From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] free energy suppression

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Free energy suppression. Thank you.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You know perfectly well I didn't make any contribution I reverted a contribution you had deleted. I asked you specifically not to delete the sourced part of the references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_energy_suppression&diff=215011644&oldid=215009344

Your comment on my talk page doesn't reflect this fact and it doesn't contain a link to the specific offence. With you being an administrator I assume you left this out intentionally. I asked you to leave the sourced information in the article. You then deleted the whole contribution again calling it irrelevant, you actually had a different excuse then when you deleted it the first time.

Additionally you vandalised my effort towards cleaning up the talk page. Posts where the goal of the editors is to obstruct the development of the article can be deleted. There is nothing wrong with this. Obstruction and personal attacks have no place on the talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

You are intentionally obstructing the editors by not communicating deleting the contributions and restoring the nonsense. Go-here.nl (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Whether you added them or reverted my deletion of the sections is irrelevant. They're still BLP violations which would, even if adequately sourced, be only marginally relevant to the article.
2. Most of the talk page sections you deleted seemed as sensible as your comments, and relevant to the article, not just to the subject. It's possible that one or two of the 7 sections you deleted deserved to go.
3. As you are apparently an experienced user, I will no longer give warnings as to obvious violations of Wikipedia policy before blocking. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I was wrong about it being a BLP violation. It's still irrelevant to the article, or it's relevance is WP:SYNthesized. And the talk page sections seemed coherent and potentially relevant to the article; at least as relevant as the sections you re-added. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing all the comments you don't like from the Talk:Free energy suppression page. Removing the comments of a dozen editors all at once clearly falls under the heading of "vandalism" and will be reported as such if it happens again.Prebys (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I deleted your comments, I didn't think you wanted to work at the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

Take this for example in the context of describing the suppression of Yull Browns work:

I won’t even bother touching the conspiracy aspect of this. He didn’t invent Brown’s Gas. It’s just a name for a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and hydrogen. It also isn’t free energy. It’s just the Water Car scam played from a different angle. — NRen2k5, 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The author is uninformed and preforms irrelevant original research. He introduces something he refers to as "the water car scam" concluding mister Brown to be a fraud. This kind of insults and fraudulent accusations can just be removed, NRen2j5 did not make his accusations evident. We don't debate on this level. I think the author was just having a bad day. Yull Brown spend his whole life drawing attention to the technology he was eventually murdered and now we have a world energy crisis.

NRen2k5 thinks he can do away with clean nuclear energy calling the documentation ow that is really bad while one has to be a licensed nuclear physicist to even work with radioactive materials.

The DEO observed the experiments then (3 months later) claimed they had seen nothing. Dan Halley observed their evasive behaviour and documented his observation which was published by the [planetary association for free energy].

The article needs false accusations like the water car scam from media sources not original research.

Arthur Rubin decided to call my good friend Hudchison a fraud on his talk page as his motivation for deleting the references. User_talk:Arthur_Rubin#unsourced_BLP_violations Accusing people of being a fraud without having anything to show for it is a fraudulent activity. Arthur's only comment on Talk:Free_energy_suppression reads:

There's no reference for the accusations of fraud that I can find. If accurate, please link references to the appropriate statements. I see your version has a better tone, but I saw an unsourced change in content. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You wrote things like this:

Of course, Zero Point Energy is also a handy, impressive, buzzword because people can google it and get lots of genuine hits, just like they can google the words with which someone like Tom Bearden peppers his exhortations. It's just that when you put them together, they're meaningless. This sort of semi-meaningful techno-babble dates back at least to the Keely Motor, in the late 19th century, which Keely claimed drew energy from the "luminiferous ether" (actually not a totally crazy claim at the time). In fact, it drew energy from a hidden pneumatic system. 19:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And you write:

These beliefs seem to feed primarily to the huge overlap in conspiracy communities; that is, people who believe in massive free energy cover ups also tend to believe in UFO cover ups (not to mention Moon Hoax cover ups, Philadelphia experiment cover ups, 9/11 cover ups, etc, etc). Thus, the "reality" of UFO's is used to bolster the "reality" of ZPE. It's probably OK to leave it here. When I get some time, I'll try to improve the wording. 17:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have posted more then enough material to falsify your accusation that my believes seem to feed primarily on the huge overlap in conspiracy theories; that is I believe in the free energy cover ups because I also tend to believe in UFO cover up and I also believe in the Moon Hoax and I believe in the Philadelphia experiment coverups, 911 cover ups etc etc and that I thus use the reality of UFO's to bolster reality of ZPE.

I think it's great how you have managed to tell me how I feel about everything (lol) but I think I have posted enough material to falsify your telepaty. No offence of course. I'm just trying to explain why I had deleted this. The contributions didn't look like progress of the article to me. You say I cant just delete peoples comments because I don't like them. But I love your comments and I should delete them when you are not talking about the article.

Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages

If you don't agree then you can revert it again and that will show me you did want to discuss the subject. The discussion seems pretty much dead to me, removing the original research based bashing of the inventors seems perfectly kosher to me.

The current page is growing towards un informed sources calling each inventor a loon and a goobly gook scam fraud insane lunatic etc etc And it's full of lies to justify all this. If anything it doesn't build towards any article I want to work at. If all response I get is no response I cant be asked to write anything.

I can answer questions and I can search references but if other authors do not cooperate by doing a bit of research of their own and posting some constructive sources then the article will suffer from what ever obstruction they apply to it's progress. The page is not for original personal attacks. You need to cite insults from sources.

Like " the fuel injected lunatic " [[1]][[2]]

I don't see any UFO's here? Do you? haha Here is a short wiki on the suppression: [[3]]

You say "play nice or don't play at all." Yes, I shouldn't have reverted your comments if you want to work at the article. But false accusations are not suppose to go on the talk page, there has to be proof then you can accuse people of things. I know you are not obligated to do anything but please keep things clean and honest, thank you.Go-here.nl (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please also refrain from using my talk page as your soap box. It's clear that you deleted comments from the Talk:Free energy suppression page simply because you disagreed with them, which is vandalism. If you do it again, I'll report it as such. That's really all that needs to be said on the subject.Prebys (talk) 03:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)