User talk:Globalreach1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Globalreach1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - 2/0 (cont.) 08:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ruggero Santilli. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hi - in response to your email, will you please read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY carefully. There's also our notability criteria, see WP:NOTE and relevant associated links. You need reliable, and generally 3rd party, sources.

Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by totally new biography? And I guess you need to read WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen Economy

There has been much debate around the actual technology involved with MagneGas as can be seen with a simple trawl through Google. And even the article referring to Magnegas says that the molecules in question are hypothetical. Please provide third party, scientifically corroborated references from a reputable source dealing with the efficacy of this manner of production and then it would be fit for inclusion. The method itself of using a plasma arc waste disposal system has for some time already been used. The reference to Magnegas is a copyrighted proprietory name of a product not a method. If you wish to include this method, please refer to it by name linking to plasma arc waste disposal, and not by Magnegas. Drivenapart (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_ Problem, you cannot use a wiki page as a reference. Drivenapart (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk-postings

Hiya. A couple of tips for you, when posting to people's Talk pages.

(1) The convention is to put any new comments after the existing ones (so not at the top of their page).

This is best achieved by using the

New section

or

tabs, found at the top of their page - these create a new box for you to complete, & will add your comment in the correct place on the page.

(2) I see you sign your comments with the ~~~~ shortcut - very good.

However, again convention is to put the signature at the end (not start) of your comment.

Hope this helps, Trafford09 (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having said this, don't worry about the posts you have made up to now - the editors will tidy up their pages. Trafford09 (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries.

Another tip: to avoid accidentally leaving edit summaries blank, you can select "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" on the Editing tab of your user preferences. Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen economy

You should use the talk page of the Hydrogen Economy page to bash out the naming conventions and appropriateness of inclusion of the Kværner process. Only that way can a broad consensus be reached. Besides, the appropriate place for that material is Hydrogen Production. 175.45.147.174 (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signing talk page posts

Whenever you write a post on a talk page (either an article talk page or a user talk page), always put four tildas, which looks like this: ~~~~. If you do that, it will automatically sign the post with your username and the time you made the post. When you don't do that, instead a bot comes around and does it for you. The reason this is a problem is because it confuses the talk page's history, and, more importantly, makes the last edit a bot edit, which makes it much harder to quickly look at the change for people using Pop-Ups, Huggle, or other tools. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

If you don't know when you should tick the Minor edits box, please read 'what's this'. Don't use it to remove tags, and particularly don't use it to remove tags when you know there is disagreement. Dougweller (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Doug, that was honestly a good faith mistake as it's defaulted to Minor Edits for me. Globalreach1 (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, some of us have been trying to get the possibility of setting that as default removed because of the problems it causes. Dougweller (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ruggero Santilli. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You should really not have done that while a discussion is taking place. I'm at 2 so I won't revert you. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2011 (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).

Globalreach1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Incorrectly accused of multiple accounts - Hi there, I have been posting almost exclusively on Ruggero Santilli and clean energy pages for quite a while now, recently a guest arrived and asked me to set them up with an account as they were new to Wikipedia. We worked together on several projects (not related to Wiki), they then left travelling again and I believe are now home. I have been now accused of using multiple accounts and have been indefinitely blocked, a look at the IPs will show the same IP for a while and lately different IPs while they continued to post after the end of our visit work together. Therefore please look at the IPs and it will prove that we are not the same person and have posts from completely different IPs even from different continents around the same time. This is not meatpuppetry as I have stated several times on Ruggero Santilli's discussion page that I didn't always share their point of view and that these "rants" don't help anybody. Thanks for your consideration.

Decline reason:

There appear to be three accounts involved, and this is a checkuser block. You will need to e-mail the blocking checkuser to have consideration for your unblock.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:03, 10 February 2011 (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.

Thanks Anthony, I help my visitor create Kaufmann and that's it, I have no knowledge of another user. Who is the checkuser for this block, I am new to this side of Wiki, thanks. Globalreach1 (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case, another admin with checkuser will have to review this. It may take a while. Daniel Case (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please, at this point I can only be patient.... Globalreach1 (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]