User talk:WideAwakeandWonderingWTF

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, WideAwakeandWonderingWTF, 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! VQuakr (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Oxyhydrogen. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

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.
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 a version 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 you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HHO gas

Tesla didn't invent electrolysis, nor did Tesla propose injecting hydrogen and oxygen into internal combustion engines. Tesla didn't work with internal combustion engines at all. Scam artists frequently reference Tesla because he was a popular electronics wiz with many great inventions to his credit. Likewise, there's no shortage of scam artists trying to sell people equipment they claim will boost their fuel mileage. In fact, we had a con artist modify one of our articles to support his HHO scam, take a screen shot of the article, and then use it in his promotional materials. I guess he hoped no one would go back and look at the original article which had been quickly changed back.

The reality is, these scams have been running for decades, and if they produced even half the results claimed, the whole world would be racing to modify their vehicles. I think there was even a Beverly Hillbillies episode that revolved around this plot line. Think of it this way - someone who gets suckered by an HHO scam is likely to blame themselves and hide in shame, though a few may speak out - they get drowned out by the hucksters. On the other hand, If this stuff actually worked, you'd hear millions of people boasting about their great gas mileage. Sure, you hear a handful - they're part of the scam - but you're not hearing millions or seeing this "great invention" on the news. The only counter-argument the con artists can come up with is to cry out against some vast conspiracy theory. This argument only flies with people who are paranoid by nature.

Now here's a proposal for you, assuming you're a fan of this technology, do your own experiment. Document your mileage and your gas consumption for one year. Install one of these so-called HHO kits and document your mileage for another year. Let us know the results. Sure, we don't publish original research, but it'll certainly motivate a few of us to help you out. I'm betting, however, that you don't have one of these systems installed even though you "believe" in the technology. Sure, that's must me being a little cynical. If I was *really* cynical, I'd bet you were one of these scammers yourself. Rklawton (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha Rklawton, Thank you for starting a conversation with me. I was worried that my post were just being deleted due to my own error. As I am standing on very new soil here, I will keep this as simple as I can and hope that I remain neutral. It is kind of hard when you have discovered what I have. In response to your suggestions, I have in fact installed the inappropriately named "HHO" generator into my vehicle. I StumbledUpon an article about Dr. Yull Brown, once a professor in Australia, about a year ago. Six months later I was still reading anything I could get my hands on. Though many people say there is no real evidence of this technology working, I found information from engineers, chemists and other PhDs throughout the scientific community. In fact as far back as 1918; Charles H. Frazer received the first patent for a "hydrobooster". Charles’s research found that his hydro booster design worked the best with low grade fuels. Add to this CH Garrett’s (and his Dad’s) 1935 electrolytic carburetor technology. It has been known for some time (since a 1974 paper by the Jet Propulsion Lab of the California Institute of Technology) that the addition of hydrogen to fossil fuels, burned in internal combustion engines, will increase the efficiency of that engine. This study has been validated by a number of papers published by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The hydroxy boost process is effective with any fossil fuel(diesel, gasoline, propane, natural gas) or bio-fuel (biodiesel, ethanol) though it is most effective in diesel engines. Among other, more subtle effects, the presence of the hydrogen alters the initial stages of the unfolding combustion dynamic, altering the kinetic chemical pathway which the combustion follows. The net effect is to alter the time at which heat energy is released relative to the power cycle. The end result is to increase the adiabatic efficiency of the engine, which, in turn, means decreased fuel consumption, decreased emissions, improved horsepower and torque and decreased maintenance expenses.

My own research and experimentation has yielded results that I am currently forming into a full fledged interview with the local free press know as the Alibi here in New Mexico.

Though the generator has only been installed in my vehicle for a little over six months now, the proof is clear and evident. From the basic test of how many miles I now get out of a full tank to the on-board computer reading real time MPG. I will state that there are a few other components installed as well. A chip has been added to my ECU to modify the factory fuel maps to compensate for the added oxygen ( bypassing the MAS and O2 sensors ) and optimize the fuel efficiency of my 2000 Tacoma from the factory 17/20 mpgs to the 21/27 I now get with the "hydroxy on demand" system I myself built out of platinum plated steel and household components found at any Lowe's or Pep Boys.

Anyway, words are useless in this world of fast facts, so I will take you up on your suggestion to post my findings here on my own personal user page. My mistake was to try to add this information to the public domain.

Thank you for your time, and I hope through feedback and positive learning that I can become a trusted and accepted contributor to Wikipedia. WideAwakeandWonderingWTF (talk) 09:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Alternative" newspapers tend not to hold very high journalistic standards. In fact, it's exactly the sort of coverage we'd expect. Rklawton (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note that there is no such thing here as a personal user page. All wikipedia pages are in the public domain. But more latitude is allowed to postings on userpages.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Anthony, your comment spurred me to dig deeper and I have read and clearly understand the purpose of the user pages now.

To Rklawton, though I will not post the article here on Wikipedia ( the interview is set for next Monday ) as it will be quickly deleted as an invalid source, it has been proven by a poll issued by the Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce that the free press here in New Mexico has as much of a following as the mainstream media. The Alibi and The Reporter, respectively, have earned a powerful and trusted place amongst the population here. Its sister papers that are all over the country are also well respected, especially in the more "liberal" territories where the simple fact that it is not a cooperate/government owned media source lends tremendous weight, transparency and honest coverage of things the "mainstream" media are ordered not to cover. The days of Walter Cronkite like anchors may be long dead ( unless you count Jon Stewart and Robert Colbert as actual news anchors ) but the free press will for ever be a source of information the ( please excuse the conspiracy theorist word ) "establishment" does not want you to know, like how duct tape and trash bags really are not going to do you any good.

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WideAwakeandWonderingWTF for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked for sock puppetry

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WideAwakeandWonderingWTF. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that this block was in error, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:03, 8 April 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).

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

Request reason:

Please forgive this slip of simple ignorance and lack of attention. I had created this account to add some insight to a subject I have been researching for over a year now and was simply stating information from my college text books. Though all of my comments were deleted, and for reasons I have yet to identify. All I did was state clear facts and presented a non biased addition to what I thought was a discussion board. The mistake I made was not realizing that I was logged in to my other user name ( the one I wish to use for more professional, less controversial discussions ) when I made my last post on the Oxyhydrogen discussion page. And this is how I learn my lesson about Sock Puppetry the hard way. I am deeply sorry, and I promise I will take more time to study the rules and terms of use of Wikipedia. Personally, I feel that free source information will be the salvation of these economic and environmental times, and I hold this community in high regard.

Thank you for your time, Jal H.

Decline reason:

Your unblock request admits that you violated our policies on sockpuppetry. You state that you use two usernames frequently, i.e., one for "less controversial" discussions. It also appears (per the sockpuppet investigation) that you used multiple usernames to avoid detection in terms of violating the 3RR, which is not discussed in your unblock rationale. I cannot endorse an unblock until you can explicitly articulate why this is unacceptable per WP:SOCK. Kinu ^t/_c 17:06, 8 April 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.

Would it be fair to say that in the future you would prefer to edit under the name User:Jal Lee'Mon rather than this one? Also, please review WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS that before editing after this block either expires or is removed. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I have temporarily extended the block length on this account to indefinite. I will leave it to the user to decide which account they wish to edit under, and that account (be it this one or the other) can and should be unblocked only when there is indication that they understand and will abide by the policies outlined above. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand clearly now my mistake, though please know it was not an intentional break of the rules. I will openly admit my fault in regards to not fully understanding or reading all of the rules before I edited. My familiarity with online discussion boards has offered me little in the way of cross over experience here within this community. I will be frank, humbly so, when I say I had no clue how active or how policed Wikipedia is. Shortsightedness at its best. I will not make such a mistake again, and I give my word ( as little as it may weigh ) that I will not make any edits without first knowing every aspect of its impact and after I gain my land legs in the sand box. I will refrain from any main page edits and stick to discussion boards for how ever long it takes before I am confident I am only offering the purest, non-biased information I can. I am a paramedic training into the nursing sector and I know that this community could be invaluable to me in so far as collaboration with others of my field. I have also, in the last 24 hours, debunked the common rumor that Wikipedia is an invalid source of information. Misinformation fed to me perhaps? Professors telling me time an again that I cannot use it as a viable source of research and such. I even got a C on an A paper once because I had sited a source from here in ignorance to the teachers policy. So, please...I am only asking for some lenience from my superiors in regards to this wet behind the ears student. I would gladly welcome any mentors that feel they have the time and patience, and now that I am aware of the Sand Box and other introductory mediums, I will take full advantage of these resources. For obvious reasons, I would like to destroy this account and move to the only account I will hold from now on ( Jal Lee'Mon ) My intention here is nothing but honest and forthright. I blundered into a atmosphere I am unfamiliar with and stepped on my own toes. For this I offer my apologies. My intention was honest, as it always will be, and I am hoping that by placing myself within a community of other educated and aware individuals I may find another source of life expanding education. If there was any purpose for me on this planet it is to serve humanity as best I can, and to learn in the process. WideAwakeandWonderingWTF (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unblock I have read and understand the rules and I clearly see the mistake I made. My intentions were not to purposely break the rules, though ignorance of the rules is no excuse. Please read my above comment, as it will explain much. I would ask that this account be deleted and the Jal Lee'Mon account be unlocked. I will only use one account from now on, this I give you my word on.