Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:25, 26 July 2009

July 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Steorn, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Steorn. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your Steorn edits

Thanks for explaining your edits. I'm afraid the problem with "your research" is precisely that - it's your own personal research, and as such can't be accepted under Misplaced Pages policy. Misplaced Pages has strict guidelines about the inclusion of unpublished speculation and opinion; if you are the only person to have expressed these concerns about Steorn, then they aren't appropriate content for an encyclopaedia. (I'm sure you can appreciate what the Steorn article would look like by now if every passing editor - for or against - was encouraged to add their own opinion.)

If you can find someone else who's had similar thoughts, though - someone published in a reliable source (such as a newspaper or academic journal) - you're more than welcome to quote that source.

Does that make sense? --McGeddon (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend reading WP:RS, which explains how and why Misplaced Pages uses reliable sources for all of its content. You should also read WP:SYN - yes, you have a source that supports McDonald being a family practice MD, but it is your own personal opinion that he is "not the kind of scientist one would expect to work on physic project". --McGeddon (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue, granted I did not explain myself, is that the news paper article which cites Ian MacDonald as an Engineer is used to support that Stoern had a jury of scientists and they came to some conclusion. Assuming, the engineer was a typo, then we are at a family doctor issue. True it is my opinion that it is odd to have MD (which it is not clear that Ian McDonald is associated with Stoern) to lead a jury of scientists concerning the working of a perpetual motor, but it is also the opinion of Stoern that the scientists on the jury had the wrong/not enough data, but you allow that to be posted. Which is not supported by independent source--double standard. If I playing a scam then I would always claim in vague detail that the accepted standard is confused/wrong/misinformed or if I knew a little more than the general population I would play on their ignorance. I am more than willing to read the rules of[REDACTED] if and only if double standards are not applied.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.61.224 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 26 July 2009

No, the article clearly says that "Steorn announced it had chosen a jury of scientists" and " said that the jury had only been provided with test data". These are being presented as mere claims from Steorn, we aren't reporting them as definite facts. If we were saying "Steorn chose a jury of scientists, and provided them with insufficient data", then that would be inappropriate, but we aren't saying that.

I think anyone reading the article can clearly see what's being reported as fact, and what's being reported as a mere claim from Steorn. If I've missed an angle, let me know. --McGeddon (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Really, so when Stoern said:"Steorn disputed the jury's findings and said that, due to difficulties in implementing the technology,Steorn also said that these difficulties had now been resolved and that a commercial launch was still planned towards the end of 2009" According to you: Steorn's dispute of the jury's finding is not an opinion of Steorn? What do you base that fact on. do you have at least two sources that would dispute the finding of the jury. Because if you have no fact then it is the unsupported opinion of Steorn, which should be remove. Which would make this a news article not a place a fact.

What about the Steorns assertion that the difficulties had now been resolved? What two sources do you have that Stoern has resolved the technology difficulties? If you do not have two sources then it is the opinion of Stoern they have fixed the difficulties and does meet the standard to be posted.

We can include quotes from the subject of the article under WP:SELFPUB, so long as we're sure that it's a genuine quote and that it's not "unduly self-serving". The quote you mention seems brief and neutral enough to meet those criteria.

I'd recommend taking any further conversation to Talk:Steorn to get a wider perspective. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)