User talk:Prebys

Welcome!

Hello, Prebys, I am ZappaZ and it is my pleasure to welcome you to Wikipedia.

Editing articles in Wikipedia can be a very rewarding experience. Just become acquainted with some basic information on what is Wikipedia and how the community works. You can start by reading The five pillars of Wikipedia, to orient yourself.

I hope you like the place and decide to stay and contribute to build the best encyclopedia ever, here are a few good links for you:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. I will be happy to assist you.

Again, welcome! --ZappaZ 17:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Bearden

Hello - Thank you so much for your recent updates to the Tom Bearden article. You stated what was said, and sourced it. Really good job! Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Good work on that citation!Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 20:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bury the hatchet

It was a rough ride on the PMM issue with the WFC. I attempted to point something out and it's an issue that could easily creep up. If I could think of it, others could come to the same conclusion and start changing things without consulting the true experts. I'm sorry for being antagonistic. It was part ignorance and part acting on my behalf and I hope the article can be understood as a teaching/research tool for people who will inevitably come across the WFC.I55ere (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JobeHinnid

You are obviously aware that your contributions are directly viewable right? Therefore if you are such an expert on Tom Bearden why are removing my references repeatedly when you should know full well that I'm stating facts. Part I of the Energy from the Vacuum documentary series is all about Tom Bearden, he narrates it and is featured in it. The Internet Movie Database credits him as a writer on the production, did you look that up Mr.Cointelpro? Have you yourself ever tried building a vacuum energy device, no, you haven't and therefore you're feigned interest in this person and subject is exposed. You have absolutely no business editing the pages of true patriots and true Americans. JobeHinnid (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If making a YouTube video was a qualification, then we would ask the sneezing panda for his opinion. Anyone with a background in science recognizes "Energy from the Vacuum" and all of Bearden's other YouTube videos as complete nonsense.Prebys (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to display an obvious POV against any REPORTING of conspiracy theories I'll report you to an Admin. Wikipedia has no need for debunkers just as they have no need for conspiracy theorists. 68.45.183.30 (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I has been more than a month since I made any edits to the Free Energy Suppression page (and that edit was pretty minor). You'll have to be more specific as to what you are talking about. Certainly the Admin would need more information :)Prebys (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US LHC Accelerator Research Program (LARP)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of US LHC Accelerator Research Program (LARP), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.uslarp.org/mission.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yourself

I have little knowledge of what the phd physics syllabus is. Do they teach any science out side of general physics. Is things like quarks, neutrinos and how electric works at a sub atomic level mentioned. I'm just interested to know how much knowledge you have in these areas. Seb-Gibbs (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do, and yes, I have a great deal of knowledge in those areas.Prebys (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classical music without Beethoven ...

... or architecture without Bergholt Stuttley Johnson (if you are a fan of Terry Pratchett's Discworld). - 2/0 (cont.) 03:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. When you recently edited Water-fuelled car, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HHO (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-sequitur?

In what way is that reference you removed a non-sequitur? It confirms that the concept of an overbalanced wheel is a recurring theme, that Bahaskara made one in the 12th century, and that it typically works (or doesn't work) as described in the article, with moving weights shifting closer to the centre and so forth. It seems perfectly relevant and appropriate to me. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I didn't read far enough. I've put back your edit.Prebys (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Free Energy

Hi, I noticed that the vast majority of your edits are in the field of Free Energy Technology. Since 2007 you appear to have made near a thousand edits regarding this subject. I wonder if you like to explain this obsessive behavior, because you got me wondering about it. Are you just a regular skeptic, that is genuinely annoyed by the various claims of researchers/engineers in this field? Or are you somehow involved with this subject yourself (from a science, engineering, political perspective) and feel obligated to correct false information, etc? I ask, because some of my friends asked me about interesting stories/cases regarding edits of Free Energy related articles on Wikipedia, for a website they run. Anyway, if you don't want to answer, no problem. Best regards.FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Wikipedia articles takes time, so I think it's often best for people to chose a specialty to focus on (although I do occasionally edit or comment on other things). I'm a PhD physicist and I've had a long interest in this topic. Basically as a scientist, I'm fascinated by how most (non-scientific) people will quickly believe outlandish claims based on the scantest of evidence (eg, YouTube videos). I've spent a lot of time editing these articles because I've looked into a lot of the claims in some detail and I feel that pseudoscientific articles require particular vigilance to keep from becoming a forum four crazy claims.Prebys (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's really nice. Thanks for responding. I also noticed a lot of fringe theories are being peddled around, but also noticed the more interesting stuff that could have some potential usually gets buried or dismissed based on superficial judgement. For example I found some interesting articles on extraction of energy from the Zero-point field. Do you think it would be a good idea add some stuff there, or do you think that would only lead to a lot of abuse by fringe true-believers? Again thanks!FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Prebys. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Hello Prebys. I noticed that the signature you used did not conform to WP:SIGNATURE so I though you may want to know, in case you come back. Please see WP:SIGLINK for more information. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 16:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]