Well, very funny, Jed. However, Mr. Fletcher is essentially clueless as to what would be acceptable as a source for Wikipedia. I looked about and didn't see where he was "threatened with arbitration," which is weird. The last thing that the cabal wants is for their antics to go to arbitration, but, here, they'd win. Essentially, this would just go to Arbitration Enforcement -- which is not arbitration, it is where the "community" enforces arbitration decisions, in theis case Article Probation for cold fusion topics.
5 Ugo Bardi Quote in the Introduction
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#Ugo_Bardi_Quote_in_the_Introduction >
If you continue to waste other editors time with your original research, the next step is arbitration enforcement
Of course, is the E-cat "cold fusion"?
Regarding Alanf777's 'bold' edit, I'll start by saying that this article isn't about LENR in general - Most of the material was off-topic, and David Hambling's opinions on the state of LENR research are of no relevence. .... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Since the very first line says "The Energy Catalyzer (also called E-Cat) is a purported cold fusion or Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) heat source" -- supporting evidence for the progress in LENR is definitely allowable. Alanf777 (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Yup. It 'purports' to be a LENR device. Nobody but Rossi and his boosters claims it is. Except when he doesn't. Until independent sources support his claims, what is going in in verifiable LENR research is of no real relevance to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
In a way, they are right. Someone who would persist at Wikipedia is a bit crazy.
I remember now why I gave up in December last year. But I thought it was my turn to put in a shift or two at the coalface (or whatever).
