User talk:Diogenes Loquitur

Nomination of Problems with Condensing Boiler Technology - the end game? for deletion

Hello. A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Problems with Condensing Boiler Technology - the end game? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problems with Condensing Boiler Technology - the end game? until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, please do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Thank you. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Condensing boiler, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr Dingley. You have I presume twice removed a contribution of ours on the Condensing Boiler page of WP. Here is a copy:

Complications - see Problems with Condensing Boiler Technology - The End Game?[edit source]

Discusses the start of a Campaign to seriously re-consider pulling the domestic condensing boiler technology on cost, carbon emission, sustainability, longevity, and serious fuel poverty grounds. To also re-evaluate the government process which got the technology through, maintaining a silence about its failures, the BRE report which gave it a ringing endorsement and clean bill of health including stating the lifespan of condensers was equivalent to conventional boilers, and to found a protocol for technology that does not make these mistakes again. This starts with a total re-assessment of these boilers, by independent, disinterested engineering experts. Please refrain from deleting this comment, it is no longer original research when thousands of people including installers deride the technology and c5000 ordinary folk are suffering from fuel povert as a direct result, as well as dozens of highly reputable newspaper articles commenting about their failure. From Diogenes Loquitur.

Evidence can come from a variety of sources. Individual case studies, small scale case observations, social experience of groups, evaluations of special interest groups, formal studies, reviews of evidence bases, and finally meta-analyses. MOST IMPORTANTLY, the absence of formal study evidence is NOT the evidence of absence of the accusations that are being made by

1. The new boiler that's causing a heated row. Guardian, Saturday 2 April 2005 https://www.theguardian.com/money/2005/apr/02/consumerissues.jobsandmoney

2. How reliable are new boilers? Guardian, Saturday 9 April 2005 https://www.theguardian.com/money/2005/apr/09/consumerissues.jobsandmoney2

3. Tempted by the boiler scrappage scheme? It could cost you. Guardian, Saturday 23 January 2010 https://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/jan/23/boiler-scrappage-scheme-could-cost-you

4. Are condensing boilers a waste of money? Money, 5 January 2011 http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-1710224/Are-condensing-boilers-a-waste-of-money.html

5. The most common reason for condensing boiler breakdowns. Robert Kyriakides. Jan 04 2011. https://robertkyriakides.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/the-most-common-reason-for-condensing-boiler-breakdowns-loss-of-pressure/

6. Did your central heating break down in the big freeze? Here's why... Daily Mail, 29 Dec 2010 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1342357/Central-heating-break-big-freeze-

7. British Gas charge extra to stop condensing boilers breakdown... - Daily Mail, 15 Oct 2011. www.dailymail.co.uk/.../British-Gas-charge-extra-stop-condensing-boilers- championed-John-Prescott-breaking-down.html

ALL of these are very strong social comments that point to a real problem. I would be grateful if you can allow these case studies to air, and not delete them. It is evidence, it is valuable, and it is pertinent.

Please also note that the official advice for people in responsible British press is NOT to change their boiler to a condenser because it WILL break down quicker and WILL cost them and the environment more. Consider this from Money magazine of 2011 citing Mr Mullins who runs one of the biggest private plumbing and boiler servicing companies in the UK:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-1710224/Are-condensing-boilers-a-waste-of-money.html

I quote: For an average home, replacing even a very inefficient old model with the best new boiler on the market will, at most, save a couple of hundred pounds a year in gas bills. That sounds good until you realise that at £2,000 for one of the better condensing models, a new one will take at least ten years to pay for itself.

And the problem is that these boilers simply do not last anything like ten years.

'You might get 20 years out of one of the old ones,' Charlie Mullins says, 'but it is more like three to six years out of one of these new ones. In fact, if it goes wrong after four years, you are better off replacing a condensing boiler altogether because of the horrendous cost of the parts.

'On the basis of efficiency, they certainly do not pay for themselves. It makes no sense to take out a working old boiler and replace it with a condensing one.'

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-1710224/Are-condensing-boilers-a-waste-of-money.html#ixzz4LffllUi2 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Tens of thousands of people would echo the problems with condensers we have experienced ourselves, please allow the counter argument as it IS evidence that something has gone drastically wrong. Furthermore, if you stifle the voice of the people then that is incorrect as this is prima facaie evidence from social and daily experience of technician bases. Please allow the counter argument to survive on the Condensing Boiler page and do not delete it. I thank you for your understanding and consideration. Diogenes Loquitur (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for indications that this is a shared account via the repeated use of the word "we".. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:REFUND you repeatedly used the word "we", which indicates this is a shared account. I'm also concerned that you appear to be using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for what is ultimately considered to be original research on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place to spread awareness of a platform or viewpoint. You were told this quite clearly at the AfD and it looks like you're refusing to understand this. In order for you to get unblocked you'd need to show that you understand the following:

The reason for your block.
Give us an example of how you will edit if unblocked.
That you will not be recreating the article if unblocked. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and the article was not appropriate for Wikipedia.
Go through one of the training programs like WP:ADVENTURE as a sign of goodwill.

If you can satisfy this then you might be able to be unblocked. I will warn you, any attempt to continue soapboxing on this talk page will result in your talk page access getting revoked. I can't stress enough that this is really, REALLY not an appropriate outlet for this. Your best bet would be to take this to forums and contact various media outlets like newspapers and academic journals. Wikipedia is not a place to promote a viewpoint. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It also looks like you created some sockpuppets in order to vote stack at the AfD, so you would also have to explain these actions as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Diogenes Loquitur (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16635 was submitted on Oct 02, 2016 12:39:16. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Diogenes Loquitur (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Absolutely no sockpuppetry was used, the we I refer is our professional research group, they were asked to contribute NOT to support me, your insinuations are ill founded. The report article has ten years+ of social commentary which you ignore as new evidence, calling it 'My original research' this is fallacious As a totally new user, it was virtually impossible to talk to anyone about a repost, there was just punishment and then more of it, in 6 days it was all over courtesy of your 'administrators' Diogenes Loquitur (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for sockpuppetry, although had it been necessary a checkuser investigation on the three accounts who asked for "keep" at the AfD might have been interesting. You are blocked because it is clear that this account is available for use by several persons, which is expressly forbidden in Wikipedia. It is also true, although this is not of itself a blockable offence, that your article is wholly unsuitable for an encyclopedia, being an essay expressing a point of view rather than being a factual article. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Did any of those members of the research group other than yourself edit under this account? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy-Jeske Couriano: Absolutely NOT, how and where did admin get that notion?? Note again, the whole is my own work and presentation. Also, is this what admin mean 'account has multiple users'??? if so another ill-founded, uncorroborated, unilateral, admin driven fallacy -and you accuse me of making my own evidence? The data I use and references given, sample dozens of high profile, high quality, major news articles over 10+ years, so this is not a dreaming essay either. Tens of thousands of boiler end users would vouch for the FACTUAL conclusions I relay here, Mr Bradbury, conclusions which the quality UK press have picked up on, and for some reason 'admin' finds difficult to accept as bona fide, case controlled, prima facie field evidence'. See also UK Government reports on UK deaths from Fuel Poverty running at 1200-1500 per week' in the winter months - 2 jumbo jets crashing per week. Quite Shameful. see https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/357409/Review7_Fuel_poverty_health_inequalities.pdf . These relatively new, highly unreliable domestic boilers are major co-conspiritors to these deaths.

Please remember this is the first time I have used WIKI, the complexity of your  background activity is bewildering, even frightening, and difficult to fathom.  NO ONE came forward to help despite many requests, but everyone came out  to shoot me down by (paid?) administrators.  The essay quality may be un- realistic for WP, but that you could of specifically instructed me about and requested a change to an otherwise useful and very interesting start of an anatomy of social and technical deceit that I was trying to portray in the main article?

Instead, gratuitous confusion, accusations of sockpuppetry to multi user collusion, soapboxing (Andy Dingley has been quite predatory on this) to 'personal views of low notability' ( indeed! -with tens of thousands of deaths - see UK Govt website above of all places).

I am not hell bent on publish on WP, I am just surprised at the lack of support, the over complexity of rhetoric, and the way a posse of admin staff rode out to 'get me', and make sure a highly relevant and very shameful social subject with MUCH data and independent evidence never saw the light of day. I, and my professional colleagues, and my university institute, have learnt much about WP, for that we thank you. We all shall never read a WIKI article in the same way again. Diogenes Loquitur (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to my inevitable intellectual execution from WP! Quite an honour. Diogenes Loquitur (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly used the term "we" to refer to yourself up until this point. This is something that is typically used by someone using their account to represent a group of people who take turns editing. Given that this is almost always the case when people use the term "we", as an admin I had to assume that this is a shared account, especially as you were keen to use this as a place to soapbox for your cause. Even now you are still using your talk page to promote your cause and promote yourself as a martyr because you were blocked for violating Wikipedia's guidelines. You were pointedly told that Wikipedia is not a place to write exposes and promote causes and you have repeatedly ignored this. You are not a martyr, you are someone who is acting inappropriately in the wrong place. To use an example, it's like you calling up the Pepsi customer service line every thirty minutes to complain about Brexit or going to a local museum to protest something that has nothing to do with museums. Regardless of your intentions, all you're doing is tying up the time of someone who cannot do anything about the problem, as is it not the correct forum for these complaints. I'm revoking talk page access, as you show no signs that you understand what multiple people have tried to explain to you. This is really, really not the right place for this. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your cause. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Diogenes Loquitur (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16642 was submitted on Oct 03, 2016 18:05:07. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Diogenes Loquitur (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17013 was submitted on Nov 29, 2016 19:46:20. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Diogenes Loquitur (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17014 was submitted on Nov 29, 2016 22:47:28. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]