User talk:TStolper1W

Your recent edits

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Unfortunately, your edits show a mis-understanding of WP:NPOV, and so they have been reverted. It is not a violation of NPOV to note that Randell Mills' work is generally considered pseudoscience - it is required by NPOV that that information be present. Similarly, it is required by NPOV to note that evaluators have accused Mills of plagiarism - regardless of Mills' response to the accusation. Please review and understand WP:NPOV before making any additional edits.

Mills used the material he quoted for purposes of scholarship and criticism, and he gave and cited the source, as anyone who can read can see for themselves in Mills’ book. The policy on material about living persons requires that the extreme and potentially libelous imputation of plagiarism made in the Hydrino theory article be removed, all the more so because the reference cited for the imputation didn’t even use so inflammatory a term as plagiarism. Please review and understand WP:Biographies_of_living_persons before making any additional edits.

Also, I must issue you a conditional warning: if you have previously edited Wikipedia under another account, please be aware of WP:SOCK. Editors are not permitted to use multiple accounts for the same types of edits. If you have not previously edited Wikipedia, but have been asked to make particular types of edits by someone who has, that is considered the same. If your edits are strictly of your own volition, I apologize for issuing this warning, but it is necessary due to past activity relating to Mills. Michaelbusch 19:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. The justifications you have been giving do not apply. Thank you. Michaelbusch 20:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, you will be blocked from editing. For the last time: NPOV requires mention of criticism. Michaelbusch 21:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Michaelbusch 21:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this isn't a content dispute.

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

In my opinion, Dlohcierekim has not understood your edits, which constitute disruptive deletion of legitimate criticism. You may see WP:ANI, but stop editing anyway. I place myself under an editing ban on the pages for the next twenty-four hours - you must do the same, or a 3RR block is indicated. Michaelbusch 21:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have recused myself from the page, but ask that you again review WP:NPOV and understand that hostile opinions of Mills must be included in the article if they constitute notable criticism - which the plagiarism accusation does. You may consider this while you enjoy your 3RR block. Michaelbusch 22:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you?

Are you the Tom Stolper who wrote a book about Mills? If so, I must remind you of Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest rules. Having written a book about the man may not exclude you from editing the article, but it definitely constitutes some form of conflict-of-interest - the book was, after all, rather partial to the man's claims. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, based on some interpretations of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, you are indeed prohibited from editing the article. That aside: Mills has been accused of plagiarism. The validity of those claims cannot be assessed without original research, so Wikipedia cannot take a position on them. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting interpretations, Michael. You imply that the longer someone has studied a subject, and the more he knows about it, the less right he has to edit an article about the subject. I doubt that is Wikipedia policy. Yes, I am the Tom Stolper (Thomas E. Stolper) who wrote a book about Mills. So far, it’s still the only one. As to the false and potentially libelous imputation of plagiarism, anyone who can read can check it out. It’s just more time-consuming to refute injurious rumors than it is to start them or perpetuate them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TStolper1W (talk • contribs)

Expertise is one thing. Having a conflict-of-interest is another. You have gone on record as a vocal proponent of Mills and his work, and might be considered to have a monetary interest in Mills being portrayed favorably. To avoid problems like this, WP:COI has been formulated. Re. the plagiarism accusations: again, it is not 'false and potentially libelous' to note that Mills has been accused of plagiarism - it would be a problem to state that as fact without citation. It is required by WP:NPOV. It is not trivial to check the accusation, because it deals with Mills' book as of the time of Haas' review, and Mills changes his book at his pleasure. So we'd have to get the version of the book Haas was working from, and read it. That constitutes original research, as I said. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Michael, it's just fact-checking, and fact-checking that I did at the time that the version of Mills' book in question was the current version. Mills cited his source for the quoted material and critiqued the quoted material. Wikipedia policy requires that the false and potentially libelous imputation of plagiarism be removed, especially when the citation for that false imputation is to something as poor as a single paragraph of online material put up by a longtime opponent of Mills, an opponent who merely drew the allegation from someone else. Tom Stolper. TStolper1W (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:No_original_research#Citing_oneself and end your self-appointed crusade. You are very close to violating WP:3RR again, as well as breaking WP:NPOV. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Michael, suppose you end your crusade against Mills, which I doubt that even your circle of friends would consider neutral. TStolper1W (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions

Welcome!

Hello, TStolper1W, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Stifle (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, as you've been made aware above, you've jumped into Wikipedia and are editing some controversial topics. Please make sure that you adhere carefully to our neutral point of view policy. I would encourage you to edit in some non-pseudoscience area for the time being as your edits are currently attracting the wrong type of attention. If you would like further advice please contact me on my talk page, which you can access by clicking the word "talk" at the end of this line. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Park and Randell Mills

Please stop your senseless POV claim that Bob Park is a 'long-term critic' of Randell Mills. Park is a professor of physics at the University of Maryland and high up in the administration of the American Physical Society. While he is also known for attacking any and all forms of pseudoscience, citing him as a 'long-term critic' greatly overstates the effort he put into debunking Mills and is an unacceptable POV slant because it implies that he acted as a critic rather than an impartial evaluator and debunker. The citation given is to a piece by Park where he was describing the evaluation of Mills' book by Aaron Barth, and is quoted in the controversy section of the article. I apologize for mis-typing one of my edit summaries, but that does not excuse your repeated reversions. Michaelbusch (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael W. Busch, please stop your senseless POV suggestion that Robert L. Park is now or ever was an impartial evaluator of Randell Mills. Park has been attacking Mills and his work ever since 1991, as anyone who has read Park’s online column over the years or his attacks in the media would know. You can start with Park’s “What’s New” online column of April 26, 1991, then fast forward to his “What’s New” of May 9, 1997, and then do your homework in this matter, as I have. Mills is so far above Park in scientific ability and insight that Park couldn’t even see the gap, let alone its magnitude. Park stopped publishing peer-reviewed scientific articles after he became director of public affairs for the American Physical Society in 1982. Thomas E. Stolper. TStolper1W (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have just demonstrated a disconnection from reality that I have been warned about by two separate people in off-wiki message. Understand this: Mills is a pseudoscientist and either a fool or a con man - that is the neutral evaluation. He has long since lost any credibility he ever had in the scientific community. Park has his credentials in solid-state physics, his professorship, and his position with the American Physical Society. Incidentally: Park published ~20 peer-reviewed papers between 1982 and 1989, if you will consult his CV. Since he became a professor emeritus, he hasn't been doing much active research, but that is the curse of being an administrator. Instead, he has numerous editorial pieces, debunkings, and the book Voodoo Science. Being a debunker doesn't make him an enemy of Mills - it just means he has chosen to spend his retirement cleaning up after others. I am done discussing this. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. If you consider the above evaluation of Mills to be either neutral or right, then we’re even further apart than I realized. That may help explain why you didn’t respond to my email of December 10, 2007, copy below:

Michael,

WIKIPEDIA guidelines recommend that the parties to a dispute try to resolve it themselves.

We seem to be awfully far apart in our opinion of Mills and his work.

Is there any possibility of a compromise or not?

Tom Stolper

Regarding Park’s CV, which you mentioned above and which I missed some years ago in Googling for his papers. It was easy to find today, from the entry in Wikipedia for Park. His CV does list him as an author on scientific publications, presumbably peer-reviewed, from 1982 to 1988 inclusive (as well as earlier years, which I already knew about). He was a bitter opponent of Mills later, though, and on into the new century. TStolper1W (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning regarding self-promotional posts

Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or talk pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. You have been warned about WP:COI and other policies before. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What advertising in Wikipedia, Michael, and what COI? TStolper1W (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement here, and if the above material is insufficient for you to understand that your conflict of interest is a problem, I don't know what would be. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and making available a paperback book about the reception of Mills’ work isn’t a COI. The book is a credential for speaking about its subject; and the book is a reference for it, because it’s the first such book, and still the only one. TStolper1W (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I notice

Hello TStolper1W. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. MastCell ^Talk 21:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do also be warned that MastCell's determination is that you are forbidden from editing the Randell Mills article. See the Admin Noticeboard. Any further edits to the article will be reason for another block. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That’s an effective way of getting rid of a POV with which you and your allies don’t agree, Michael, and of letting others know that you and they have control of so visible an outlet as Wikipedia for your and their hostile POV in this matter. TStolper1W (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Given your conflict of interest and difficulties editing this page within policy, I'm going to ask that you not edit the article Randell Mills directly. You may edit the article talk page and propose changes there, and seek WP:CONSENSUS for them. You may also solicit third opinions, outside comments, or assistance with unsourced or defamatory material via the usual channels. However, if you edit the page directly, you will be blocked. MastCell ^Talk 06:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Randell Mills

An article that you have been involved in editing, Randell Mills, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randell Mills. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI

Tom, I would like to ask you to stop editing content on Hydrino theory in any way that can be considered controversial. I'm sure you know this material as well as anyone. However, the fact that you have written a biography on Randell Mills and, in theory at least, stand to profit by promoting him will inevitably taint your contributions. You've been asked to stop above and I tend to agree that you are not a dis-interested party here. Also, after reviewing the narrow range of your contributions, I'd encourage you to have a look at WP's policy on single-purpose accounts. Ronnotel (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron, you're asking me to write only what Mills' opponents agree with. As for my paperback book, writing a book about something is a credential, not a COI. I've made my paperback study of the Mills episode available on Amazon free of royalty. It's my belief that the USA and the world have much to lose if Mills and his wide-ranging work aren't given a more favorable reception than they have so far been accorded. TStolper1W (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advancing that belief by writing a book about it is fine. Advancing that belief by using Wikipedia as a venue for advocacy is not fine. That's the distinction. If the book is a relevant, useful, and encyclopedic source, then you can suggest it and it will be incorporated. MastCell ^Talk 23:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to MastCell, whoever MastCell may be. Using the Wikipedia as a forum for one-sided attack on so fine a scientist as Mills is worse than inappropriate. TStolper1W (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to see you treated unfairly. However, please understand that the weight lent to your contributions may be affected by the perception of bias on your part. At the very least, I urge you to fully disclose any direct or indirect financial ties you may have to this topic on your user page. Remember, WP is all about WP:CONSENSUS. Ronnotel (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indirect financial ties to this topic, Ron? Writing an extensively-documented paperback book about the reception of Mills' work has taken years of my life and cost me a small fortune. I have made that paperback study available on Amazon free of royalty. I don't own any stock in BlackLight Power, Inc., and never have, nor have I ever received any remuneration from BLP, so I don't think that I have any direct financial ties to this topic whatsoever. As for bias, I find the bias of people who vehemently push their hostile Point of View (PoV) that Mills is a pseudoscientist to be extreme bias, and the way in which they just delete favorable Points of View about Mills to be even more extreme. No pseudoscientist has ever been able to do all that Mills has done, including presentations at scientific meetings and the publication of dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles over many years. TStolper1W (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stolper, you have been warned many times against editing the page. End this. Michaelbusch (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Michael W. Busch (Michaelbusch). On your initiative, I was blocked from editing a different article, the article called “Randell Mills,” afterwards deleted from the Wikipedia by you and your allies. End this? Viewed in historical perspective, it has hardly begun. I may not live to see my judgment of Mills and his work vindicated, but you’re a lot younger than I am, so you will. Thomas E. Stolper. TStolper1W (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Case filed

Tom, I've filed a case at the COI notice board seeking guidance on whether your situation presents a COI. Ronnotel (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TStolper1W. You are welcome to join the discussion at WP:COIN and give your own opinion there. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1RR on Hydrino theory

Hello. To formalize some of the discussion on the WP:COI noticeboard, I'm going to restrict you to 1RR on the hydrino theory article. That means that you may edit it, and you may make 1 revert per 24-hour period. More than that will result in a block. If you're on the fence about whether an edit consitutes a "revert", don't make the edit and go to the talk page instead. If you make a proposed edit and it's reverted, you are encouraged to use the talk page rather than reverting even once. If you feel that you're being taken advantage of, then please consider soliciting outside opinions via WP:3O or WP:RfC. The 1RR will take effect at the end of the day (UTC) today; if you would like to dispute my action here, you may raise it at the admin's noticeboard for wider feedback - I ask only that you notify me if you intend to do so with a brief note on my talk page. MastCell ^Talk 20:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war at Hydrino theory

Please read and understand the policy on edit warring, and review your recent edits to Hydrino theory in that light. Please also consider the three-revert rule policy, which conveys that the hard revert limit (in your case on this issue, one) is a maximum, not an entitlement. You have been posting substantively the same text to this article almost once a day for over a week, and have been reverted by several editors. Clearly, the current consensus is that your favored version is in some way flawed. I will explain my reasons for my stance favoring the current version if you post a cogent explanation of your ideas for improving the article to the talk page. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 14:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an edit war at Hydrino theory, then I think that it is a war led and encouraged by Michaelbusch, and one aimed at imposing Michaelbusch’s extremely hostile point of view, if necessary by erasing and completely blocking a different point of view from the article. See the debate at WP:COIN. I hope Eldereft won’t join that campaign. For an explanation of my edits of the Hydrino theory article, see my edit summaries in the Revision History of that article. TStolper1W (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC) The aforementioned debate at WP:COIN has now been archived. TStolper1W (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to edit against consensus. Wikipedia is a collaborative project reflecting the efforts of many users, not solely the opinions of one editor. Major edits dramatically changing the WEIGHT of an article must be discussed first on the article talk page before blind re-insertion. This is particularly true when a strong scientific consensus exists that the "hydrino" state is not valid for hydrogen, and Mills' observations were at best experimental artefacts. Please read and consider particularly point three of the original thought section of the "What Wikipedia is not" policy. Potentially also of interest is the Righting Great Wrongs section of the Tendentious editing essay. I have created a new section on the talk page, and look forward to your future productive edits and discussions. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur - edit warring is still edit warring, whether done over hours or days. Large scale changes need to be discussed and consensus obtained on the talk page first. If you continue your large scale reversions without discussion, you will be deemed to have violated WP:3RR. Ronnotel (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]