User talk:Snowdude1492

October 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Oxyhydrogen has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv9vMzXJbho (matching the regex rule \byoutube\.com). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below; but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Rklawton (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Block Based on False Accustation of Vandalism, Please Assume Good Faith
Hi, my account was incorrectly marked as a Vandalism-only user, and my block time is set to indefinite. I'm a new user since the past week or two and my only posts were to my own home page, which were not profane or bias, and to a page on Oxyhydrogen. I was blocked because my post on Oxyhydrogen was marked as vandalism. My post was a legitimate attempt to improve the page and was not biast, profane or promoting anything. My exact post was the following:


 * ''HHO Systems
 * HHO (Oxyhydrogen) fuel systems have been tested, and increases in efficiency were shown [1] [2]. But no official government test, or study for that matter has been conducted [3] . Also, there are many hydrogen fuel systems that have been shown to be scams. The reason for the failures is due to the fact that most do not produce enough hydrogen (or oxyhydrogen) to even make a difference theoretically or in real-world tests.

I looked at my post and attempted to find something that could be identified as vandalism, but I couldn't find anything of the sort. This post was in good faith and I only wanted to improve wikipedia on the topic. In no way was I trying to take advantage of wikipedia by vandalizing it. So, I think my account should be unblocked because I was trying to improve Wikipedia in good faith. If you disagree, please reply and tell me why it is vandalism.

Thank you for your time, Snowdude1492 (Graham S.) --Snowdude1492 (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stand by as I contact the blocking admin.  Sandstein   19:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, and welcome (back) to Wikipedia. Although the block in reaction to your edits was frankly overly harsh, there are two things you should take into account for your future contributions: (1) our verifiability policy requires all content to be accompanied by references to reliable sources (which forums are not), and (2) if somebody undoes your edits, you should not just keep repeating them, because that's what we call edit warring. It's always better to use the talk page facility to discuss any disagreements. Best,  Sandstein   19:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict, not necessarily in reply to Sandstein's comment above.)
 * My apologies for calling it vandalism; it was nearly identical to edits from IP vandals who insist on claiming "it works". However, none of the references for the claim that it works are allowable under the reliable source guideline.  Blogs, posts by promoters, and even some "news" articles which turn out to be advertising copy or "test" announcements, are not considered reliable sources.  Also, the FTC site is slightly misquoted; they say that no official testing is done, rather than no official testing has been done or found to be accurate.
 * However, it might be better to edit elsewhere than in "lighting rod" articles, where non-constructive edits can be incorrectly labelled "vandalism" and lead to immediate blocks. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If another admin feels this block was unjustified as a vandal only account - or as the sock of a repeat offender, I won't object to an unblock. I also agree with the advice above. Rklawton (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Electrolysis system
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Electrolysis system meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Electrolysis system. Don't forget to add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last seven days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. OMCV (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)