User talk:Zedall

Welcome!

Hello, Zedall, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name 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}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

If you have any questions you can always go here for help too:WP:Village Pump Aaron Bowen 11:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bearden quaternion quote[edit]

Hi - just saw that you've removed the quaternion quote from Tom Bearden. I actually liked the quote collection before, because it ranged from "hard-headed physical scientist" to pseudoscience advocated by Bearden. I suggest to keep the Bearden quote, but instead change his classification to Category:Pseudoscience. Agreeable compromise? Too controversial? For an encyclopedic entry, I find it notable enough to keep. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger 00:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good compromise. I've removed his scientist classification as well, okay? Zedall 23:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect with me. - Good luck :) Thanks, Jens Koeplinger 00:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Regarding your "has received little support" notice, you may be asked for providing reference. In preparation for this, I've did a brief search; while he didn't publish with the American Physical Society or American Institute of Physics, I tracked down 3 articles that were submitted through the British Institute of Physics, where Bearden was coauthor: [1] (from www.iop.org > journals > search > author T. E. Bearden). Here from home I can't see which articles are citing these, but these can be looked-up. That would be a good gauge, to see how many responses and what their tone are. Koeplinger 03:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: NASA's Astrophysics Data System only shows one of the three IOP articles being cited once, in the past 7 seven years: [2]. That would qualify as little support from the scientific community. The inability of providing a working model of a revolutionary and grandious concept is an obvious concern. Anyway - we should have our backs covered (I've also added some more concern about the patent received to the article). Thanks again, Jens Koeplinger 03:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I can check out which articles are citing his IOP articles tomorrow. Zedall 04:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]