User talk:Alxc

Searl effect generator

The "compelling reason" not to allow your edits is they do not meet Wikipedia's core policies on verifiability and maintaining a neutral point of view. Wikipedia never allows personal reporting of information, so unless you can cite independent published sources for the additions you want to make, you cannot add them to the article. Gwernol 10:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your observations were published in an independent reliable source with proper editorial oversight, they could be used in the article. That's our standard. Gwernol 10:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the reliability of the newspaper. Did you have one in mind? Gwernol 11:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends which one. Please be specifc. Which newspaper and which article? You seem to have a very specific source in mind. Gwernol 11:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that The Australian is generally a reliable source. Gwernol 11:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(deindenting) A couple: beware of WP:COI. If you article does get published, then it could be used as a source for the article, but it doesn't mean that a different perspective on Searl's work could be removed from the article. Gwernol 11:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's your opinion about the article. Another is that Searl is a misguided crank peddling yet another perpetual motion machine. He claims to have built a working machine in a couple of years with very limited resources, yet during the next half century he has not been able to reproduce the claimed effect at all. If his machine worked as claimed it would clearly break the first law of thermodynamics (despite Searl's claims to the contrary) so it is extraordinarily unlikely that his machine performs as he claims. Searl is just another in a very long line of people who claim to have invented a "free energy" machine. Like every single other such inventor he has failed to provide a single piece of evidence to back up any of his claims. Searl and his machine are of interest and worthy of an article specifically because they illustrate the history of such fraudulent and/or misguided claims.

I am very sorry that Searl himself seems to have wasted his life tilting at this particular windmill. However we are not going to write a piece that [WP:NPOV|assumes]] Searl is correct, until he can show that his "invention" is what it claims to be. Gwernol 11:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're looking for dispute resolutions Gwernol 11:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "cyber bullying"? Both you and I are able to edit the article. I am just as much able to change your edits as you are to make them. I have calmly and politely explained to you above how your edits did not meet the basic rules of Wikipedia. That in no way counts as "cyber bullying". I would ask you to withdraw that rather nasty charge.

The article needs to remain factually based. We have verifiable sources to show that Searl's claims fall into the realm of perpetual motion machines. Removing that from the article unbalances it and slants it towards Searl's unproven and unpublished claims. We cannot do that per WP:V and WP:NPOV Gwernol 11:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. In response to the following:

You misunderstand, I am not the one being bullied I am enjoying this healthy dialog but from where I sit it is John Searl that is not being treated properly. I am not suggesting that you remove the references to "perpetual motion machine". One of the problems I have with the article is illustrated quite clearly in the Device section where the terms "numerology" and "magic squares" are used. These words are designed to discredit the subsequent content. My edit was fairer. If you don't agree i suggest we delete that paragraph altogether

First, apologies for the misunderstanding about "bullying". No more needs be said on that matter. On the more substantial question you raise. Searl's claims are extraordinary ones. If they proved to be true they would cause scientists to rethink some of the most profound and fundamental laws of physics. Huge new opportunities for mankind would be opened up through very cheap or free energy supplies. It would truly change the world in a way that perhaps no previous human invention has. Such extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof, if they are to be included in Wikipedia. We set especially high standards for sourcing claims of this sort. I'm sure you can understand why, especially given the long history of charlatanism in this field.

The reason I specifically mentioned not removing the statement that the SEG is a perpetual motion machine, is that one of your edits did just this: [1]. I was also skeptical about the "magic squares" reference when I first saw it in the article, but it comes direct from Searl himself - see [2]. He describes the SEG as based on the law of Magic Squares. If there is discrediting going it, it is from Searl's own website, so I don't think it is fair to claim this as an example of bias in the Wikipedia article. Gwernol 17:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Xped word-logo image 1.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Xped word-logo image 1.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]