiversity and Wikipedia. There is no particular obstacle to these, so if you would like to help, you could. It might also be difficult, sometimes, but at least there would be a likely benefit. --Abd (discusscontribs) 13:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
If you are not keen for en-WP, its ok. However, I would request to opt “review” by ArbComm. Further more if you are sure that outcome has possibility in negative then turn down req/proposal. Nannadeem (discusscontribs) 19:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
If you would like to show me some proposal, you may. I did appeal to ArbComm, and, in fact, I was indef blocked during an appeal; I considered then that the general requirement to follow due process was exhausted, so I used the occasion to test a process that had worked for others who were banned. It actually worked, but not as well as it would have worked if recognized. Then, when block enforcement escalated to the point that it was temporarily a nuisance -- and it was causing collateral damage -- I created a regular sock, taking no precautions. I only made useful edits, within policy, except for block evasion. I wanted to see if there would be special enforcement, checkuser, without disruptive editing. There was. Basically, the old policies and guidelines were not followed. I have not edited Wikipedia except accidentally since. I'd found enough. That was documented here, by the way.
Let me ask you why you would want to see me unbanned. What purpose would it serve? My work is mostly here, though I'm active globally on occasion. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I don’t know what would be the result. I was planning to discuss the matter with an en-WP admin.
  • Answer to your questions: Simply I do not know. However, reply has already been given to you last year - that was “natural”. I think there is magnetism between persons that might cause attraction towards any segment of our social life. So I am patient of that gravitation. Sometime this gravitation becomes: desire, admire, jealousy, love, help, hate etc. Nannadeem (discusscontribs) 20:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
There should be no harm in discussion, unless you insist on something. Let me know where such a discussion takes place. Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC).
Ok. Please wait.
Please read this at http://www.quranicstudies.com/quran/does-the-quran-speak-about-an-expanding-universe/ and give your "Explicit view on expansion of universe". Nannadeem (discusscontribs) 14:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC) (to save religion dispute we may hold communications via e-mails)
It is recommended that a request for unblock by placing an unblock with reason for unblocking template on your talk page may please be done (by using Wikipedia unblock ticket system", see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UTRS ). Nannadeem (discusscontribs) 10:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Nannadeem, I know how to request unblock. However, there is a community ban in place. So see w:Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Review_and_reversal_of_bans. If I were unblocked, which would not be, in itself, terribly difficult (basically, I was community banned for doing some editing by IP and a single sock, and the editing itself was nondisruptive, and, my narrow purpose accomplished, I have not deliberately socked for about four years. That story is on User:Abd/Wikipedia/List of self-reverted edits). However, I would still be under an indefinite ban, an ArbComm ban on intervention in matters where I am not already involved. (Call this the "no-neutral intervention ban," but it has been called the "MYOB" ban -- Mind Your Own Business --, and it's one of the more fascinating devices invented to make it impossible for me to work on Wikipedia doing what I'm good at. Never before and never since for anyone, AFAIK.) It would be work, and for what purpose? What would I want to do on Wikipedia that cannot be done, just as easily or more easily, by someone else?
However, I had been under the impression that I was still banned on cold fusion there. I'm not. I'd forgotten, that ban was only for a year and expired October 5, 2011. So there might be some useful work I could do there, with appropriate caution, even with the MYOB ban in place. I do know how to do this. I'll consider it. I still have email enabled on Wikipedia, and, for a community ban, the minimum action is emailing an admin. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do not take it ill and place your request without hesitation. Am telling you destination/Luck (Taqdeer in Urdu/Arabic): (1) Personal attempt (2) Tools to be applied (3) Random. You know in Physics three mistakes have value i.e. Personal, instrumental and random. If you believe in Taqdeer you must apply and do not scarify two objects for the sake of one (See rule Attempt + Result one pair Negative + Positive 2nd pair. Mutation of these Allele is Taqdeer). My prayers are with you.Nannadeem (discusscontribs) 18:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Today my first peer-reviewed paper has been released.[1]. It is part of a special section on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, in Current Science, and is referenced in the preface to the special section (p. 492 of the journal). Are we having fun yet? --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I am already impressed of you. It is your involvement in physics and interest with command. That is why I personally do not want to see you as blocked/banned. (My question for your personal views (expansion/expending) needing a response plz). My prayers to Almighty for your more n more success n dignity.Nannadeem (discusscontribs) 17:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it a good idea?[edit]

Is it a good idea to create Category:Images of Wikiversity in this Wiki? Thanks! Shustov (discusscontribs) 08:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC) moved from [2] --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please define the Category. What is the purpose? That is separate from the purpose of the images themselves that you are uploading. Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Should I move this page?[edit]

Should I move Thermodynamics practice quizzes to Engineering thermodynamics/Quizzes? I know the person who created Thermodynamics practice quizzes and even helped him do it; he won't mind. BTW: It has 4 subpages -- big enough to attempt a move-with-subpages but small enough to do it by hand if I botch it.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 16:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Definitely the original page is inappropriate. It's a supporting resource. My question would be if Engineering thermodynamics is the appropriate top level resource, or would it be Thermodynamics?
You will see these issues all over Wikiversity, because we never developed a clear and accepted organizational system. Gradually, we are cleaning it up.
First of all, your proposed move seems sound. The quizzes I saw were appropriate for an engineering course. Later, the overall organization of Wikiversity material on thermodynamics can be considered. We have not only Thermodynamics but also Thermodynamics and Equilibrium, with merge proposed since ... 2007!
My general thinking is that a Wikiversity top-level resource should generally correspond to a course in a university, not just to a lecture within a course or a particular assignment or part of the study. That is not to exclude other possibilities, but as a general, overall, organizational principle. "Engineering thermodynamics" is the title of university courses, and there is at least one textbook with that name. So it qualifies in that respect. Thermodynamics, then, can be developed toward the general science, which has many non-engineering implications. Thermodynamics will link to Engineering thermodynamics.
However, where will people be looking for this material? There is another possibility: Thermodynamics/Engineering. In theory, as well, Engineering/Thermodynamics. Regardless, School:Engineering or Topic:Engineering will organize the material. We have *too many ways,* perhaps. The problem with too many ways: maintenance. --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I used Engineering thermodynamics because the page had already been started by someone else. The problem of *too many ways* might someday turn into a blessing. Suppose somebody else wants to do engineering thermodynamics from a different (but equal) perspective? The now-empty names Thermodynamics/Engineering and Engineering/Thermodynamics may someday come in handy.
I will move the quizzes now. What am I supposed to do with the redirect -- keep the redirect ... or update all the links to the old page? --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 21:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I just moved 'em, and assume I need to clean up the redirects. But I will wait before deleting them just in case.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 21:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, redirects. As a custodian, you can move without leaving redirects. I have to request deletion, but that's easy, of course. The question is whether or not someone will be looking for it. I check for any incoming links, and will often clean them up (i.e., edit them to point to the new target. This is a must for double redirects, which fail. Sometimes, if I think it might be possible for there to be an off-wiki link, I'll google the URL. However, this is important: the deleted page will show where it was moved. So if someone *is* looking, it's just an extra step for them. When I'm prepping for a custodian, I will leave as few incoming links as possible, because incoming should always be checked before deletion.
In other words, do your best, but also know that if you make a mistake, it can be fixed. Those edit summaries are important. Some admins on some wikis leave unintelligible edit summary. Okay, page was deleted. Why? Discussion? Redirect? Transparency is important!
So if you delete something on your own initiative, and someone else asks for it to be undeleted, you will normally undelete it. Simple. And if you still think it should be deleted, you will then, like any other user, go to WV:RFD. You also have the intermediate tool, Dave often uses it, Template:Proposed deletion. A slow wastebasket, and, again, if someone later requests undeletion, no big deal. Very important on wikis to develop habits that are high-efficiency, low-conflict. Conflict wastes enormous amounts of time -- if there is another way.
Now, as to the issue of someone else wanting to do thermodynamics from a different perspective, it could be argued that they can and should be in the same hierarchy. So there might be Thermodynamics/Engineering and Thermodynamics/Cosmology perhaps. And suppose someone wants to do Engineering thermodynamics from an unconventional perspective? What then? We avoid content conflict on Wikiversity by forking resources, but we should do that openly, not by some hidden means. I.e., the conventional page is "Engineering thermodynamics" and the unconventional page shoud not be "Best thermodynamic ideas" or something like that. Mess! We seek to have top level pages represent high consensus, ideally unanimity (and that, it turns out, is usually possible, in spite of what Wikipedians often believe), and then we can create essay pages or sections with attribution, effectively page ownership. So Engineering thermodynamics might have a section with essay subpages, or entire courses as a subpage hierarchy. It could be named after the user. (So a university catalog may have, for a course, sections, each with their own T.A. or professor.) In these subpages, original research is allowed (with disclosure) and the entire page can have a disclaimer. If you haven't already seen examples, you will.
(The idea about OR being allowed on subpages is not policy, it wasn't said this way. It was just said that it was allowed; the founders of Wikiversity didn't have high experience dealing with controversy. We do have a neutrality policy, so .... we make sure that what isn't neutral, or might be alleged not to be neutral, is attributed. Original Research here really means that the editor is the source.)
One more point about deletion. Page moves don't harm newcomers, usually, because their Contributions history will now point to the new page. They will get watchlist notices from the new page. And if they do look at the old page name, they will see the move. What is really disconcerting is when something you have written is deleted because someone else didn't understand it or didn't see the educational purpose. We can say that there is a general educational purpose in writing any page or anything. There is a really good example, one of our users, who was about 7 years old when he started editing. Now, can you imagine what the editing of a 7-year old looks like? Would it be a lucky guess if you suspected that he was being blocked right and left across WMF wikis? I saw what he was doing, realized his age, and moved his pages into his user space, and encouraged him to practice writing and wikitext, etc. He made mistakes now and then, but this transformed a budding "vandal," learning to reboot his modem when blocked, into a useful user, rapidly learning not only to write but also to cooperate.
So we use user space that way. I have *never* seen a user get seriously upset when their page was moved to user space. Deletion hurts. So we are careful about it. We do delete spam and gross incivility, vandalism. But "test edit" vandalism, no big deal. We do not generally warn IP addresses, because they are unlikely to see it, and it simply creates a talk page for no purpose. If there is repeat vandalism from an IP, we might block, but would usually leave talk page access open, etc. Always, I encourage users to register an account.
I also look at global activity if there is a problem here, and request global blocks/locks when appropriate. In these cases, the user knows what they are doing, they are not going to be rudely surprised. --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I left the redirect to Thermodynamics practice quizzes because I could find no evidence that the page creator made a link to it. Apparently he typed the name into the search window. I will see him next week we will get this sorted out.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 02:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

From "What links here," the only links now are our discussions. I searched off-wiki for ""Thermodynamics_practice_quizzes". All hits were here (to the deleted pages, they are still in Google's cache). Such a link is [3]. Notice how loading that page, though it has been deleted, automatically loads the deletion and move log. So right there is a link to the page where it was moved. So if the user does type it into his browser, or into the search window, the user then finds out what happened.
As well, Contributions for the user now show the current location. Hence there is no need for the redirect, and once that is seen, my recommendation is immediate deletion, because if it is not done immediately, it gets lost in the avalanche. This kind of deletion you can do unilaterally, it is not necessary to tag the page for speedy deletion and let someone else do it. It's simply cleanup, and it's transparent, no content is hidden, etc.
As you become more involved and realize the sheer volume of work to be done, efficiency will loom large. Key is to do this work efficiently and transparently. My opinion has long been that specific procedures should be documented; the old Wikipedia idea was that this was "instruction creep." What happened to the "old Wikipedians"? Most of them burned out....
(The error was in assuming that guidelines - simply a "tested way to do things" -- would become policies, with transgressors being punished, a reaction to a dysfunctional subset of users, the wikilawyers. No, "violators" would be guided, and if they have found a better way, it would be incorporated into the guideline. That was, in fact, the original wiki concept, it was for community-created system documentation.) --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It's amazing how we grow[edit]

If it wasn't for you being here, I wouldn't have been the user I am today, I would've probably lost interest here and been one of those "gamer" kids (which every kid I know in real life is). I can't thank you enough for mentoring me those past years. I would've never expected myself, a past "vandal" for two years, banned on Simple English Wikipedia for a year, problems at Simple English Wiktionary, problems here as well in 2013, AND problems at Meta, to become an administrator on the English Wikibooks, a project I actively contribute to. It's shocking how I got here, and all I really should thank to get that position is you, maybe a few other users helped, but the actual person who helped me the best is you. Thank you/Shukran. --72.84.233.224 (discuss) 16:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking for clarification[edit]

Abd, Since you were the one to greet me for my new account, I guess you are the one I should turn to. I have three interests, metaphysics, physics and political economy, and I have started out with physics. I wrote an article but in my ignorance appear to have simply written myself in my Discuss section. I want to know where to move it if possible. My general approach and interest is in examining relationships between existing data in a novel way, in this case with a dimensional analysis of the supposedly dimensionless fine structure constant. This then segues into theoretical research I have done concerning the physical constants. The first part could probably go in Wikipedia and I imagine the second part will have to go in Wikiversity, for now. Can you enlighten me as to where and how? Much obliged.

--Trebreh nitram (discusscontribs) 23:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

For now I set up a new set of subpages under Physics/Essays and my user name and recreated the page to there.

--Trebreh nitram (discusscontribs) 12:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all, do not attempt to move the essay you created to Wikipedia. It would very likely be deleted. You may contribute on Wikipedia to existing articles, but you may find that those who know something about a subject are not welcome on Wikipedia. And, of course, most writers don't know much about Wikipedia policies. Here, you can just write (in an essay, that is why essay spaces are being set up). On Wikipedia, everything must be sourced to reliable source, and it can get really complex.
You may also point, on Wikipedia -- and certainly on Wikipedia talk pages -- to Wikiversity resources where a topic may be explored and discussed. Wikipedia is not for that, and attempting to discuss a topic there can get a user warned, blocked, or sometimes even banned.
Gaining wider participation in your resource (which would include criticism) will deepen your learning experience. If problems arise, get help from me, do not go first to an administrator, and let someone experienced do that if it is necessary. I and the operating core of Wikiversity want every user to be successful at learning-by-doing and at expression and sometimes teaching. We do this in a way that preserves site neutrality, that's all.
As well, look around for other users here who might be competent to comment on your essay. Fedosin occurs to me, but there are others. See who is editing physics pages.
Get involved with the community. Wikiversity is like a virtual university, and core to that is community. So take an interest in it. If very few of us do that, Wikiversity can run away from us, it's happened before.
Rereading your comment here, definitely your own "theoretical research" cannot go on Wikipedia, see the Wikipedia guideline on original research. Original research on Wikiversity requires some care, but don't worry. If there is a problem someone will tell you, and the important thing then will be to be cooperative, to learn how we handle controversy. Mostly, it doesn't happen, but it used to happen, until we got some operating traditions in place.
Once again, welcome! --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, "looking at X in a novel way" is a form of original research, it is called synthesis. Prohibited on Wikipedia as well. If you have put X and Y together to conclude Z, you may be able to put X and Y in an article, so that the reader may put them together, sometimes. You cannot put Z in the article. Even if it seems obvious to you, unless someone has covered Z in a Reliable Source. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I look forward to becoming and remaining involved. I will set up the subpage as you discussed and delete the page from the mainspace. I assume it would be best to re-paste the text from my text editor instead of copy and paste from that page. I'll figure out moving later. I was aware about Wikipedia and established consensus info, but would like to provide unobtrusive links, along with explicit statement that they are to Wikiversity articles, where I feel they are appropriate. Should I defer to others, such as yourself, as to when and where that might be? In other words, I would put X and or Y in a Wikipedia article and Z in my Wikiversity essay or discussion. The following is an example

/*==Dimensional Analysis== Much if not all of the above quandary and mystification concerning the fine structure constant can be clarified by applying the process of dimensional analysis of the fine structure constant, as in the linked essay from Wikiversity.*/

--Trebreh nitram (discusscontribs) 16:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Trebreh nitram, the comment you drafted above might be okay on a Wikipedia talk page, definitely not in Wikipedia mainspace. Simpler and less possibly controversial would be "This topic may be discussed on (Wikiversity:PAGENAME)." What you wrote wasn't neutral. Wikipedia editors can sometimes be very touchy.
  • In Wikipedia articles, you can use w:Template:Wikiversity. That will automatically point to a Wikiversity page with the same name. If you want it to point to a different page, you can, see the instructions on the template page. These, if done properly, should be accepted. Sometimes they aren't, and it can take a skilled user to know how to handle that (i.e., to address the problem.) --Abd (discusscontribs) 21:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to respond in a discussion on this page or my user page, which is where I have been receiving some of your responses. I have included some of my responses on my talk page.

I was familiar with Fedosin's page on the fine structure constant which is essentially the core of the Wikipedia entry and in the public domain. (It just occurred to me that in a few years I will be in the public domain.) My entry recapitulates that and adds further analysis. I put a link on Wikipedia pointing to the page and stated it as you suggested, but it was quickly removed. I first put it in the main body near the end, then realized it should have been in the External links and changed it. I don't know what the issue was.

I have been an avid user of Wikipedia for years but have refrained from editing or commenting or setting up a user account due to suppositions that are corroborated in a reading of some of the links in the Disclosures section of your User page. I was raised to be civil and respect others and their opinions, and I generally do a decent job. So I won't try to force the links from Wikipedia, unless you think it can be addressed amicably.

I understand Wikipedia's need to maintain historical accuracy, with respect to the history of events and to the history of knowledge. Unfortunately the history of knowledge also includes matters of opinion. The following in Wikipedia, physical constant, is a case in point and is germane to the current discussion. I quote from the "Dimensional and dimensionless physical constants" section of that page, fourth paragraph, "The fine-structure constant α is probably the best known dimensionless fundamental physical constant. Many attempts have been made to derive its value (currently measured at about 1/137.035999) from theory, but so far none have succeeded. (Emphasis is mine.) The same holds for the dimensionless ratios of masses of fundamental particles (such as mp/me, approximately 1836.152672)." One would think that the implication of the quoted statement would be that those interested in the page topic would also be interested in a satisfactory answer to the puzzle. To me that is how the inquisitive human mind works.

The page that you have helped me post answers this puzzle, up through the second paragraph of the "Significance" section; for the dispassionate and objective reader, I would say decidedly so. The rest of the page and the externally linked material gives it context, significant context, but really has no bearing on the validity of the first part. Familiarity with the topic may help, but a basic understanding of algebra indicates the nature of what is essentially a man-made dilemma. The last sentence of the above quote concerning the ratio of particle masses is answered in the external links, if the premise of that study is accepted as a working hypothesis. (That premise is simply that the only fundamental material thing that exists is space, which in an initial condition is a finite continuum with a uniform inertial density. It expands, from any local frame of reference (or they condense away from each other, the math is the same in either case), and this expansion stress produces local oscillation, really a type of internal friction, and thereby all quantum effects. Many of the puzzling features of experimental physics can be understood if such premise is made and logically followed. )

From the point of view of copyright, there is certainly no plagiarism in the external material, but I have made no attempt to go back and cite original sources on most of the physics body of knowledge most of which is over 70 years old.

I only thought about contributing to the Wiki project after coming upon Wikiversity through Fedosin's work and after a review of its policies. The association did and still seems promising. I am looking for a venue that will allow me to vet approximately 2 decades of study into the foundations of physical theory. The operable word here is vet. I'm not looking for an ego satisfying bully pulpit. It is hardly in a complete form and its superstructure would benefit from collaboration and pursuit of its implications by others with the necessary expertise. The foundation, however, is well understood by me. I am in hopes of finding a few others that can accept the above premise as a hypothesis long enough to follow the logic, as mathematically expressed in terms of my limited ability. (I switched from an intended major in physics to economics in college, but have worked in the design and construction business most of my life. Still this has given me enough of a familiarity with the math of structural design, materials strength, etc. such as stress and strain tensors and differential equations to approach this subject.) This study postulates no new particles or fields as the standard model has been wont to do. It simply describes the relationships between observed phenomena more effectively than the current modeling. It needs a proper vetting as it may have beneficial implications for technology.

Also let me know what you think about my user name in the context of the external links.

PS, I do like there mechanics of this Wiki format.

--Trebreh nitram (discusscontribs) 18:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Okay, basic process. Respond to a comment in the place that the comment was made, that's the mature position. The reason is that if I have edited a page, normally, it will be on my watchlist, so I will be notified of any changes to the page (I am set up in Preferences to receive email notification of all changes to pages in my watchlist, and I'm set up to automatically add a page to my watchlist if I edit it). You may also increase the probability that I will notice any edit, anywhere, by putting in a link to my username. For example, if you are set up to see notifications (enable all notifications listed in Preferences), User:Trebreh nitram should generate a notification, no matter what page it is placed on. As well, you will receive a notification of any edit to your User talk page. So if I want to insure, maximally, that you will see an edit, I will make it to your user talk page.
  • As to Wikipedia, how you think is common. I.e., you would think that those interested in the page topic would be interested in the issues you raise. But many Wikipedia editors, particularly the general-purpose editors, are not interested in the topics, per se. They are interested in the overall project, seeing that policies are followed as they interpret them, they may be interested in raising their edit count, in becoming administrators, and a focus on a topic distracts them from that. If you want to develop your reputation on Wikipedia -- and I'm not saying you should -- I can tell you a video game that you can play to do this. It's mildly fun, and it will develop your wiki skills.
  • But with your interest in the topic, you are now not "one of them." You have a point of view, which they imagine is Bad. You will be a "POV-pusher," and if you insist, they will block you.
  • So don't insist, first of all. You may explore your interests here, and you may link to Wikiversity pages from Wikipedia. How you did it may have been a problem. I will interrupt my writing to see what you did.
  • Okay, I see what you did. It was reverted as a "good faith" edit, i.e., you were not accused of misbehavior, but the opinion was expressed, Not a valuable external link. That's an opinion, and misses the point, in fact.
  • Your edit would have been fine and almost certainly would not be removed, if made on the Talk page. In fact, you could, there, discuss whether or not a link to Wikiversity should be in the article.
  • First thinks girst. Make another edit to the article. Use the Wikiversity template, so that the link is to "Fine structure constant" on Wikiversity. That is currently a link to the Fedosin essay. We will expand that so that it is its own page, with links to your essay and Fedosin's essay. And any other essay on the topic in Wikiversity mainspace. Basically, we open the space for discussion, and this page (currently the redirect) will be rigorously neutral.
  • The template you place would appear personal, your opinion is being linked, so I don't wonder that it was removed. If the sister wiki link to a neutral page is removed, that will be something to discuss! When you make the edit, make it appear, clearly, as an attempt to improve what you did, to answer possible objections. I would use an edit summary of "Is this better?" Just place, in External Links, {{Wikiversity}} . Okay?
  • If that is also reverted, don't do anything more until I've seen it and can advise how to proceed without minimal disruption.
  • You may continue to develop your resource here. As an Essay, it's relatively bulletproof. That is, it's your attributed opinion, and nobody should mess with it except to improve it if you consent. I.e., you can revert any changes to that page. Do not edit war, if somebody insists on mangling the page. One revert, asking them to stop, is enough. If they insist, get help. Do not insist by yourself! You can ask me, and there is also WV:RCA. But do not go to RCA until you have much more experience -- unless backed into a corner, and if you go, go asking for advice and help. Not for the other user to be blocked. Let the custodians figure that out if it is necessary. You will, by the way, follow this principle on Wikipedia. At this point, you have my advice. Remember, I'm banned on Wikipedia. But people who have followed my advice have been successful there. And here.
  • One more point. I once was working with a user who used a classic letter-shift code to encode his real name into his user name. When it was hinted on-wiki that his name was a code, it was almost immediate that the code was cracked. Communities are good at that. Once I knew there was a significance to the name, the code is obvious. From it, and a few minutes of google, I know, likely, who you are and where you probably live. Given what you are doing, here I recommend simply disclosing your name, and disclosing any conflict of interest.
  • Most important, here, would be disclosing that a web site you link to is yours, if that is so. General policy or guidelines require disclosure of conflicts of interest. On Wikiversity, it is common for users to use real names. The Single User Log-in process, with automatic log-in, i.e., log into one wiki, you are logging in to all, made this tricky and somewhat hazardous. Unintended consequences...
  • On other wikis, linking to your own web site would be considered spamming, and it can get the web site globally blacklisted. So do not link to your own web site, except here and with disclosure. We will accept appropriate linking to your own web site here, given that you are developing related resources. Just make sure conflict of interest policy is followed. Be very careful about linking to that site on other pages; consult if there is any doubt. Don't even think about linking to it on Wikipedia, until and unless you know what you are doing.
  • There is also an issue of copyright. If you copy text from your own web site, you may need to explicitly authorize this. We are not hard-nosed about this, but getting OTRS verificatinon of permission can take months, so if you think you might need to use your own content here, you will need to verify that it's you! I've never done this, I just know roughly the idea. Once that permission is in place, you can upload images to Commons, for example. You definitely will need this for the images you uploaded. Here, we may be able to claim fair use, but why not do it right? I'll advise you on this on your Talk page. --Abd (discusscontribs) 13:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Looking at w:Talk:Fine-structure constant, there are comments from users there, obviously wanting to discuss the FSC, and getting ignored or told it is w:WP:OR. Wikipedians do not know to link to Wikiversity. They will need to be educated. Overall Wikipedia guidelines would suggest pointing these users to Wikiversity, because the topic can be discussed here, and Original Research is allowed (with some caution, this is why the "essay" concept is used. It avoids controversy as to whether or not some statement is "true," or or whether or not it is notable or verifiable, both of which Wikipedia need. It's an encyclopedia. We are a university. We study topics here.
  • Wikipedians often have no clue at all what we do here. They look at Wikiversity and think it is an awful mess. They ought to see my office.... But I just got an important paper published under peer review, and I just got a very substantial grant to facilitate research. Out of the mud grows the lotus.
  • But first, try the sister wiki link on the article page. If that is removed, then you will make some comments on the Talk page, you will continue to watch that page, and then make specific suggestions to specific users when they show up -- on their user talk pages -- that they are welcome to discuss the topic on Wikiversity. You could also go back and make such suggestions based on old comments on the article talk page. Most of those will go nowhere, most users are gone, most users don't really watch Wikipedia. However, it's quick to drop a note, and the text of that note could be generic. But do not add many of those at once. You are a new user, with very low edit count, and the regular Wikipedians who do Recent Changes patrol will be suspicious. I'd suggest adding one, then wait a week and see what happens, then add another, maybe two. If someone asks you to stop, stop. Never ignore a warning. Discuss, perhaps, but, basically, get help and advice. (Adding a lot of notices can be considered "spamming," and that is especially true if they contain external links, which these will. They are not about to blacklist Wikiversity, but there could be fallout for you. A little caution can prevent that.) What gets so many new users in trouble is that they get a "good idea," and immediately implement it. Sometimes with great energy and many edits, believing that they are being helpful. But they don't understand the community and how it works, how the antispammers function, etc. Those users work tirelessly, but not always carefully! --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Before doing anything else, to help in disclosure should I simply change my signature in Preferences or should I request a username change? I reviewed the procedure briefly along with the global implications and it looks involved. On the other hand, seems in the long run the username and signature should correspond. I assume such changes are retroactive to prior posts.--Trebreh nitram (discusscontribs) 15:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

First things first. Long-term, do you prefer your real name or a variation on it, or Trebreh nitram? Yes, if the user name is formally changed, through the process, your contributions history, and page histories, and logs, will show the new name. It is not involved if there are no other users with the source and target name. If you decide to make the change, just let me know and I'll help you do it.
The old signatures won't automatically change. You don't have a lot of those out, and you could edit them to change the signature if you want, or just leave it. (Here, in the discussion, you should leave it, since we talked about it.) People can figure out who that is, from history and possibly a link from User:Trebreh nitram and the talk page, we would allow that (and it can be useful, for all those old signatures).
I recommend making the change. If your goal is academic, your real name actually becomes important. You have the right to edit anonymously, but this isn't Wikipedia and we have different goals here. My user name is not my "legal name," but it's a name I have used for many years, and my paper was published under this name. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax. Lomax, is, of course, my birth name, I was given the other name more than forty years ago. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I should make the change. My name is Herbert Martin Gibson. I was a Junior, and my father went by Herbert, so I always went by Mart, Martin if the situation was more formal. I grew up in a small town in the south where everyone had a double name, and my dad was called Herbert Martin by his parents generation, so I was Herbert Martin, Jr. Hence, when forced to chose a name on Wiki and not sure if I should remain anonymous, I chose Trebreh nitram. So it could be any combination or permutation of the above. I have read about you on the net. You are a man of faith and reason. I would like you to choose a name for me. I would like to read your paper, if it is online. I believe LENR got short changed and that it has promise for the future. --Trebreh nitram (discusscontribs) 23:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you. Use your real name if it is available. Martin Gibson is available. So are Herbert Martin Gibson, H. Martin Gibson, Herbert Martin Gibson, Jr. and Mart Gibson. Pick one, and, logged in as User:Trebreh nitram, go to the global rename request form, and fill out the form. It should show you your current name. Fill in the requested name and press the Big Green Button to request the name change. There is a special page here you can use to check on renaming progress, it is Special:GlobalRenameProgress. Unless there is a problem, in which case they will contact you, I assume that this is all.
  • The Special Section on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions in w:Current Science. I know most of the scientists who had papers in that section. In early 2009, I had no idea that cold fusion had been vindicated, I assumed with most else that it had been some artifact, and that if it was real, I'd surely have heard about it. Most people capable of understanding the topic have thought that. I was wrong. this is my paper and it describes how I know the effect is real.
  • In early 2009, I came across an abusive blacklisting on Wikipedia, addressed that, and started to look at the article. There were obvious problems with it, and when I tried to fix them, I ran into a faction that had basically won a battle to take over the article, that could be a summary. They had done so by establishing a long-time editor of it as "having a battleground mentality," and banning him, which wasn't true, but it is an argument that can sell to the Wikipedia community. He was actually a supporter of Wikipedia, and proud of how well Wikipedia process worked. He was about to experience the other side of it.....
  • Don't cry for him! Once he was banned, he got a job in the field. As for me, I just got a grant from a nonprofit to support the work of Infusion Institute. I'm not at liberty to say the amount, but the check had more zeros than I've seen for a long time. It's enough to start.
  • If you would like to help with the Cold fusion resource here, that would be fantastic. Skeptical commentary is invited. What was really fun was the peer review process at Current Science. The section editors were easy. Meulenberg had been a long-time correspondent, and he was my roommate at ICCF-18 (which was itself a fantastic experience for me. I got to see Cerenkov radiation up close, I'd known about it since I was in my early teens.... that has nothing to do with cold fusion, except that it's missing, that's a clue. There should be some if there were hot alphas. There aren't.)
  • I still had to convince the other section editor that I wasn't bad-mouthing the BARC tritium research. He got it and so the paper went on to a regular reviewer, who was apparently a normal physicist. I.e., uh, "Wasn't this all debunked years ago? This is impossible! Coulomb barrier! Neutrons! What a horrible paper!" (not an exact quote, but you can get the idea.)
  • How did I take that? As evidence that I'd failed to make my point! I rewrote the paper to tell him what he needed to know, so he'd get it from the top. It worked. He actually suggested some of the conclusion.
  • Yes, cold fusion got short-changed. However, the discoverers made some serious mistakes, it was not just "the skeptics." I fully understand why the opinion arose that it was artifact and error, and even why some level of opinion arose that it was fraud.
  • Eppur si muove. --Abd (discusscontribs) 02:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I selected Martin Gibson for the change and will wait for it to come through before contributing much further. In the meantime, I read your article with great interest. The results are what I would expect, though it's been a few years since I've given much thought to elemental, I.e. nuclear physics. My obsession has been the neutron and what it's ontology must be, and under what conditions and why a free neutron experiences beta decay and becomes a proton. Still I believe I understand the basics of nuclear congregation of n and p, especially with respect to spin and dipole alignment, not in the mathematical form of QCD, but in a complementary geometric form that can be visualized and animated on a computer screen. It doesn't surprise me that cold nuclear interactions with few high energy emissions are found. I will try and catch up on your project pages and sites over the next few days and possibly give you a little more depth about my related interests and studies. I would be delighted to work on your III or other LENR projects. Is it best to continue all contact herein, or can I use your lomaxdesign.com email for PDF attachments, etc? --Martin Gibson (discusscontribs) 04:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • As you can see the name change went through. I'm not concerned about the existing signatures, but I'm not sure if there are any precautions in changing the file path to the essay.
  • I read the preface to the LENR edition of Current Science and will continue to the articles. If you think any of them should have priority, please let me know. Also wondering if the cold fusion page in Wikiversity is sufficient overview for now and would help in narrowing my review of CS. I am not a fast reader.

--Martin Gibson (discusscontribs) 18:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the article by McKubre is important. My paper is, of course, very important, right? Actually, I was told that by McKubre, Storms, Meulenberg, and others.
My opinion about cold fusion theory is that it is all half-baked. Basically, there isn't enough data. So, then, physicists try to figure out how the hell this could be happening. So they make up stuff. Few of them actually become familiar with the experimental evidence, so they create theories that predict what is already contradictory to the known evidence. And then there is Ed Storms, a chemist, who is thoroughly fried by physicists making up theories that don't correspond to the experimental reality. So he finally made up his own theory, designed to match the evidence. Problem is, my opinion, the physics is completely wonky. We have fun, I can tell you, on the private mailing list for CMNS researchers. I write more there than anywhere else. That's how I learn. -- it should go without saying that I also read....
There is a lot going on, much of which is likely to be confusing. The Big Deal for the last few years has been Andrea Rossi, who is not a scientist, he's an entrepreneur, engineer, and inventor. And he is keeping the jewels secret, but making big claims. And he looks like a complete con artist. I think he deliberately cultivates that impression. This is a very complicated story. The best opinion in the field -- which, naturally, matches mine :-) -- is that Rossi probably found something, but it isn't yet reliable, which can explain a lot. Inventors are prone to puffery, even a little trickery, on occasion. (It may have become reliable, that's completely unclear.) Rossi is being backed by a company called Industrial Heat, and the President of Industrial Heat just spoke, today, in Padua at ICCF-19. There is a transcript at [4]. Very nice speech. That site is run by Ruby Carat, a very enthusiastic woman with a physics degree, not necessarily very hard-headed, but energetic and she's doing much great work.
Robert Duncan's speech would be worth reading, I'm sure, but I haven't seen a transcript yet. There is a research institute starting at the University of Texas, which he is heading. Spring is breaking out all over. --Abd (discusscontribs) 03:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"Ah, the essay. It's simple, I'll look and see if you have fixed it. We can leave a redirect in place, and/or fix the links. I prefer to clean up, but it's getting late now .... --Abd (discusscontribs) 03:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have't done any more on the essay, I guess you changed the user name on the directory. If so, thanks.I sent an email to your Lomaxdesign address concerning the relevance of my study to LENR. Let me know if you don't get it. I can relay the info here if you like. I read McKubre and Storms first essay. Storms is good. I believe his thinking would be helped by a review of my investigations. I know it would take some getting used to and would take an investment in time, but it will be worth it to anyone looking for answers. Let me know what I can do.--Martin Gibson (discusscontribs) 21:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ereticopedia again[edit]

see this : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Ereticopedia/Suppression --Dsantare7 (discusscontribs) 10:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I will consider voting there. (I edited that page once as Abd sock, since there was a conflicting account at fr.wiki.) However, my opinion, which I will express, is that the page should be deleted, as it stands. We may conserve content here, for future use. I will also handle that. I'd rather have the English page, but it would be inconvenient to get it. My guess is that the French is good enough. If other mentions in reliable source appear, let me know. This is like many pages created on the encyclopedia projects, there was insufficient evidence in reliable source of notability. (The arguments about the page creator are spurious.)
Do not confuse this issue with the issue of linking to ereticopedia, that's entirely different. Ereticopedia is, my opinion, academic reliable source, and thus the global blacklisting should be addressed, within policy, which, given a history -- or alleged history -- of "promotion," requires whitelisting specific pages for use. We have whitelisted ereticopedia.org here, for our use, but that will not be enough to move the leviathan. One step at a time. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)