User talk:BVis

The Wikipedia page on Blacklight Power began as a small uncontroversial article that outlined factual developments in the Company and sought to explain the claimed theoretical basis behind the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics, plainly stating the theory was not considered mainstream but was based on experimental evidence as well papers published in peer reviewed journals.

Inexplicably the page began to fall under immediate assault by anonymous trolls who removed all reference to peer reviewed journals, experimental evidence and made unproven and defamatory allegations of fraud. The trolls were persons who were granted editorial control of the wiki pages and despite repeated attempts to restrain the article to a fair and neutral factual description continued to make false and malicious accusations against Blacklight Power and its founder Dr. Mills. Protected by their anonymity and by the US Courts decision that Wikipedia was immune to suit to publication made under its banner, it was revealed in numerous arguments in the talk pages that the "editors" considered it their duty to present Blacklight power in a negative and criminal light and banned any person who corrected the numerous omissions, falsehoods and defamation that the page contained or referred to the content as defamatory, claiming that pointing out content was defamatory was a threat of legal action which entitled them to ban any objector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BVis (talk • contribs) 02:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Brilliant Light Power

Hello BVis, you've previously been notified of our conflict of interest rules. If you continue to make edits at Brilliant Light Power, such as this one, that have no support from others on the article talk page you are risking a block. In addition, some of your points in the above comment sound like they are personal attacks ('made unproven and defamatory allegations of fraud'). Please see our policy at WP:No personal attacks, and since you are using legal terms like fraud, be aware of WP:No legal threats. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The Spirit of Wikipedia

Hi Ed, thanks for your comments. In light of what you have written can you please help me and the global Wikipedia community to understand what I have done wrong? I have no association with Brilliant Light Power so there is no conflict of interest. I am not making any legal or personal threats so that point is moot. I understand that punitive blocks are not permitted: I don't want to start an argument about the tone of your message.

Surely we want to encourage rational debates between users/viewpoints and not shut down or intimidate users. I do have a niche interest in this area but I note that people with such interests *can* make contributions provided they "... report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." People who understand the subject matter are best placed to write objectively.

I would consider myself well read in the subject matter and perhaps a subject matter expert. I request my contributions and those of others who understand the subject be respected in all fairness. In that light the comments in this talk page speak louder than the actual content of the article itself. I ask for editors to make positive contributions and improve the content of this page: Any additions I or others make in good faith, should not be reverted. If someone feels a reversion is necessary then substantiate and improve the addition rather than guarding incumbent inaccuracies or omissions of the page by reverting.

The Community would do well to take heed of very early versions of the article: [1] and [2] These serve as an enduring record of how the bias of the article page has changed. It appears that neutral and objective supported facts which contribute to the accuracy of this article are not respected.

The Community should also note that my most recent contributions are aligned with the Spirit of Wikipedia and their purpose is to restore important information about the subject matter that went missing since these first revisions. Thank you, BVis (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The community should take note. The article has evolved from an unsourced, uncritical advertisement for BLP to an article based on reliable sources. I note that those versions you linked to are over 13 years old and BLP still has no product. When is BLP going to start generating and selling electrical power? When is BLP going to get independent validation that they are indeed able to get energy from conversion of ground-state hydrogen to hydrinos? Thirteen years and no hardware given to independent labs. They have been hiring labs, but those labs are hardly independent. Also, when is BLP going to give samples of hydrinos to independent labs for analysis? BLP must have made kilograms of hydrinos by now. A new form of hydrogen would confirm that BLP is at least generating hydrinos and would give much credence to their claims. Passing out samples would not give away any secrets how they generated the hydrinos. Yet, they haven't done so. I would think a chemical-safety review on hydrinos would be in order as well. Why not? This is the same story plot-line as proponents of perpetual motion, Newman's energy machine, Energy Catalyzer, cold fusion, etc., etc. give and give. When is BLP going to start running their electricity meter backwards? No cow-pies, no cows. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)