Flagged Revisions installed. Unapproved pages display a Red unchecked notice under the title. Trolls attack here by creating and archiving pages with offensive content. To verify an archived page, check the original URL. Questions about administration? Contact User talk:Abd. Limited privacy on this site, see CFC:Limited privacy
Wikiversity/Cold fusion/The Wikipedia article/Removal of links
Tasks: Add evidence.
This year brought a major publishing event in cold fusion history: the special section, with 34 articles, in Current Science. Nothing like this has ever appeared before. Yet I have seen this: the 2010 Storms review in Naturwissenschaften produced almost no critical review, in spite of being a challenge to "orthodoxy," and in spite of being featured in the journal (it was the first article in that issue). The science in it was solid. On wikipedia, it was added to the bibliography, but no material from it was used. The convenience link to it was removed. The argument for removal was totally spurious, that argument had been presented by that user many times, and whenever it was discussed, it was rejected. The paper itself includes, in the first page of the free preview (this is published by Springer), a link to lenr-canr.org as a place to obtain papers. So the second-largest scientific publisher in the world is linking to a "copyvio" site? Which is then hosting the paper itself as a copyvio? No, this is long-term POV-pushing, going back to before my involvement with cold fusion.
The same user removed a link to the Current Science special issue, edit summary: (rm. promotional links including systematic copyright violations) "Copyright violations" was his claim, but it was not accepted by the blacklist administrators when I challenged the blacklisting. He has shown not one actual copyright violation. Lenr-canr.org hosts a lot of papers. It is possible that there are a handful of actual violations, similar to youtube. The reality, this user clearly hates Jed Rothwell, the "librarian" at lenr-canr.org, and lied about him and his editing to get the original global blacklisting. (What were called "promotional links," justifying blacklisting, were not links at all, but if one only looks at diffs, wikitext, that might easily escape notice. He was editing IP, and signed his edits, "Jed Rothwell, librarian, lenr-canr.org," which violated no policy.The user claimed that academic publishers never allowed reprints: his evidence, he'd asked, and they declined. Of course they declined: they allow authors to put up preprints, as-submitted copies of their articles, and lenr-canr.org only hosts such articles on author request and permission. I have seen an article on lenr-canr.org that was "as-published." This might be copy-vio. However, Rothwell always credit the publisher, and the publisher, may, in fact, have given permission to the author or to lenr-canr.org. We don't know. What we know is that lenr-canr.org has long been active, and has suffered no apparent legal problems. I'm aware of one case where an author vaguely threatened lawsuit, over how lenr-canr.org was hosting papers or not hosting them. Lenr-canr.org then blanked pages in compilations that were authored by this person, who then claimed censorship. Copyvio wasn't the issue.
The removal of the link to Current Science was on what basis? Certainly not copyvio. So "promotional"? By whom? The article is about a supposed fringe science, which can be difficult to distinguish from emerging science. Extenral links are not required to be neutral. As I read w:WP:EXT, lenr-canr.org should be linked, for multiple reasons. The banning user has given a series of reasons for his action. Many are completely false. However, he has also made cert
This is very obviously a user not interested in creating and maintaining an informative and reliably-sourced article, but only in pushing his own point of view, which he has expressed many times. As long as users like that are allowed to dominate without challenge on Wikipedia, these battleground articles will remain biased according to a majority point of view among the dominant faction of editors.