Tricks, tips, tutorials, pictures and words

Wikipedia

the truth about wikipedia.

retired

Contents

//

unblock punishment block

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Please see below."


Decline reason: "Its quite different when you are evading blocks on other accounts. See also Wikipedia:SOCK#Blocking. — Rjd0060 (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)"

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read our guide to appealing blocks first and use the {{unblock}} template again. Abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

hello,

Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_policy

My recent contributions are here, please review:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Gdewilde&namespace=0

Thank you,

Gdewilde (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I left that account because of harassment."


Decline reason: "That is an inappropriate use of alternate accounts per WP:SOCK. You may feel you were being harassed there, but you just happened to leave while you were blocked. For harssing others. And the diatribe below, laced with many personal attacks, really doesn't help. Mangojuicetalk 16:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)"

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read our guide to appealing blocks first and use the {{unblock}} template again. Abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "What content is being protected? I'm retired, I'm simply answering to the people harrasing me below for others to see what my experience was like."


Decline reason: "No thanks. Personal attacks. protecting page for duration. Toddst1 (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)"

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read our guide to appealing blocks first and use the {{unblock}} template again. Abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

WP:Tag team attack

user Yilloslime

hurray we outed him!

One moment Yilloslime is complaining about my user name

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Go-here.nl&diff=222982425&oldid=222980445

The next he celibrate this username name being a sock of mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guyonthesubway&oldid=231489061

Doesnt add up.

Gdewilde (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The term free energy

from user_talk:Prodego
  • Here Yilloslime removes alternative energy from the free energy page: [1][2]
  • Renewabble energy was on the page in Jan. 2004 [3]
  • O noes, more people useing the term "Free energy", it cant be that I'm wrong it must absolutly be deleted:[4]
  • Announce Consensus to overrule common sense[5]
  • Lets argue there is no discussion on the talk page: [6] 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[7], 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 [8] on 01:30, July 21, 2008, but that didn't stopped Gdewilde from reinserting the link an hour latter[9]. 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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_energy&diff=228055770&oldid=228048809

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_energy&diff=226922461&oldid=226916836

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_energy&diff=226909721&oldid=226893602

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_energy&diff=226887857&oldid=226870559

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_energy&diff=226685716&oldid=226683901

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_energy&diff=226095561&oldid=226086991

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_energy&diff=226086202&oldid=226085484

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_energy&diff=224743706&oldid=224716365

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_energy&diff=224423129&oldid=224422380

85 000 000 search results showing you are a group of liars.

http://www.google.com/search?q=free+energy

  • 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.)

This indeed means Yilloslime should be familiar with the term free energy, then there is this article about free energy suppression which makes the lie even more obvious.

  • Forth bullet: "Lets anounce Consensus!! [10]". 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.

Gdewilde (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thushara Priyamal Edirisinghe

The prime minister is deemed obviously wrong[11] 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.

I wrote this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thushara_Priyamal_Edirisinghe&oldid=230168370

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.

Gdewilde (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Aquygen by Dennis Klein

User_talk:Yilloslime#Aquygen

But still no Aquagen section for the Water-fueled car article. I did add the sources to the page, Yilloslime chose not to see them.[[12]]

hydrogen Technology Applications Inc.[[13]]
  • 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..

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

Gdewilde (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yull Brown

Yilloslime worked so hard to remove as much as possible from the Dennis Klein section I added to the oxyhydrogen article[[14]]

Yilloslime attack the content I added here[[15]][[16]]

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" [[17]] But it's not there at all: Water-fuelled car (current revision[18])

It's clearly a lie.

Gdewilde (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

History_of_perpetual_motion_machines

This[[19]] is very revealing in combination with removing the definition from the free energy page. If there is free energy suppression then that calls for free energy suppressors.

Gdewilde (talk) 05:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Guyonthesubway

User talk:Prodego

"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!" [[20]]

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."[[21]]

Gdewilde (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

"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." [[22]]

Gdewilde (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

user talk: Gdewilde

these edits are nonconstructive and theres quite a bit of personal abuse in there. Assuming bad intent, Gwilde is a griefer of the worst kind.[[23]] Gdewilde (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul pantone

"rollback griefer edits."[[24]]

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 more time he spends on my pages, the less time he spends other places. I'm fine with it. Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:47, 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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell&diff=next&oldid=230746581

Gdewilde (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did. It seemed like a different topic than the text above, and probably deserved its own header. I didnt want your request for a revert get lost, or mixed up. You're welcome. Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:31, 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)

General trolling

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OMCV&diff=prev&oldid=231250474 Gdewilde (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell&diff=prev&oldid=230633799

Gdewilde (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Deny Recognition.

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)

User talk:Gdewilde - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Then my page was locked. I almost got a chance to write a section about Steve Baker.

One link should be enough to show what he is all about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell&d...

The text he deleted from Stanley Meyer's article:

....According to the witnesses, the Meyer cell remained remarkably cold, even after hours of gas production as his system appeared to operate on much smaller current than conventional electrolysis would require. ....


In wikipedia world Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin, executive officer in the Royal Navy for 42 years is not a credible witness.

http://www.theorionproject.org/en/documents/Griffin.pdf

Ogden, Frank. Free energy for ever? - Wireless World, January 1991, p.16.

A copy can be obtained here:

http://www.angelfire.com/sd/paulkemble/stan4.html

In wikipedia land this would be called a copyvo. Short for "you cant use it".

I conclude the way wikipedia works the users above are fully in their right to game the system.

You are not allowed to have an opinion about things.

The whole world is about to die from an energy shortage and the team here is injecting their lies into the articles that should lead people to investigate.

I don't need Wikipedia, I can use Knol in stead.

http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/water-fueled-car/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2

Note: Knol will be down intermittently for maintenance from 12pm to 2pm PST.




lie