User talk:Big wheels keeps on turning

for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. This editor has returned to edit warring following a block from edit warring. This user's contributions are oriented almost exclusively toward promoting well documented, fraudulent claims as fact. Wikipedia is not the place to promote fringe theories. - Rklawton (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

User Identity
When you have an opportunity to respond could you tell me if you are Gaby de Wilde?--OMCV (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, not at all. I had never heard of him/her until you posted here. I had have personal contact with Professor Laughton and what is being stated about his involvement with the court case here is absolutely incorrect.


 * A falsehood the kneekerkers apparently seem perfectly at ease with.


 * If it is of any interest to you or anyone, I am pefectly happy to state what my own personal position on the whole Meyer business is. However, it is pefectly clear that one set of extremists are quite erroneously bundling me in with what they see as their dichotometic opposites, the "free energy freaks".


 * ... and that is not my position at all.


 * Sadly, when discussion reaches such a point, progress is impossible. I presume the trench warfare between the two parties has been going on for a long time and reason or accuity is now impossible.


 * It will probably not help me to say this but I suspect the individuals involved have no expertise or experience in these matters in any way at all and our time and energy is victim to some kind of acting out on their behalves. --Big wheels keeps on turning (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the connection between your words- you say that you do not support the idea that the Meyer fuel cell works, and are only interested in correcting the detail about Laughton- and your edits - which change the detail about Laughton and also change the beginning of the article to claim that the fuel cell works, while removing information about 'perpetual motion machines'. You are focusing your defense of yourself on the detail about Laughton, but the people who object to your edits are, I think, more interested in the claim that the fuel cell works and is not a "perpetual motion machine." There are people in the discussion who do know the science, as you can see by reviewing the talk page archives, but your discussions have only focused on whether Laughton should be described as a witness, and don't seem to address the more significant changes you are making. I tried to help you avoid this indefinite block- I explained to you that the changes you were making that didn't relate to Laughton were important, and that you should address them rather than simply discussing Laughton. I warned you about the rules against edit-warring, and gave you a very short block to let you know that those rules really are enforced. And when I saw that you were getting back into the edit-war, I warned you that the next block would probably be much longer. I can't tell whether you're a person with information we need, or someone who's deliberately using the paragraph about Laughton as a distraction while inserting fringe views into the article, because your discussions are so different from what's actually in the edits you're making. But I know that there isn't anything more I can do to help, and I did try. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply to FisherQueen
FisherQueen, you are an reasonable well educated adult capable of intelligence and with some integrity.


 * Are you in education of any sort? Do you have any professional experience in science, technology or industry?

There is are subtle difference between "works", "works as claimed or stated" and "has/had an effect". Yes, Meyer's cell has an effect. We do not know what effect is except that it was not electrolysis as per prior art.

I have never stated or claimed that it "worked as stated or claimed". This is what those caught in the exaggerated dichomoty cannot perceive. Their prejudice is binding them to the belief that I am in some opposite camp from them. I am not. Do I understand the science? Yes. Do I dispute the science? No. I am not a child. I have expertise in one of the many areas this topic engages with.

Before any discussion is held, one has to accept certain preset about the Wikipedia.

And, lastly,
 * It is a place where people without any knowledge, expertise, professional or personal experience can pretend to be knowledgeful or expert and act out.
 * It is a place where people indulge themselves in behavior which would not be acceptable in academic or professional environments.
 * It is a place rife with ignorance, prejudice, bias and strategic game playing.
 * It is a place rife with inconsistent application of the rules.
 * It is a place where children and entirely unqualified indivduals are considered as expert as experts.
 * Pointing out any of the above is very likely to invoke a highly negative response from individuals involved in such.

So, do you really want an intelligent response or discussion ... and would intelligent discussion on such a topic really be possible?

In my opinion, it is not.

I am sorry but the irrational defence and re-insertion of information that has been point out to be entirely false, and the cheap slurs used in both edits and summaries clearly prove this ... and that the individuals doing so lack integrity, expertise and professionalism.

To me, it appears that your comments are just a distraction from the real issue.

In short, you would rather come here and enjoying gloating rather than go to the article and remove falsehoods about a living person.

Would you care to prove me wrong? --Big wheels keeps on turning (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You aren't going to make your desired edits without discussion and consensus. If you want to write about this subject but don't think it's possible to discuss it, then Wikipedia isn't the right place to do it, and you should write about it in some place where you aren't expected to collaborate with others. Notice that, free from the distraction of your edit-warring, other users are now discussing your suggesting regarding Laughton on the talk page of the article.  At Wikipedia, we try to assume good faith of one another, which you aren't doing- that makes it simply impossible for you to collaborate.  If you don't like Wikipedia users, and don't want to work with them, then it's better for you and for us that you don't.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact is that false information about a living person remains on the Wikipedia put there by individuals who in reality, know nothing about the subject.


 * Should I collaborate in falsehood?


 * With all respect, FisherQueen, you appear to have been around the Wikipedia for long enough to know what you are saying contradicts what else it says, "Be Bold", which is what I did.


 * The rules also says false material about living people and anything without a reference should be removed.


 * Where is your application of "the rules" where someone else is called a "fraudster" without any reference or citation? Oxyhydrogen.


 * If you had made the ban two ways then, as it was the other person that broke the rule first, then fine, I could take your words at face value. But you did not.


 * You might want to believe that is how it 'should' be ... but it is not, especially on topic such as this one.


 * --Big wheels keeps on turning (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing more to say. You might know something the article needs to be better, or you might just be another internet crazy- it's impossible for me to tell which based on what I've read so far.  You've made it clear that you have only contempt for Wikipedia and its editors, and no intention of following the rules, so whichever you are, you've already made your choice to be blocked from editing- if this is really important, I'm sure someone who has the understanding but is willing to work on Wikipedia will eventually come along to help.  You will be much happier writing about the subject for publication elsewhere, and everyone wins.  I wish you a wonderful life; goodbye. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Anthony Griffin (Royal Navy officer)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Anthony Griffin (Royal Navy officer), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-admiral-sir-anthony-griffin-1359602.html, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Anthony Griffin (Royal Navy officer) and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Anthony Griffin (Royal Navy officer), in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Anthony Griffin (Royal Navy officer) with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Anthony Griffin (Royal Navy officer). See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Anthony Griffin (Royal Navy officer) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! VernoWhitney (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)