for the ethernal optimistixc about wikipedia, why not make wiki entries for the business men, not supporting CF, following the official delusion with a visible hypocritical view...
fr Rossi, I would avoid, because he is the worst ad for skeptics... but put Robert godes, Truchard, Concezzi, xanthoulis, Nicolas Chauvin, making their CV (maybe ask them), then finisk with a short evocation of their current work... maybe crosslinked, avoiding the cold fusion hub. otherwise you could feed http://lenrwiki.eu/index.php?title=Main_Page to put "mainstream cold fusion" (I would be less supportive for other free energy devices) version, with minority reports inside if needed... We have no time to feed it 2012/9/16 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> > At 10:27 PM 9/15/2012, Kelley Trezise wrote: > >> So, here is my vote on the matter: >> >> Keep no merge This article has been taken over by a very small cadre of >> people opposed to even the mention of the Energy Catalyzer, Cold Fusion, >> LENR, LANR, etc. It is a stain on the reputation of WP that a small number >> of very abusive people can drive off the more moderate people, rewrite an >> article in a highly biased manner and then propose that the article be >> deleted. This article as it has been written by that small clique lies >> there like an unburried scat stinking up hell itself. And so it should >> remain as a stinky stain on the reputation of WP. — Preceding unsigned >> comment added by Zedshort(talk • contribs) 01:23, 16 September 2012 >> >> Don't waste your time trying to edit the article as long as the current >> crew of trolls have control. It is best that it be left there for all to >> see but people need to vote honestly on its reliability and such. >> > > The article was proposed for deletion by a Single Purpose Account (SPA) > who is very likely the sock puppet of a banned editor. There is revert > warring on the article, seen today. I'm amazed that TheNextFuture has not > only not been blocked, s/he has not even been warned about revert warring. > Insilvis has also violated the 3RR rule. TheNextFuture probably knows > exactly what s/he is doing, and doesn't care. Insilvis has no block history > and may not realize that you can be blocked for 3RR violation for making > good reverts, in themselves. > > However, there is a 3RR exception for reverting a banned editor. The > guideline suggests not relying on this.... But nobody has attempted, as far > as I can see, to address the revert warring and blatant sockery. >
