User talk:Gdewilde - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 1 unblock punishment block
- 2 WP:Tag team attack
- 2.1 user Yilloslime
- 2.2 Guyonthesubway
- 2.2.1 User talk:Prodego
- 2.2.2 Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Gdewilde
- 2.2.3 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
- 2.2.4 user talk: Gdewilde
- 2.2.5 Paul pantone
- 2.2.6 Move my comment under different header
- 2.2.7 Brings up sock puppet accusation on article talk page
- 2.2.8 General trolling
- 2.2.9 Personal attack
- 3 Deny Recognition.
unblock punishment block
“ Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. „
My recent contributions are here, please review:
- Question: does "that account" in the unblock request above refer to user Athaenara ✉ 15:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)? —
WP:Tag team attack
hurray we outed him!
One moment Yilloslime is complaining about my user name
The next he celibrate this username name being a sock of mine.
Doesnt add up.
The term free energy
- from user_talk:Prodego
- Here Yilloslime removes alternative energy from the free energy page: 
- Renewabble energy was on the page in Jan. 2004 
- O noes, more people useing the term "Free energy", it cant be that I'm wrong it must absolutly be deleted:
- Announce Consensus to overrule common sense
- Lets argue there is no discussion on the talk page:  Meanwhile back on the talk page, Prebys and Arthur Rubin actually agree there can be an article about free energy where the different uses of the term shall be disclosed the way the enciclopedia should.(think 2012) Their motivation is of course to delete free energy suppression true, but that is not important to the point you try to make that the whole term doesnt exist.
- I and others have removed this link repeatedly since, as I explained the first time I removed it, the term is not commonly used to refer to alternative energy and the page alternative energy does not list "free energy" as a synonym. User:DMacks explained all this most clearly on the talkpage  on 01:30, July 21, 2008, but that didn't stopped Gdewilde from reinserting the link an hour latter. For the record, since June User:Reddi and User:Jemmy Button have also (re)inserted the link, and myself, User:Arthur Rubin, user:DMacks, and user:Oli Filth have removed it.
A single google search shows that free energy is a term used to describe alternative energy.
Instances of your wp:Tag team lie:
85 000 000 search results showing you are a group of liars.
- Gdewilde's second bullet "you are not familiar with the term"—a clear contravention of WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." (For the record, I'm a chemist and have worked in the American alternative energy industry (both biofuels and solar) so if the term were commonly used, I would know.)
- Forth bullet: "Lets anounce Consensus!! ". At that point, (18:44, July 19, 2008), myself, Arthur Rubin, and Oli Filth had all removed the link to alternative energy, and Gdewilde/go-here.nl and Reddi had readded it. Perhaps "consensus" was too strong a term to use, but clearly the majority view was that the term does not belong. Furthermore, with exception of this and this revert by Reddi, when reinserting the link, no one ever provided a rationale for it's inclusion, meanwhile in removing the link, Arthur, Oli, and I always provided a reason.
The reasoning was 100% lies, anyone can see that. but clearly the majority view was that the term does not belong. Redi created the page in 2004 and it looked like [this] That was why he created the page, end of discussion.
Thushara Priyamal Edirisinghe
The prime minister is deemed obviously wrong But why is it on the page today?Water-fuelled_car#Thushara_Priyamal_Edirisinghe Why not attack it again? I know why that is, your team needed an excuse to delete that Thushara Priyamal Edirisinghe article I wrote behind your back.
The wp:Tag team turned it into this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car#Thushara_Priyamal_Edirisinghe
Everything is deleted chunk by chunk.
Aquygen by Dennis Klein
- hydrogen Technology Applications Inc.[]
- Dennis Klein was granted US Patent No: 6866756 for a Hydrogen generator for uses in a vehicle fuel system. ABSTRACT: The present invention discloses an electrolyzer for electrolyzing water into a gaseous mixture comprising hydrogen gas and oxygen gas. The electrolyzer is adapted to deliver this gaseous mixture to the fuel system of an internal combustion engine. The electrolyzer of the present invention comprises one or more supplemental electrode at least partially immersed in an aqueous electrolyte solution interposed between two principle electrodes. The gaseous mixture is generated by applying an electrical potential between the two principal electrodes. The electrolyzer further includes a gas reservoir region for collecting the generated gaseous mixture. The present invention further discloses a method of utilizing the electrolyzer in conjunction with the fuel system of an internal combustion engine to improve the efficiency of said internal combustion engine..
- American, experimenting with hydrogen-powered torches developed a system to run cars on water. The energy produced is over twice that of an equal volume of gasoline. Dennis Klein is in negotiations with a major US auto manufacturer and the US government wants to produce Hummers that run on both water and gasoline.Goodbye Big Oil - Vive
- The characteristics of the gas set his hydrogen technology apart.Clearwater man puts technology to work. | Tampa Tribune (Tampa, Florida) (via Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News) (November, 2005)
- EVWORLD FEATURE: Electric Cars and the Goldilocks Planet: Global Warming | Carbon Dioxide | Cold Fusion
- The Return of the Water Engine
- Hydrogen Technology Applications and UTEK Corporation Announce Strategic Alliance Agreement. | Business Wire (April, 2002)
- Primary Law - State & Federal Case Law and more at Loislaw
- Hydrogen Generating Technology Closer Than Ever
- "This technology is going to end up being in the mainstream eventually, and then the critics are going to look absolutely foolish." - Denny Klein Cars run on water: Miracle or scam?
There are the sources. I'm the one who spend time to find them.
The Tag Team made it impossible to add this to the article by littering the talk page with irrelivant tag team comments. "I agree with X", "me to me to!", etc
I asked Yilloslime to review it. All Yilloslime had to do this time was copy the text into the other page. But for some magical reason Yilloslime didn't do that. What Yilloslime did say was: Yull Brown's design: remove info that has been incorporated into "water fuelled car" [] But it's not there at all: Water-fuelled car (current revision)
It's clearly a lie.
Gdewilde (talk) 05:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- "I believe your were the admin who unblocked this user. Would you please take a moment to review his recent edits and reconsider that decision? Thanks!" []
Gdewilde (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Gdewilde
- "Responce to comments on talkpage of puppet using puppeteer account. User_talk:HawkNo1 Only edits by puppet account are off topic rants, would guess that puppeteer attempting to protect primary account."[]
Gdewilde (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- "An example of a particularly disuptive user is [user:gdewilde] who has alaready had several blocks under both his current and previous login, and may be sockpuppeting. In fact, I challenge you to find an edit by the user that wasn't objected to by several other editors." []
Gdewilde (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
user talk: Gdewilde
- "rollback griefer edits."[]
Gdewilde (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is a prime example in which Gdewilde throws up a lot of information but doesn't clearly explain what he wants to be done with it. It is left to other users to interpret this information and give this information a context. Yes, Gdewilde, you are right Guyonthesubway is challenging your "good faith". What is your point with each of these headers?--OMCV (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- The point is to show who is bothering who here. You seriously think that user was a sock puppet of mine? It looks more like another intentional attack at my address.
- "The more time he spends on my pages, the less time he spends other places."
- Not a very serious response. Gdewilde (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Move my comment under different header
Gdewilde (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Brings up sock puppet accusation on article talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell&diff=231229433&oldid=230943669 Gdewilde (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OMCV&diff=prev&oldid=231250474 Gdewilde (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Guys: User:Gdewilde has an indefinite block - and it's been reconfirmed. There is zero point in continuing this discussion - nothing good can come of it. WP:DENY applies here. Let's just end this. SteveBaker (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)