MagneWikiGate

[MartyMcfly]

Ok, after several years of investigative work, it’s time I let loose on this one a little ahead of schedule due to a pending DELETION nomination by a few of the soon to be disgraced wikipedia editors*

* partial list includes: Arthur Rubin, Andythegrump, BullRangifer, MarkBernstein, David Eppstein, Materialscientist, Headbomb , Simonm223, Doug Weller, Qwyrxian, Rklawton, John Vandenberg, Spacepotato, Guyonthesubway, Staszek Lem, Enric Naval, Sławomir Biały, and Vfrickey -aka Louparous

Just imagine if Level IV Wiki Admin (a "Looshpah Laureate of the Encyclopedia"... lol..nerds) Arthur Leonard Rubin wrote on Wiki servers that the chief scientist of a publically traded (now NASDAQ listed) company was a “snake oil salesmen” back in 2010 and that, along with a litany of other shenanigans perpetrated by “cabal” of blatantly biased Wikipedia editors* over the past 9 years, subsequently led virtually anyone who read the article to conclude the company and their fuel was a “fringe” “pseudoscience” “fuel your car on water” scam to the point where numerous dubious short selling groups (including one group founded by convicted stock manipulating felon and alleged affiliate of the Gambino crime family, Hunter Adams) openly published short thesis were based upon what was written on Wikipedia resulting in the losses of 10s of millions for investors.. BUT THEN, it turns out that this Scientist, Ruggero Maria Santilli ( again, dubbed as a "snake oil salesmen" by Arthur Rubin et al) and his new species of fuel (see the paper in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy on MagneHydrogen) were all 100% undeniably legitimate?

Oh that would just be a BOMB SHELL against the Wikipediocracy – if only it were true… Well, It’s ALL TRUE and is now so obviously and easily verifiable that its really no wonder a few of these Wiki editors are now (after smearing the man for years) scrambling to have the entire article (and the evidence of their hatchet job in talk/edit sections) DELETED from wikiservers.

Look, nobody has to believe in magnetic bonding (although, contrary to what is stated in the article, the concept of magnetic bonding did hit “mainstream science” back in 2012 – see magnetic bonding) or any special properties of the fuel as they have been VERIFIED.

I would absolutely LOVE to hear an explanation why any of the following third party INDEPENDENT verifications of Magnegas aren’t included on Santilli/Magnegas article.

3/23/2012: In a signed report from Robert R. Alfano, founding Director of the Institute for Ultrafast Spectroscopy and Lasers of the City University of New York (CCNY), measured the flame temperature of Magnegas derived from crude oil+oxygen = 10,578 F and the version of the gas derived from antifreeze+oxygen = 10,506 F. fyi - That is around 4,000 F hotter than acetylene and scientifically ‘impossible’ according to unemployed skeptics the world over who looked up MagneGas on Wikipedia.
http://magnegas.com/docs/CCNY-report.pdf

7/17/2012: GM tested MagneGas™, assessing its environmental, health and safety impacts. It found it cut cleaner, faster and is more cost-effective than acetylene.

"We are always in pursuit of technologies that enhance quality and efficiency while also performing well on a holistic business case," said John Bradburn, manager of waste-reduction efforts at GM. "In its current state, this technology does just that. We're working closely with MagneGas to discuss possible future applications with potential to reduce our environmental impact." – GM Global Waste Reduction Manager John Bradburn

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 11036.html


1/12/2015 :New York City's Fire Department (FDNY) Formally Accepts MagneGas® and Orders Fuel.
FDNY tested MagneGas® for 18 months and stated in writing to the Company that it chose MagneGas® for the following reasons:

MagneGas has a hotter flame temperature than other cutting methods;
The tank can be used in various positions and does not need to be upright during operation unlike other fuels;
It is a stable gas making it safer for deployment in harsh conditions, unlike acetylene;
MagneGas is contained in lighter tanks making for faster deployment;
Off gasses have less toxicity than other alternatives;
MagneGas is made locally from renewable waste liquids.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 18943.html


May 15, 2015: US Navy Purchases First Order of MagneGasMagneGas Demonstration at US Navy Results in MagneGas 2 Cutting 100% Faster Than Acetylene
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 83985.html

Now a quick note on the Navy verifications – the original MagneGas version was derived from anti-freeze. The MagneGas2 version that the US Navy tested in 2015 and independently determined to cut 100% faster than acetylene is derived from vegetable oil.

Long story I will share later, but basically the Bremerton Naval yard personnel were initially (2012-2014) so put off about MagneGas from what they read on Wikipedia along with comments made by Vance P. Frickey on the Skeptics Forum (under the same handle he edits Wikipedia on, Loupgarous), the Navy refused the Edison Welding Institute and National Center for Manufacturing Sciences recommendations to further evaluate Magnegas as part of the 480 project (http://www.nesdi.navy.mil/Files/Current ... CA_452.pdf)... which could have led to Magnegas Corporation being commissioned to provide the cutting fuel for the dismantlement of the USS Enterprise.

The company came up with a new prototype version of their fuel (specifically for the Navy testing) which was derived from virgin methanol feedstock and curiously, contained no carbon monoxide - and thus the Navy had no reason to deny testing it. IMHO, the Bremerton Navy yard had already made up their mind from the libelous “fringe” “pseudoscience” comments they read online to never use the fuel but had to follow procedure (EWI, NCMS recommendations) so they gave it 1 day test period (instead of the 6 months originally spelled out in the 480 project). The Navy reported it did burn cleaner than propane (less GHG emissions) and reduced opacity issues (which is the reason the 480 project came about) but, said their 16 tests cuts showed it was slower cutting than propane, and thus would require more labor hours which made using the Magnegas too expensive.

So the result of the TR-NAVFAC-EXWC-EV-1409 http://www.nesdi.navy.mil/Files/Current ... CA_452.pdf were NOT very positive for MNGA stock investors – so why wouldn’t wiki editors like Rubin or Vance include this on the article?? Could it be because it would be MORE damaging to Wiki editors as Dr. Santilli clearly wasn’t peddling “SNAKE OIL” as Arthur Rubin stated in writing he was.

• (cur | prev) 12:33, 30 August 2010‎ Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,254 bytes) (+30)‎ . . (Undid revision 381861772 by 96.254.83.50 (talk) yes, he does belong there with "snake oil salesmen") (undo)
• (cur | prev) 12:32, 30 August 2010‎ Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,224 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (Undid revision 381767860 by Globalreach1 (talk) "innovative" is his term alone) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 11:41, 30 August 2010‎ Leszek Jańczuk (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (14,235 bytes) (-3)‎ . . (minor) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 11:39, 30 August 2010‎ 96.254.83.50 (talk)‎ . . (14,238 bytes) (-30)‎ . . (Removed Pseudo Scientist - His theories are controversial but as published and based on theories, he doesn't belong up there with Snake Oil salesmen...) (undo)

Sorry for the rant here but this is just the most EGREGIOUS case of the damage that can be caused when the pompous Comic Book Story Guys of the world get total control over #1 source of information on the internet.

I truly thought that upon the releases of independent verifications from The Edison Welding Institute's (one of the most prestigious metal working organizations in the world) 32 page report which showed MagneGas (both versions of the fuel) – dramatically outperformed acetylene and propane, while requiring LESS 02 (from tanked 02) to cut – people like Vance P. Frickey would end their crusade to burn Santilli at the stake...

I was wrong… Vance P. Frickey is the one who moved to DELETE the article.

More on the expertise of Vance can be found on this hilarious blog entry by Jeffery Lewis
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/ ... -nonsense/

So now Vance is claiming his request to DELETE a scientist from history (hey, if you aren’t on Wikipedia, you pretty much no longer exist.. just try to look up what Don Carlo Borghi's field of work was – you can’t, David Eppstien and company already DELETED HIM ) isn’t personal ..ya right …

Vance and David Eppstein (a good buddy of Arthur Rubin) are now trying to play some ridiculous angle where Santilli is no longer “notable” enough to have a Wikipedia article (yes, the scientist Vance’s (aka loupgarous) posts/attacks towards Santilli/Magnegas on the Skeptics Forum board that has (I believe) generated more views than any other topic ever on that board.. not to mention millions of views on youtube and other boards, including wikipedia.

Whatever… I got your NOTABILITY right here fromthe man Wikipedia says is "generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century"

Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics: by Karl Popper, W.W. Bartley III
“Preface 1982: On Realistic and Commonsense Interpretation of Quantum Theory”

Chadwick’s neutron was perhaps less of a problem: it could be, and it was, interpreted at first as composed of a proton and an electron. It turned out, however, that there was a serious difficulty here: the theory – quantum mechanics - did not succeed in explaining this composition. So it was, in time, accepted as a new particle, which may arise either through the common transition of a proton and an electron into a neutron, or by the emission of a positron from a proton. It is interesting to read in a recent paper by Ruggero Maria Santilli that, in his theory, this ‘first structure model of the neutron’ is being revived, by ‘resolving the technical difficulties which [had] led, historically, to the abandonment of the model. [19]
These difficulties, he says, ‘were all due to the assumption that atomic mechanics’ [Santilli’s name for quantum mechanics] applied within the neutron, and [they] are removed when a generalized mechanics is used’.)

[19] Ruggero Maria Santilli: “An Intriguing Legacy of Einstein, Fermi, Jordan, and Others: “The Possible Invalidation of Quark Conjectures’, Foundations of Physics 11, 5/6, 1981, pp. 383-472, especially 448. Santilli refers here to his paper in Hadronic Journal 2, 1979, p, 1460, section 2.4. See also Santilli’s book Foundations of Theoretical Mechanics I: The Inverse Problem in Newtonian Mechanics, New York, 1978.

And of course.....

“I have mentioned Santilli, and I should like to say that he--one who belongs to a new generation -- seems to me to move on a different path. Far be it from me to belittle the giants who founded quantum mechanics under the leadership of Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Born, Heisenberg, de Broglie, Schrodinger, and Dirac. Santilli too makes it very clear how greatly he appreciates the work of these men. But in his approach he distinguishes the region of the ‘arena of incontrovertible applicability’ of quantum mechanics (he calls it ‘atomic mechanics’) from nuclear mechanics and hadronics, and his most fascinating arguments in support of the view that quantum mechanics should not, without new tests, be regarded as valid in nuclear and Hadronic mechanics, seem to me to augur a return to sanity: to that realism and objectivism for which Einstein stood, and which had been abandoned by those two very great physicists, Heisenberg and Bohr.” – Karl Popper 1982

So let me get this straight....Arthur Rubin is notable enough for a Wikipedia article about him because he took 3rd place in some math competition 40 years ago BUT Santilli, regarded as the greatest scientist of the 'new generation' by one of the generally regarded greatest minds of the 20th century, who in addition to completing a non-unitary covering of quantum mechanics, devised not only devised a new branch of calculous (isodifferential calculus) but devised NEW NUMBERS which were first required.. isn't notable enough to have a wikipedia article.???.. please..

WOW.. feel free to register your opinion on the deletion request before they dispose of the evidence. STRONG KEEP.

PS - another good read is Santilli's tell-all book he published after leaving Harvard in early 1980s
II Grande Grido Ethical Probe on Einstein's Followers in the U.S.A.-An Insider's View By Ruggero Maria Santilli Alpha Publishing

A 1985 review of the book is still available on the Harvard Crimson servers HERE

(Wikipedia today is a great parallel of what happened in science decades ago.. eventually the teachers pets seize power and start favoring their friends and supporters.. if they smear someone and later find out they were WRONG.. they delete and suppress the information to save face)

[Zoloft]

As I recall, a company shill from MagneGas wandered into a skeptics forum and was mauled badly.

Oh, and caps-lock is the portal to AWESOME.

[Midsize Jake]

Oh, and caps-lock is the portal to AWESOME.

It's not caps-lock unless he does an entire sentence in it. If he's only doing individual words, then it's just an attempt to add "visual pizzazz."

Anyway, I think this Dr. Santilli's article should stay on WP, unless of course Dr. Santilli wises up and actually decides he wants it deleted. After all, this is the guy who finally alerted us to the existence of Invisible Terrestrial Entities. Aliens are looking right down our goddamn chimneys while we sit on the toilet, and the government is doing nothing about it! Thanks, Obama!

It's a disaster, I'm telling you.

[Hex]

Noticed the goofy formatting. stopped reading. This is some content dispute, right? Not your personal army.

[Jim]

Noticed the goofy formatting. stopped reading.

It's quite astonishing what a good indicator that often is...

I'll keep an eye open for those Invisible Terrestrial Entities, though. Can't be too careful.

[Poetlister]

Arthur Rubin is indeed one of the very best admins on Wikipedia and his views deserve respect. We should nevertheless formally MartyMcFly.

[MoldyHay]

Does BOOMERANG apply over here?

[Anroth]

Does BOOMERANG apply over here?

Not really. What tends to happen is they get ridiculed.

[Jim]

Does BOOMERANG apply over here?

No, but we can pour flammable, magnetically bonded water on the flames, I think, while the aliens aren't looking, with an unexpected thermal efficiency and cleanliness compared to conventional fuels.
And we can bold things which are important.

Not really. What tends to happen is they get ridiculed.

And that, of course...

[MoldyHay]

Does BOOMERANG apply over here?

Not really. What tends to happen is they get ridiculed.

That qualifies as BOOMERANG, since their goal here seems to have been to embarrass the WP editors who were suppressing their fringe snake oil...

[Jim]

That qualifies as BOOMERANG, since their goal here seems to have been to embarrass the WP editors who were suppressing their fringe snake oil...

I'm not sure they really have a "goal", as such, other than wandering around trying to find new places where they'll be allowed to expound on the injustices of life and to wonder out loud why the establishment "bullies" still refuse to take their eminently sensible ideas seriously.

[thekohser]

Look, if the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy says it's true, I believe it's true!

I mean, its editor in chief is the respected T. Nejat Veziroglu -- you know, the same T. Nejat Veziroglu who heads up the International Association of Hydrogen Energy (Coral Gables, Florida). Just look at his inspirational message:

Individuals, who have or will have major contributions to the cause of Hydrogen Energy worldwide, colleagues, readers of the Journal, present or future active members of the World Hydrogen Movement, I wish you great success in your hydrogen activities, you can be greatly proud of your every result contributing to the development of Hydrogen Economy.

Monorail! Monorail! Monorail!

[Jim]

Look, if the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy says it's true, I believe it's true!

I mean, its editor in chief is the respected T. Nejat Veziroglu -- you know, the same T. Nejat Veziroglu who heads up the International Association of Hydrogen Energy (Coral Gables, Florida). Just look at his inspirational message:

Individuals, who have or will have major contributions to the cause of Hydrogen Energy worldwide, colleagues, readers of the Journal, present or future active members of the World Hydrogen Movement, I wish you great success in your hydrogen activities, you can be greatly proud of your every result contributing to the development of Hydrogen Economy.

Monorail! Monorail! Monorail!

...the World Hydrogen Movement? Sign me up. I'd be greatly proud of my every result.

Here, since someone will, and I can:

[Vigilant]

Look, if the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy says it's true, I believe it's true!

I mean, its editor in chief is the respected T. Nejat Veziroglu -- you know, the same T. Nejat Veziroglu who heads up the International Association of Hydrogen Energy (Coral Gables, Florida). Just look at his inspirational message:

Individuals, who have or will have major contributions to the cause of Hydrogen Energy worldwide, colleagues, readers of the Journal, present or future active members of the World Hydrogen Movement, I wish you great success in your hydrogen activities, you can be greatly proud of your every result contributing to the development of Hydrogen Economy.

Monorail! Monorail! Monorail!

...the World Hydrogen Movement? Sign me up. I'd be greatly proud of my every result.

You're thinking of methane, buddy.

[Jim]

Look, if the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy says it's true, I believe it's true!

I mean, its editor in chief is the respected T. Nejat Veziroglu -- you know, the same T. Nejat Veziroglu who heads up the International Association of Hydrogen Energy (Coral Gables, Florida). Just look at his inspirational message:

Individuals, who have or will have major contributions to the cause of Hydrogen Energy worldwide, colleagues, readers of the Journal, present or future active members of the World Hydrogen Movement, I wish you great success in your hydrogen activities, you can be greatly proud of your every result contributing to the development of Hydrogen Economy.

Monorail! Monorail! Monorail!

...the World Hydrogen Movement? Sign me up. I'd be greatly proud of my every result.

You're thinking of methane, buddy.

Magnetically bonded methane. Entirely different.

[Vigilant]

Look, if the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy says it's true, I believe it's true!

I mean, its editor in chief is the respected T. Nejat Veziroglu -- you know, the same T. Nejat Veziroglu who heads up the International Association of Hydrogen Energy (Coral Gables, Florida). Just look at his inspirational message:

Individuals, who have or will have major contributions to the cause of Hydrogen Energy worldwide, colleagues, readers of the Journal, present or future active members of the World Hydrogen Movement, I wish you great success in your hydrogen activities, you can be greatly proud of your every result contributing to the development of Hydrogen Economy.

Monorail! Monorail! Monorail!

...the World Hydrogen Movement? Sign me up. I'd be greatly proud of my every result.

You're thinking of methane, buddy.

Magnetically bonded methane. Entirely different.

Do you use that in your homeoaromatherapy practice?

[Jim]

Do you use that in your homeoaromatherapy practice?

Homeoaromatherapyophobe. Bah.

[Vigilant]

Do you use that in your homeoaromatherapy practice?

Homeoaromatherapyophopbe. Bah.

Homeoaromatherapyophopbephobe. HA!

[Jim]

Do you use that in your homeoaromatherapy practice?

Homeoaromatherapyophopbe. Bah.

Homeoaromatherapyophopbephobe. HA!

Your a big bully.

[Hex]

WOW.. feel free to register your opinion on the deletion request before they dispose of the evidence.

OK!

Delete, per David Eppstein (lack of independent sources) and John Pack Lambert (high notability bar for fringe theories). — Scott • talk 15:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome.

[Vigilant]

Do you use that in your homeoaromatherapy practice?

Homeoaromatherapyophopbe. Bah.

Homeoaromatherapyophopbephobe. HA!

Your a big bully.

The sound of Greg's teeth grinding permeates the atmosphere.

[Jim]

Do you use that in your homeoaromatherapy practice?

Homeoaromatherapyophopbe. Bah.

Homeoaromatherapyophopbephobe. HA!

Your a big bully.

The sound of Greg's teeth grinding permeates the atmosphere.

And youre mean to.

[MartyMcfly]

Noticed the goofy formatting. stopped reading...

It appears you also stopped thinking for yourself

Delete, per David Eppstein (lack of independent sources) and John Pack Lambert (high notability bar for fringe theories). — Scott • talk 15:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

As I just explained to you, David Eppstein claims (after numerous deletions of sources from the article) “lack of independent sources” but as I just informed you, there are numerous independent sources including a direct quotation by one of the greatest scientific minds of the 20th century who cites Santilli’s papers that editors like David Eppstein are clearly ignoring.

Of the 3 papers cited in that quote by Sir Karl Popper above , only Santilli’s book Foundations of Theoretical Mechanics I: The Inverse Problem in Newtonian Mechanics, New York, 1978 is allowed to be included on the Wiki entry.

So can someone please explain to me why the following 2 papers are not considered “independent” sources?



An intriguing legacy of Einstein, Fermi, Jordan, and others: The possible invalidation of quark conjectures
MIT Annals of Physics (MIT) Annals of Physics, Vol. 83, 108-157 (1974)

Santilli basically calls out “quarks” as being imaginary particles (which they are). Yes, the paper (which was Supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract numbers ER-78-S-02-4742.A000 and AS02-78ER04742) and his objections and calls for experimental tests to confirm or deny the theory were ignored – in clear violation of the due scientific process, but his arguments were valid as they DID pass the peer review process – and I can assure you, Santilli wasn’t an editor for the MIT Annals of Physics.
Also, contrary to popular misconception spread by clearly bias editors towards Dr. Santilli like Vance Frickey and David Eppstein, ALL references to the Hadronic Journal cannot be dismissed as his "log-rolling circle”

(cur | prev) 21:39, 4 June 2014‎ David Eppstein (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,340 bytes) (+1,408)‎ . . (Undo whitewash of Santilli's toxic views) (undo)

The Hadronic Journal was founded in April 1978 at the Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, by Ruggero Maria Santilli and Howard Georgi with the initial Editorial participation by S. Adler (Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton), L. C. Biedenharn (Duke University, North Carolina), N. N. Bogoliubov (JINR, Dubna, Russia), P. Budini (ICTP, Trieste), M. Froissart (College of France, Paris), H. C. Myung (University of Northern Iowa), I. Prigogine (University of Terxas at Austin), C. N. Yang (State University of New York), J. Wess (Universitat Karlsruhe, Germany}, and several other distinguished scientists.

Here is a of the cover page of the Hadronic Journal referenced by Karl Popper.



I count 2 Nobel laureates on the cover. Or can David will them into being disregarded as "fringe" because Santilli has to be "fringe" because Wikipedia says so?

You're welcome.

Yes Scott. Thank you for your contribution. Comments and actions like yours need to be documented and shown to the public as I feel it is very important that donors to Wikipedia, particularly corporate sponsors, are made aware of the childish antics and complete disregard for truth and the rules and sprit of Wikipedia behind the scenes in exchange for palling up with your buddies to drive your personal agendas/opinions and popularity contests. It’s frankly disgusting – glad to see you are so proud of it.

[MartyMcfly]

Look, if the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy says it's true, I believe it's true!

I mean, its editor in chief is the respected T. Nejat Veziroglu -- you know, the same T. Nejat Veziroglu who heads up the International Association of Hydrogen Energy (Coral Gables, Florida). Just look at his inspirational message:

How about you try picking on Karl Popper? Better yet, how about Steve Weinberg? He was a big fan of Santilli - until he showed him up.

[MoldyHay]

Bye Felicia

[Zoloft]

Is it time yet to demonstrate the violence inherent in the system?

[Jim]

Is it time yet to demonstrate the violence inherent in the system?

Unnecessary, probably. The boat seems to be headed for the rocks all on its own. Funny how that happens.

But, again, because I can, I will:

[Ming]

This comes across as a combination of Rupert Sheldrake and Rossi's E-Cat scam. Ming is surprised that Brian Josephson hasn't made an appearance yet.

[Hex]

Just in case anyone hasn't taken the time to read the thrilling article in question, here's the best part:

He has complained that papers he has submitted to peer-reviewed American Physical Society journals were rejected because they were controlled by a group of Jewish physicists led by Steven Weinberg.

[MartyMcfly]

Just in case anyone hasn't taken the time to read the thrilling article in question, here's the best part:

He has complained that papers he has submitted to peer-reviewed American Physical Society journals were rejected because they were controlled by a group of Jewish physicists led by Steven Weinberg.

Ok Hex, switch the words around, still the "best part"?

He has complained that papers from peer-reviewed journals were rejected by a group of Jewish physicists Wikipedia editors led by Steven WeinbergArthur Rubin

Not really a such a stretch when i word it that way eh?

The world would be a MUCH better place if we could keep such worthless ‘political correctness’ and personal biases OUT of science – where they belong. It’s hard though when naïve children and bitter unemployed windbags with chips on their shoulder and all the time in the world have control of internet.

Dr. Feynman nailed it...



science has NOTHING to do with anyone personal beliefs or opinions... unfortunately today that's what its all about but we are too stupid to figure that out.

[Midsize Jake]

The world would be a MUCH better place if we could keep such worthless ‘political correctness’ and personal biases OUT of science – where they belong. It’s hard though when naïve children and bitter unemployed windbags with chips on their shoulder and all the time in the world have control of internet.

You misunderstand. The problem here is indefinite subject referencing - he says "papers he has submitted to peer-reviewed American Physical Society journals were rejected because they were controlled by the Jewish physicists," etc., but which is it? What does "they" specifically refer to? Are the submitted papers controlled by the Jewish physicists, or the actual journals themselves, in which case we'd have to ask, are these printed journals, or online journals? I think we can assume that if they're printed, then they can be controlled merely by storing them in a safe place where there won't be too much water damage, but if they're online journals, can you really control them? I guess you could embed some sort of copy protection in there or something, but we all know how well that works. Alternatively, if the papers are controlled by the Jewish physicists, then that really amounts to a scathing indictment of the American Physical Society.

Unless you're saying the American Physical Society is itself controlled by Jewish physicists, in which case (a) your grammar is atrocious, and (b) you're probably an anti-semite, in which case the mods will probably have to ban you. Still, you seem like a nice person, so I'm not going to assume the worst here.

[Hex]

Unless you're saying the American Physical Society is itself controlled by Jewish physicists, in which case (a) your grammar is atrocious, and (b) you're probably an anti-semite, in which case the mods will probably have to ban you. Still, you seem like a nice person, so I'm not going to assume the worst here.

I think "probably" is an understatement, to which you could add mad as a box of snakes.

Zoloft, please show Mr. Santilli the door.

[Zoloft]

Worst. Simpson. Avatar. Ever.

BOOMERANG does not apply here, but BOOM does sometimes.

[Poetlister]

Ok Hex, switch the words around, still the "best part"?

He has complained that papers from peer-reviewed journals were rejected by a group of Jewish physicists Wikipedia editors led by Steven WeinbergArthur Rubin

Not really a such a stretch when i word it that way eh?

No need to delete "Jewish". Arthur Rubin is Jewish.

[loupgarous]

Marty, you'll be delighted to know that the discussion on deletion of Ruggero Santilli's page ended with a "keep" consensus.

Quoting the article's original author, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... omination):

"I think it's also worth inviting the opinion of John Vandenberg, an experienced neutral editor/administrator who was the second most substantial adder of text to the article: [1]. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
... and I am the creator of the article, for what it is worth, so I am naturally biased here. But I very much appreciate the ping, as somehow I didnt know about this AfD. I'm a bit pressed for time, but will try to review and re-assess my opinion on this article. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
fwiw, I believe he is notable not just for his fringe science, but the lengths that he has gone to in vanity publishing. He is not in a league of his own, but he has only a few peers in that arena. This doesnt seem to be as prominent in the article as it once was. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)"

And I really had no argument to counter that. So rest easy, the article's being kept, primarily on the grounds that the subject, Ruggero Santilli, is notable as an exponent of fringe science and an extensive user of the vanity press of scientific publication to build up a large publications list. Congratulations on the "win."

[loupgarous]

Answering a few points in MartyMcFly's original post:

No one was disgraced in this RfC consensus discussion. It all went according to wikipedia guidelines. Everyone made their case, we voted, and a consensus was reached.

Now, "MartyMcFly", if you admit you're a registered Wikipedia user and were inappropriately canvassing for "keep" votes, you'll find you might be on the receiving end of disciplinary sanctions for disruptive editing activity. But I doubt either your wikipedia account will be shown to exist. That would require courage and integrity on your part.

As to why no one's put your firm's advertising material in a wikipedia article, that's prohibited by WP:PROMOTION.

We'd welcome authentic third-party documentation of your firm's claims. Documentation by the "Edison Institute" and the other third parties you cite in support of your claims, with corporate Email addresses where we can conform the veracity of those claims and the actual existence of the institutions would be immensely helpful in establishing the reliability of those sources.

Providing such documentation is your responsibility as is showing the reliability of those sources. If you are a wikipedia editor, make the changes. If you're not, you may be out of luck, because finding an experienced editor to make your statements for you might be difficult. Paying someone to make those edits is against wikipedia guidelines unless the paid editor identifies himself as such; even then, reliability guidelines remain the same and any other editor can revert or delete changes to the article which are against our guidelines.

No one's conspiring against you. I didn't think your boss was as notable as people I've seen denied articles by experienced Wikipedia admins. So, I followed the rules and requested the article be deleted. The way in which I did it was entirely transparent, I even disclosed the potential conflict of interest caused by your firm's defamation campaign against me. Everything was above board. I don't know the people who supported the RfD with "delete" votes, and I sure didn't sneak off-wiki to canvass those votes as you did.

If anyone was disgraced here, MartyMcFly, it's you. If you're a wikipedia editor, you're liable to sanctions for disruptive editing activity. Your activity on behalf of your firm shows they're so confident in the quality and safety of their product that they embark on smear campaigns against their critics. Your boss thinks Jewish scientists are controlling every peer reviewer for major scientific journals to keep him out of those journals. Since then, he's started his own scientific journals and submitted papers to a paid-publicaltion journal in Sudan with a deceptive name.

I don't feel disgraced at all. I lost the Request for Deletion discussion because almost all the "keep" voters believed your boss was notable as a fringe scientist. The original author of the article thought so, too, and also mentioned that your boss is one of the premier users of the vanity scientific press to publish reports of his work. Great win, Marty.

[loupgarous]

In the interests of complete transparency on this issue, here's the URL for the second discussion of a request for deletion of the article "Ruggero Santilli" from wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... omination).

Anyone who can read (and isn't prevented by the signer of his paychecks from reading clearly) can tell from this that we discussed this request for deletion openly, any possible conflicts of interest were declared (I think it's beneath the dignity of civilized people to say a Germanic last name means they're Jewish - in my case, it means "Mennonite" - and assume it touches on their objectivity. I don't think even Steven Weinberg has devoted more than fifteen minutes to thinking about Ruggero Santilli since writing the note reproduced here).

The only personal attacks (as opposed to descriptions of someone's actions as a person seeking exposure of their research and scientific theories) were made here, on the people MartyMcFly said would be "disgraced" for voting "Delete" on this second RfD for the article in question.

Which is a load of rotten dingo's kidneys - everyone in that discussion behaved well, whether they agreed or disagreed with the Request for Deletion.

Please, read the archive of this discussion. No chicanery was committed, the discussions were open, the admins as apt to oppose my case as back it, and the consensus, when it was reached, was open and above board. I have no issue with how the consensus was reached apart from the citation of five online trade publications (all run by the same firm in Atlanta) which essentially either run corporate press releases verbatim or paraphrase them, as evidence of the subject's notability. I think that violates the WP:PROMOTION guideline, but admittedly, that guideline doesn't seem to consider when articles in trade publications rise to the dignity of a "reliable secondary source." For over a century, trade publications have been largely notable themselves for either being paid to reprint (or paraphrase) press releases and/or soliciting advertising from the businesses they cover. It's a legitimate difference of opinion which needs airing.

As far as MartyMcFly's demands to know why our articles in wikipedia don't include MagneGas's ad copy, we don't run ads, inside or outside our articles. If he wants that stuff inside wikipedia, he or someone else can enter them - if they meet our guidelines. I know this entire site exists to lampoon those guidelines, but still, the ones I'm concerned about keep wikipedia from being unduly biased. Wikipedia, warts and all, is the single most objective electronic publication of its size on the Internet. I don't say that lightly, and I anticipate argument on that point. So be it. The fact remains, wikipedia adheres to its guidelines more closely than most newspapers and electronic media adhere to the Canons of Journalism. And those guidelines are mostly there to assure a Neutral Point of View.

[Hex]

loupgarous, scroll up - the person you're replying to was banned from this forum.

[loupgarous]

Wasn't sure about that. Thanks for the notification.

In any case, wikipedia's got problems, but we've learned our lesson about bad biographies of living persons since the Seigenthaler article.

It doesn't hurt, though, to make sure the evidence is out there where everyone can see it that Dr. Santilli, if anything, has been treated very gently by wikipedia.

If I were him, I'd leave well alone and just sell as much MagneGas as the market allows.

[thekohser]

Anger alert!

[loupgarous]

Naw. I was just a little miffed.

This is me being angry. https://youtu.be/jjz1OUi2ypM?t=18s

Fifteen megatons of fury, my friend! :-)