Re: [Vo]:Don't waste your time trying to edit the E-Cat Article

2012-09-16 Thread Alain Sepeda
for the ethernal optimistixc about wikipedia, why not make wiki entries for
the business men, not supporting CF, following the official delusion with a
visible hypocritical view...

fr Rossi, I would avoid, because he is the worst ad for skeptics...

but put Robert godes, Truchard, Concezzi, xanthoulis, Nicolas Chauvin,
making their CV (maybe ask them), then finisk with a short evocation of
their current work...
maybe crosslinked, avoiding the cold fusion hub.

otherwise you could feed http://lenrwiki.eu/index.php?title=Main_Page
to put mainstream cold fusion (I would be less supportive for other free
energy devices) version, with minority reports inside if needed...
We have no time to feed it

2012/9/16 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com

 At 10:27 PM 9/15/2012, Kelley Trezise wrote:

 So, here is my vote on the matter:

 Keep no merge This article has been taken over by a very small cadre of
 people opposed to even the mention of the Energy Catalyzer, Cold Fusion,
 LENR, LANR, etc. It is a stain on the reputation of WP that a small number
 of very abusive people can drive off the more moderate people, rewrite an
 article in a highly biased manner and then propose that the article be
 deleted. This article as it has been written by that small clique lies
 there like an unburried scat stinking up hell itself. And so it should
 remain as a stinky stain on the reputation of WP. — Preceding unsigned
 comment added by Zedshort(talk • contribs) 01:23, 16 September 2012

 Don't waste your time trying to edit the article as long as the current
 crew of trolls have control. It is best that it be left there for all to
 see but people need to vote honestly on its reliability and such.


 The article was proposed for deletion by a Single Purpose Account (SPA)
 who is very likely the sock puppet of a banned editor. There is revert
 warring on the article, seen today. I'm amazed that TheNextFuture has not
 only not been blocked, s/he has not even been warned about revert warring.
 Insilvis has also violated the 3RR rule. TheNextFuture probably knows
 exactly what s/he is doing, and doesn't care. Insilvis has no block history
 and may not realize that you can be blocked for 3RR violation for making
 good reverts, in themselves.

 However, there is a 3RR exception for reverting a banned editor. The
 guideline suggests not relying on this But nobody has attempted, as far
 as I can see, to address the revert warring and blatant sockery.



Re: [Vo]:Don't waste your time trying to edit the E-Cat Article

2012-09-15 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

At 10:27 PM 9/15/2012, Kelley Trezise wrote:

So, here is my vote on the matter:

Keep no merge This article has been taken over 
by a very small cadre of people opposed to even 
the mention of the Energy Catalyzer, Cold 
Fusion, LENR, LANR, etc. It is a stain on the 
reputation of WP that a small number of very 
abusive people can drive off the more moderate 
people, rewrite an article in a highly biased 
manner and then propose that the article be 
deleted. This article as it has been written by 
that small clique lies there like an unburried 
scat stinking up hell itself. And so it should 
remain as a stinky stain on the reputation of 
WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 
Zedshort(talk • contribs) 01:23, 16 September 2012


Don't waste your time trying to edit the article 
as long as the current crew of trolls have 
control. It is best that it be left there for 
all to see but people need to vote honestly on its reliability and such.


The article was proposed for deletion by a Single 
Purpose Account (SPA) who is very likely the sock 
puppet of a banned editor. There is revert 
warring on the article, seen today. I'm amazed 
that TheNextFuture has not only not been blocked, 
s/he has not even been warned about revert 
warring. Insilvis has also violated the 3RR rule. 
TheNextFuture probably knows exactly what s/he is 
doing, and doesn't care. Insilvis has no block 
history and may not realize that you can be 
blocked for 3RR violation for making good reverts, in themselves.


However, there is a 3RR exception for reverting a 
banned editor. The guideline suggests not relying 
on this But nobody has attempted, as far as I 
can see, to address the revert warring and blatant sockery.  



Re: [Vo]:Don't waste your time trying to edit the E-Cat Article

2012-09-15 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

At 10:27 PM 9/15/2012, Kelley Trezise wrote:

So, here is my vote on the matter:

Keep no merge This article has been taken over 
by a very small cadre of people opposed to even 
the mention of the Energy Catalyzer, Cold 
Fusion, LENR, LANR, etc. It is a stain on the 
reputation of WP that a small number of very 
abusive people can drive off the more moderate 
people, rewrite an article in a highly biased 
manner and then propose that the article be 
deleted. This article as it has been written by 
that small clique lies there like an unburried 
scat stinking up hell itself. And so it should 
remain as a stinky stain on the reputation of 
WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 
Zedshort(talk • contribs) 01:23, 16 September 2012


Don't waste your time trying to edit the article 
as long as the current crew of trolls have 
control. It is best that it be left there for 
all to see but people need to vote honestly on its reliability and such.


The article was proposed for deletion by a Single 
Purpose Account (SPA) who is very likely the sock 
puppet of a banned editor. There is revert 
warring on the article, seen today. I'm amazed 
that TheNextFuture has not only not been blocked, 
s/he has not even been warned about revert 
warring. Insilvis has also violated the 3RR rule. 
TheNextFuture probably knows exactly what s/he is 
doing, and doesn't care. Insilvis has no block 
history and may not realize that you can be 
blocked for 3RR violation for making good reverts, in themselves.


However, there is a 3RR exception for reverting a 
banned editor. The guideline suggests not relying 
on this But nobody has attempted, as far as I 
can see, to address the revert warring and blatant sockery.