User talk:ESoule

January 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliables sources are REQUIRED when adding controversial statements.

Please make sure that the EXTREMELY controversial statements that you add to The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman are properly sourced. Please note the Wikipedia policy at WP:V that says:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.

You added material that is EXCEEDINGLY controversial - note that Wikipedia policy REQUIRES that you provide sources...RELIABLE sources. If you cannot do that - do not post the material.

SteveBaker (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest concerns.

On this page: http://www.phact.org/e/dennis19.html "Evan Soule" identifies himself as: "Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS". In view of your username ('Esoule' could hardly be a coincidence) - and the unreasonably biassed nature of your edits to The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman - it seems that you have been working on that article despite a clear conflict of interest. This is extremely dishonorable and quite utterly unacceptable. If you continue to contribute to that article, under this account (or any sock-puppets you may have or subsequently make) - I would be forced to take the matter to WP:COIN in order that formal action may be taken to rectify the problem.

It would be better if you would 'come clean' and promise to steer clear of editing topics about which you have such a conflict, now and in the future. Please respond.

Because I do not now nor have ever "worked for" Joseph Newman I have no "conflict of interest". I have volunteered my time for 25 years to assist this inventor. As such, I have amassed a large quantity of documentary material relating to inventor Joseph Newman. When I write about Joseph Newman's work I write with either first-hand, eye-witnessed knowledge of what transpired or have documents relating to events (e.g., the Special Master's Report) that I did not witness first-hand. There have been inaccurate and/or untruthful comments made by others on the Newman website regarding events that did not occur. In the interests of historical accuracy I have corrected such inaccuracies. ESoule (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SteveBaker (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your autobiographical addition to Executive Order 6102 is also a little dubious. SteveBaker (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is cited in Executive Order 6120 are the events as they occurred. ESoule (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't matter. What matters is that it can be verified that they really occurred that way. — NRen2k5, 19:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After I'm dead, my estate will donate my documents --- that prove the events happened --- to one of several universities which I know have document collections featuring the monetary history of the United States --- and then some future Wikipedia editor can quote from those documents to "verify" that the events occurred precisely as stated. That's the long way to get it done. So be it. History is patient. ESoule (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they prove something, why wait until you're dead? Your death won't change your unreliability as a source. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 02:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]