Geekiep

Global warming

Global warming and misleading information from both Government and "green organisations"

It is a well known fact that climate change and movement of fish stocks is a cyclical event and has little or no bearing on the activities of man. The scaremongering can be attributed primarily to the control methods of the politicians and the dubious agenda of various green organisations. I worked for some while with an accomplished chemist chris edgecombe who developed a renewable biofuel for use in power stations. He was vilified by Government departments and the likes of certain "green organisations" because he attempted and succeeded in producing a fuel that was not only renewable but non polluting and capable of the reducing the emissions from coal fired power stations. It is a fact that governments have no intention of losing their excise duty on hydrocarbon fuels and will do their best to stop research into green fuels (see latest news on Drax power station) Mr Edgecombe was also responsible for creating a similar fuel, which I think was called Biofuel 5 for use in marine diesel engines to reduce emissions and possible pollution in the event of the ship losing fuel or sinking. One of his other creations was a green heat transfer fluid to replace petro-hydrocarbon fluids and thus completely remove the risk of serious pollution under the COMAR regulations. There are many scientists working on green renewable fuels that do not decimate or de-forest areas and displace the indigenous wildlife. Each and every one is a target of either Government paranoia or fall foul of the aspirations of personal glory by certain members of the so called "green" organisations. Geekiep (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Geekiep, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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!  

Clubmarx (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nazi and Japanese Nuclear weapons

The article Nazi and Japanese Nuclear weapons has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Essay like/personal research. Topics are already covered in German nuclear energy project and Japanese nuclear weapon program.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Clubmarx (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Claremont Chemical Company Limited

The article Claremont Chemical Company Limited has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable company, fails WP:CORP.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 18:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Geekiep. You have new messages at Karljoos's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Geekiep. You have new messages at Erpert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AfD nomination of HTF-15

An article that you have been involved in editing, HTF-15, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTF-15. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Geekiep. You have new messages at Karljoos's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

HTF-15 and Biofuel 5

• You'll get more feedback if you post your objections on WP:Articles for deletion/HTF-15. Before you comment, I recommend to take a closer look at WP:Verifiability, WP:Notability, Assume good faith and WP:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion. Good luck. — Rankiri (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

• Your conduct is being discussed here. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• And didn't I ask you to stay off my talk page? If you go on there again, I'm reporting you. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Erpert. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gerardw (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Geekiep. You have new messages at Paste's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I did not attack erpert, in fact quite the contrary he accused both me and Chris Edgecombe of being liars and hoaxers with no other justification than the lame excuse that he couldn't find an entry on Google. Chris Edgecombe is a close friend of mine and a brilliant scientist who is well known and respected throughout the industry in both the USA and Europe. Because he is not egotistical enough to seek some self congratulatory entry on Google does not make him any the less notable. His work in the very important field of renewable and non toxic/polluting fuels and solvents is of greater value to mankind than some of the entries allowed just because they have a Google entry. If this is the only criteria by which information is judged then may I suggest you do away with "editors" and just use a computer programme that checks on a Google entry and rejects everything else. It is quite simple to arrange a Google entry but what purpose would this serve ? Looking at the various people who have judged Edgecombes inclusion as unacceptable it is quite obvious that many approach the task of editing as a casual game and boast about how many contributions they have deleted. I find erperts responses quite offensive and arrogant and will take action to have him removed as an "editor"Geekiep (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:BURDEN for your responsibility here. I find it astonishing that no news of this person appears to have reached Google, given his allegedly major contribution to biofuels. Nothing in New Scientist? Nothing in Scientific American? No university professorships? I remain to be convinced. Rodhullandemu 23:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You will find us scientists, by our very nature, are quite a modest lot - professorships aren't our bag. You will be telling me next that you have no knowledge of one of Chris's closest collegues, John Cosgrove in South Carolina USA who is equally eminent in renewable products for coatings, lubricants and anti-corrosives !!Geekiep (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientists publish. So what papers have Mr. Edgecombe or Mr. Cosgrove published? Gerardw (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh do they, that’s news to me, John and Chris. In our field of work there are only too many losers who would love to be given details of our work. We don't mind advising brief details of the concept of the products we develop, but even the customers (E-on, RWE etc) don't know exactly how and why our products work. Certain info has to be given to the various Government bodies (HSE, COMAH, OFGEM etc) but even then we don't advise ratios, reactions etc. There are many, so called, scientists around who publish impressive sounding junk and many more who write pieces for their original work (most of which is patent nonsense). In my naivety I thought that Wikipedia may have been a good platform to advise the interested that work is being done in the field of renewable energy rather than the nonsense of "wind turbines" but it seems that a fiddle player and several other nonentities would rather rack up their score of deletions than take the time and trouble to discuss how this field of information could be best presented. Geekiep (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply from the above-mentioned "fiddle player": Given the lack of published work (“I am a great scientist but I don’t publish my work”, “I am the best novelist but I don’t publish it; I just keep a copy of my novels in my hard drive”, SERIOUSLY???), articles featuring his (and your) work, academic appointments etc I'd say that you and your friend are the nonentities. If your work is so important, what are you doing around here? The world is full of arrogant people with far too much free time. Cheers!--Karljoos (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your reply only illustrates just how little you understand the real world. A novelists final product is a novel - what don't you understand about that ? An industrial chemist’s final product is the compound or blend, publishing the work is merely incidental and commercially inadvisable, unless you are just on an ego trip. In your case music is purely subjective - you may think you are good just because you played in an orchestra but the world is full of mediocre musicians and very poor orchestras. I would suggest you think carefully before being critical of the talents of others. I would suggest you drop the subject as you are only making a bigger fool of yourselfGeekiep (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So, then where is the compound or blend? Where can we read about it, buy it, order it or ask someone who has heard about it, where is it produced or used? Nowhere. One thing is sure: you don't know who I am because I don't edit under my real name (you're so arrogant to presume that I played in mediocre orchestras), but I know who Chris Edgecombe is: NOBODY (and not worth an article here). Accept that and move on with your life. You and Chris Edgecombe don't deserve one more second of my time. Keep in your line and I am sure you will be blocked! Have a good life.--Karljoos (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I really would suggest you calm down, old chap. Do remember the rules about not insulting others - otherwise you will have to do the honourable thing and resign as an editor. Now its quite obvious that your talents as an editor do not extend to actually reading the article otherwise you would have read where you can buy it, order it, who uses it and how it is used. I'm quite well aware you don't use your own name as by your own criteria you don't exist. Under these circumstances you may be the best musician in the world or the worst. Either way you are not qualified to pontificate on the talents of others.Geekiep (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

He looks perfectly calm to me. You on the other hand are being far too free with the insults. Theresa Knott | token threats 14:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I see, Theresa, so referring to Chris, John and myself as liars, hoaxers, nonentities, NOBODIES, worthless and arrogant is perfectly calm is it ? Whereas I did refer to him as a nonentity when he claimed that musicians were worthy of note, but science knowledge could be obtained by anyone. You carry on if you want to support him but we can draw our own conclusions from your actions.Geekiep (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus appear to support the fact that you have been uncivil, and it needs to stop; that your lone opinion disagrees is not something that concerns anyone but you. If you continue to fail in grasping the problems with your behaviour and discourse, chances are you will be blocked. If you find that there are continued problems with the users concerned, you have been directed as to how to proceed - otherwise, please drop the stick and move on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Your answers and those of Theresa Knott seem to be total non sequiturs. Why accuse me of being uncivil when erpert and karljoos are many times worse ? I think your idea of a consensus seems to be rather different to how others understand it. It doesn’t matter that I am the only one telling the truth if the others are liars and/or deluded. As you suggest I will, in my own time, make an official complaint against erpert and karljoos. Incidentally when I respond to a comment you made against me on a closed posting I do not expect and find it extremely offensive to have it deleted without an acknowledgement. I would suggest that under the circumstances you examine and consider your own conduct.Geekiep (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

ani

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Proposed deletion of Christopher edgecombe

The article Christopher edgecombe has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ... discospinster _talk 23:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Repost of Christopher Edgecombe

A tag has been placed on Christopher Edgecombe requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead recreating the page. Thank you. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)