User talk:Nseidm1

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)
Here are a few links you might find helpful:


 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! Yank sox 15:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The article Brown's gas was deleted as a repost of Articles for deletion/Brown's gas (2nd nomination). Please do not repost it again. If you want a review of the deletion decision, go to Deletion review. NawlinWiki 18:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL
You probably did not mean to but you have mistakenly posted a comment referring to a website saying it is mine. Please stop doing this, making absolute inapprapriate and irrelevant comments on my person is not allowed. This is my first and final warning. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 14:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * your talk page clearly says "Medicine on the Web my medical site"

 Your profile clearly says "Medicine on the Web my medical site", the connotation is that this is "your medical website". If you do not want to give the impression that this is "my medical website" you should remove the "my" and change it to "a". "My medical website" leads a viewer to believe that this is your medical website which would constitute a conflict of interest on your part that should be brought up in the proper administrator channels for third party involvement. Noah Seidman 14:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. Whatever I edit, or whatever website I have, or wherever I work is not relevant in the discussion page for medical literature. Neither is it relevant in the DRV on articles with which you have a COI. Please stop introducing my personal life in the debate. That is considered an ad hominem. Thank you. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 14:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  Your accusation that I have misunderstood the statement on your Profile page is alarming; your rational to determine my COI based on my Profile page is valid, how cannot the exact same rational be used to make a determination about your Profile page?

Give the degree of emerging COI accusations, an attempt to resolve the situations is as follows: I move that if I recuse my edits on the HHO deletion review, and change my opinion to "endorse", you will support the re-creation of a valid, cited, sourced, Brown's Gas article consistent with the parameters of a Encyclopedic work. Noah Seidman 15:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again you misunderstand the current situation.
 * I do not have a commercial interest in any article I edit. By definition I can't have since I am a physician and simply never financially benefit from whatever wikipedia does. Even from aricles about medicine.
 * Never did I object to the creation of an adequately sourced article on the subject of any gas you might want to. You must have missed my repeated inquiries into what scientific articles from reputable scientific journals that adhere to peer review there are discussing the topic. Either as hoax or as a real entity. In short, provide such a source and I will gladly support such an article. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 15:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh
You do realize that, by contributing to the deletion discussion, you've made it much more likely that the articles stay deleted? Everyone knows that you have a conflict of interest. Of course this is not binding at all; choose as you wish, but I would personally like it if you stayed out of such discussions. — Omegatron 13:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Seriescellelectrolyzerdesign.png
Thank you for uploading Image:Seriescellelectrolyzerdesign.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Patent images are usually public domain. Use PD-US-patent and the bots won't annoy you. — Omegatron 01:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Oxyhydrogen flame.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Oxyhydrogen flame.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Efficiency.png
Thank you for uploading Image:Efficiency.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mileageincrease.png
Thank you for uploading Image:Mileageincrease.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oxyhydrogen
thumb|I have questions regarding this table --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)]]


 * When will you be finally finished with editing pager Oxyhydrogen? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added all the references I currently have access to. Whats on your mind? Noah Seidman (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please give me some details notably missing and comment on issues I see (not necessaey tro give references for your opinions and observations, we are on a user talk page only). --Pjacobi (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * General
 * To your knowledge, are the commeercially available oxyhydrogen car modifications using the standard alternator of the car or do they include replacing it with a non-standard (higher rated, higher effincency?) one?
 * Can you give typical values of power used for electrolysis in relation to motor power? Something like "on a 100kW motor, the electrolysis typically draws 80 A at 12 V, roughly 1kW)?
 * Specifically regarding the paper SAE Technical paper Series (2002-01-2196) from which the table at the right was drawn:
 * What's φh?
 * If φh is not the base efficency of the motor, what was the base efficency of the motor?
 * If φh is not the Hydrogen percentage in the fuel (0.24 looks much too high), what was the Hydrogen percentage in the fuel? Specify whether the number is by volume, by mass or by energy content
 * Can <ou specifically state, that the paper was about using hydrolised H2 or are these just the general figures for admixtured H2, coming e.g. from a second fuel tank?
 * Are you aware whether the paper got any citations, i.e. was mentioned as reference in other science or engineering publications?


 * The alternator need not be replaced. A standard alternator produces up to 30 amps, which is more than enough current. 10 Amps is more than enough current.


 * In automotive application a well designed electrolyzer uses 12 Volts, and about 5-10 Amps. About 52-124 watts.


 * Regarding the journal article &phi;h is the hydrogen equivalence ratio. The ratio of hydrogen to gasoline I believe. This is in energy content/mass.


 * The research was using a hydrogen reformer, which is a device designed to retrieve hydrogen components from gasoline rather than water.


 * I cannot specifically state much, it appears that I'm the only person purchasing and investigating these SAE articles. Noah Seidman (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You have to read Houseman's article. It specifically says that the energy requirements for electrolysis are accounted for by the increase in overall engine efficiency. I'll add an appropriate citation as soon as a duplicate copy of the article comes in the mail.Noah Seidman (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen Reformer
Also note that the hydrogen reformer most likely requires electrical energy. Therefore because they reported a decrease in gas consumption, the energy requirements for the hydrogen reformer were well accounted for by the increase in engine efficiency associated with hydrogen fuel enhancement. Noah Seidman (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pic-v10-st30-1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pic-v10-st30-1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Efficiency.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Efficiency.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Efficiency.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Efficiency.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Origin of long oh- operation
Have you seen this Can you explain this without superrelativity ?--83.134.79.71 (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have seen it. It has nothing to do with Brown's Gas. Noah Seidman (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Lean limit extension.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lean limit extension.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 20:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Aquygen info
Please discuss with User:Jmurphee in Talk:Oxyhydrogen whether or not to include a link to http://aquygen.blogspot.com, rather than an edit war. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Efficiency.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Efficiency.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Efficiency.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Efficiency.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mileageincrease.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mileageincrease.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits
You seem to mark all your edits minor. This might be considered somewhat annoying, although you don't seem to abuse it to sneak in controversial edits (like I've seen some people do). The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I will try and differentiate between minor and major a little better. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Chat
Question: Isn't Brown's gas produced by electrolysis? (Answer: yes) Every source I can find suggests that electrolysis produces H2 and O2? (Answer: the sources are correct)  I thought that monoatomic oxygen is very reactive and bonds immediately (Answer: I never mention monatomic anything; there is no credible evidence for such a claim)

I agree, I guess I dont understand the difference between Brown's Gas and a blend of h2 and o2 in an atomic ratio of 2-1. Also, sorry I forgot to sign questions... Will try to remember to do so... Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(Answer) Brown's Gas is a name. It represents oxyhydrogen (2:1 hydrogen versus oxygen) made in a common ducted electrolyzer. Its the ducting of the electrolyzer that makes it different not the chemistry.

"So Brown's Gas is different than oxyydrogen; on a molecular level" because of the ducting? By ducting do you mean the ducts as in the 'pipes' that collect the gas? Guyonthesubway (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Its an assumption that Brown's Gas is different than oxyhydrogen on a molecular level. Aside from assumptions Brown's Gas is a name representing oxyhydrogen produced in the particular electrolyzer designed by Yull Brown. In a common ducted electrolyzer there is only 1 collection "pipe".

Why would the product differ depending on the capture mechanism? 02 is 02 and H2 is H2 right? As far as I understand it, both are stable gases. Guyonthesubway (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The product doesn't differ. Oxyhydrogen is oxyhydrogen, and a common ducted electrolyzer just ensures an exact 2:1 proportioning. Brown's Gas is a name that represents oxyhydrogen gas production by common ducted electrolyzer design. Noah Seidman (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So 'Brown's Gas' is simply very accurately mixed O2 and H2? 12.29.38.14 (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Without laboratory equipment, and 3rd party analysis, no other conclusions can be rationalized. Noah Seidman (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A distinction should be made between the name (Brown's Gas) and the potentially different behavior of oxyhydrogen depending on the conditions of combustion. Oxyhydrogen appears to either implode into liquid water, or explode into vapor depending on conditions; now if that oxyhydrogen were made in a common ducted electrolyzer it would be Brown's Gas. The way you phrase it in the article is spot on. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Question: Doesn't this simply prove that water has a higher density than Brown's gas? (Answer: I don't know what it proves; I merely find it interesting) Wouldn't the same thing happen given diatomic hydrogen and oxygen? (Answer: most likely) Didn't you make the claim on your user page that this is one "two tests I have conducted that prove Brown's Gas is slightly different than oxyhydrogen; on a molecular level."? What does this experiment show then? Guyonthesubway (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The experiment was research, which requires subsequent investigation prior to making any firm conclusions. Overall what was observed was potentially different behavior of oxyhydrogen gas depending on combustion conditions; which is consistent with the original statement made in the 1911 Encyclopedia. If different combustion conditions cause oxyhydrogen to burn differently there may be viable applications for varying effects. Noah Seidman (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You do make a strong conclusion there that "Brown's gas is different from oxyhydrogen", without showing the results of oxyhydrogen under the same conditions. Without that test, isn't it be hard to make any conclusion that the results would be different? 12.29.38.14 (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. The only rational difference is the design of the electrolyzer. Heres the breakdown; Yull Brown invented the common ducted electrolyzer, which produces oxyhydrogen. In recent years people have attached his name to the design calling the oxyhydrogen Brown's Gas instead. I try and not make firm conclusions to maintain rationality. The only rational statement to make, without access to lab equipment, is the design of the electrolyzer is different; minimizing the term Brown'gas Gas to a label or a kind of brand name. Noah Seidman (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So then Brown's gas is -not- different on a molecular basis from oxyhydrogen? You've got me a bit confused now...12.29.38.14 (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is always room for research, but without more concrete evidence strong conclusions cannot be made. My research, and the research of others I still consider preliminary. I post some research to do on my website. Also many statements on my user page were outdated, and have been updated according. Noah Seidman (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My current understanding is consistent with the 1911 encyclopedia; oxyhydrogen burns differently depending on conditions. If the gas is burning differently there should be associated distinction in chemistry respective to combustion conditions. Noah Seidman (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Question: How is discussion of automotive uses of oxyhydrogen redundant? Its another application, and separate from Brown's gas and Aguygen which are specific examples of companies or production methods? Guyonthesubway (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussing automotive uses itself it not redundant, but electrolysis efficiency, and water fuel car scams attempts is already included in the article. I recommend wikilinking to hydrogen fuel enhancement to separate the topics. Noah Seidman (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
Hello Noah. You are welcome to join the discussion there and give your own opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

peswiki
I notcied you're editing the PESWiki too... hopefully you can bring up the standards on there a bit... good luck!

as a start: inventor of hydrogen and oxygen created from decomposed water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Nicholson_%28chemist%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyonthesubway (talk • contribs) 20:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've also started introducing large slabs of fact into PESWiki - it'll be interesting to see how balanced their editorial policies truly are. SteveBaker (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the 'invetor' of Brown's gas might be a good start....Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Brown's Gas is not an invention. Yull Brown designed an electrolyzer, and popular culture calls the oxyhydrogen Brown's Gas. HHO is the epitome of a neologism. Noah Seidman (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * and yet Peswiki says "The electrolysis of water produces a burnable gas. Invented by William A. Rhodes (living), with additional pioneer work done by Yull Brown (deceased), followed by George Wiseman who's group is one entity presently manufacturing and marketing the technology."  When in fact electrolysis was first demonstrated in the 1800's....Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right, that information is inaccurate and needs correction. Peswiki is not a referenced source of information, and most of the material is hearsay, and not factually accurate. I rarely make edits to their website. I'll get around to it sometime. Noah Seidman (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

HHO flame image
The fact that something is rare and high quality is not sufficient excuse to rip off a photographer. The image is clearly copyrighted, and this is a free encyclopedia. The image could be recreated by an inventive photographer, and that is sufficient grounds to reject any fair use rationale. Rklawton (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. Noah Seidman (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Admiral Griffin on the Stanley Meyer technologies
I understand you found this to be an interesting lecture from Admiral Griffin to the maritime division of hte Southampton institute, Warsash, UK as part of the symposium of the impact of New technology on the Marine Industries, September 1993.

I feel other readers should be allowed to read this, I don't see anything wrong with it as there are multiple sources that put the Admiral where he claims he was, including his speech should not be a problem? Steven M. Greer (the Orionproject) seems to me more then a note worthy source on the topic. Gdewilde (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I do find it interesting, as well as Meyers technology, but the problem is verifiability. While I do feel there is a lot of research that can be done Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The policies are to use third party "mainstream" references. I.E. government, research labs, academic publications, universities, ect...  While the orionproject does have predominantly PHd staff it is not a mainstream authority. Meyers work was never discussed in peer review.


 * Frankly I think Meyers tech extracts heat energy from the environment. My interpretation may be bogus and not even close, but what the heck I get bored sometimes and I always write down my ideas; sometimes on my website.


 * Just remember you cannot convince people to believe things. You must show them undeniable, verifiable proof. Noah Seidman (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

ǔ== Conflict of Interest concerns. ==

According to your User page, you are consulting for "Water Fuel LLC" and working on their web site. You are also actively editing a number of articles with close links to the business of Water Fuel LLC...notably:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxyhydrogen&diff=230847087&oldid=230844637

...you deleted criticism of the company you are consulting for. This is exceedingly unethical - and I have reverted your change. I remind you AGAIN of the rules in WP:COI. Last time I complained about this, you assured everyone that you wouldn't be editing articles closely related to your "real world" job...but over the last month, you've gradually slipped back into your old ways. Using Wikipedia to promote your commercial activities IS NOT ALLOWED - OK?

Posting links to your resume also seems contrary to Wikipedia user page guidelines (and linking to files in non-open file formats such as '.doc' is also not allowed)...but that's not my immediate concern.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But I'm basically providing links to third party references. Doesn't COI mean in pushing a POV? I understand your concerns, and if you feel its an super duper extreme issue we can bring is up on the COI notice board for third party review. Steve, I'm 25, graduated with an Electrical Engineering degree and im selling washing machine parts; I can't tell you how bored I am. Wikipedia is one of the few places that I feel I can make a difference. Please let me help, I don't feel my edits are POV. Noah Seidman (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Whew, this was all about 1 revert. I understand that edit. Can't we add a DOT citation from the applicable reference?


 * NO! I'm reverting all of your recent changes to articles relating to water/hydrolysis/automotive issues. This behaviour is UTTERLY outrageous.  Please IMMEDIATELY cease editing articles on ANY of these subjects!  It's STRICTLY disallowed per WP:COI.  I don't care whether the edits are right or wrong - the point is that you are simply not allowed to do this kind of thing here. You may comment about the articles on their respective Talk: pages - so long as you make it crystal clear what your affiliations are when you do that...but directly editing articles so closely related to your commercial activities is strictly disallowed. SteveBaker (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. A WP:COI inquiry will resolve your unease. NPOV is clearly a clause to allow a user with a COI to maintain the editing of an article. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * May I suggest you read this section of WP:COI: COI - and follow the guidelines laid out therein.


 * So, you're bored and enjoy editing Wikipedia and want to 'make a difference'...fair enough...that's often a motivation for me too. I'm a computer game programmer - but do I edit articles relating to computer games?  NO!  Not ever!  That would be exceedingly inadvisable because of WP:COI.  Instead I mostly edit articles about old British cars and fringe-theories.  Areas in which (for me) no sign of a COI is possible.  I suggest you take the same approach.  Find something far outside of your commercial interests and "make a difference" there.  The constraints that COI puts you under are anything but fun and if you continue to work in areas related to water fuelled/hydrogen-enhanced cars, Oxyhydrogen, water electrolysis - then your edits will always be regarded with suspicion.  Much more so because you are working on the non-mainsteam side of these fringe theories in an area where most of the companies involved are engaging in NASTY fraudulant behavior and would presumably have no compunction in attempting to subvert Wikipedia in order to push their POV.  I'm not saying that YOU are doing that - I'm saying that the suspicion would always be there.  FRINGE has much to say about this.


 * You can have fun at Wikipedia - you are clearly intelligent and literate and can make a valuable contribution - but NOT in the areas where you have such a clear conflict. If you were editing articles about 10th century Venetian glassware, Carbon nanotubes or Caesaropapism - there would be no problem.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Understood, but. The programming industry is established and is not comparable to the efficiency industry. This industry is a disgusting mix of frauds and high potential companies. Frankly if I was never involved with these articles substantially less progress would have been made; need I not mention that I added most of the academic article on Hydrogen fuel enhancement, as well as contributed greatly to the current state of Oxyhydrogen. I am eager to add criticism of such technology especially if a vehicles piston rings are damaged; ie. if oil is leaking into the engine a water oil mix will occur sticking to and eventually corroding potentially critical components. In my opinion the current state of the articles do not successfully tackle fraudulent products (marketing and technological). We have a popsci reference that clearly says hydrogen addition alone cannot increase gas mileage; I am aching to clearly debunk these frauds. I guess a COI can be claimed whether I am debunking frauds, or providing credible third party references from government agencies. Since there are indeed other editors of these article may I recommend that you show moderate restrain in your claim of COI, while addressing your concern in a clear coherent fashion on the talk page. I can continue editing the article considering a COI, but what I cannot do is continue editing if many editors reach a consensus that I should not be editing. So long as my edits are clearly, and undeniable NPOV using third party government refs, I see no reason that your distaste for my COI should stop me from editing in a neutral way. There is no excuse for removing a blockquote from NASA. Maybe you should have reduced it to a quote, but complete elimination of information from a US government agency is completely inappropriate. There is no way that my inclusion of a NASA ref is POV. Bare in mind that NPOV means that I consider both supporting and criticizing information using credible and verifiable references. I have definitely shown my ability to be NPOV on the talk pages with my repeated criticism of fraudulent technologies. I look forward to your articulated response. Noah Seidman (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In response on User_talk:Mion, About COI, I understand SteveBaker, having a look at [], where the person noah is bringing in his person as an argument for changes in the article, now in main it points to shortage of arguments or good arguments but not good presented, i think the latter, maybe its time for you to write some lenghty articles, see Style guide and try to raise it on the scale level WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject. Another thing (was) the text on your UP, wikipedia is not linkedIn, and its selfpromotion, so I removed it. 2000 edits on 4 articles is something, however my impression is that the articles are improved and in main you're not going against consensus, i see no problem as long as you keep any mentioning about the person and the company out of article space. Mion (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My .02$..... You make both good and bad edits like all of use, and your age and job have nothing to do with this.   However, you seem to have a view that Hydrogen Fuel enhancement works.  You are attempting to build a consulting business around that assumption, and the assumption that you can help others build devices for that purpose.  (I personally would be very disappointed if a consultant that I hired had no experience in the area I hired him.)   I have to agree that the consulting business demonstrates a POV / COI problem.   Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume that my opinions and ideas are valuable. I assume that I can contribute constructively to a companies decision making process providing various ideas and opinions supported by academia, government publications, my formal education, and life experiences. I assume that life can potentially be more than working for an hourly wage. I assume that I can try to make a name for myself, and possibly a difference on this planet as an intellectual. While some of my opinions can be considered far out, most of them are grounded and supported by various verifiable documents I have collected and referenced in Wikipedia. Is it your assumption that the US DOT is disseminating fraudulent info about Hydrogen Fuel Injection? Do you assume I do not follow a rational though process? There are various reasons a person would hire me, it is an assumption that I provide information outside of my expertize. I have 25 years of experience; this is the source of information that I provide during my consulting services. I do not ever step beyond these bounds, and I most definitely do not lie or mislead via exaggerated or false statements. I am an honest person trying to do something the average citizen never attempts. I am bored, I want more, and I want to help people. I loathe sitting and watching TV, I am always thinking of various business ventures. I have many websites on the internet and have consulted for companies dealing with website design, server design, replacement of Windows servers with Linux bases systems, and other services. I am humble in that even with an Electrical Engineering degree I have worked pizza delivery, and other minimum wage jobs. Is it irrational to want to contribute to society? I have contacted every national laboratory saying I would work for free; I go no where. I apply on Monster, and other websites to approximately 30 jobs per day; I go no where. I fax, and email resumes to every source I can find; I go no where. I call research companies, manufacturing companies, and engineering companies; I go no where. I call politicians every once in a while asking for recommendation what I can do to make a difference; I go no where. All I think about everyday is how to go somewhere. Noah Seidman 16:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

unindent:

Certainly laudable goals. Ever throught about teaching? Perhaps you could do some of the basic research you crave and in the process introduce the scientific method to a new generation? Certainly there are plenty of schools that could use the help.Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Image Deletion
A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Seriescellelectrolyzerdesign.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Seriescellelectrolyzerdesign.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)