I have deleted the Alvirne High School case because it is not an example of school corporal punishment. For one thing, the press report you cited states that the paddlings were carried out at the boys' homes or at the perpetrator's home, so it was not much to do with the school. But more to the point, c.p. was abolished in New Hampshire in 1983 (27 years previously), so even if it had been under the auspices of the school it would have been illegal anyway, any questions about the man's motives being thus neither here nor there. -- Alarics (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia is not the place for you to express your opinions, even in an edit summary. The instruction to the offender to place his feet apart is just for greater stability, and it does not mean "wide apart" but typically two feet apart and this is not enough to expose the back of the genitals so there should be no danger, especially if he is wearing clothes, which is always the case in modern times. -- Alarics (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Transferred from Alarics talk page to AnnaBennett talk page -- let's keep the discussion in one place) Corporal punishment is still legal in the state of New Hampshire (but not in its public schools). See New Hampshire Criminal Code, Title LXII, "Section 627:6, Physical Force by Persons With Special Responsibilities. – I. A parent, guardian or other person responsible for the general care and welfare of a minor is justified in using force against such minor when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or punish such minor's misconduct".

This may be how the Alvirne High School coach initially justified his actions. AnnaBennett (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alvirne High School is a public school, so the fact that c.p. remains lawful in private schools in New Hampshire is quite irrelevant. -- Alarics (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've been making some thoughtful additions to articles about corporal punishment. I do agree with Alarics in some respects; Wikipedia is not here to say that this or that is good or bad or wrong or right or stupid or evil, and we should follow that in edit summaries as well as in the articles themselves. Wikipedia is not the place to pursue a campaign to ban (or allow) corporal punishment. I do also disagree with Alarics in some respects; I've mentioned some of my disagreements at Talk:Paddle (spanking)#Disputed edits - alleged injuries, sourcing issues.

As an aside (to divert you!), I wonder if you might be interested in assisting in the development of my draft article about a U.S. reform school that over-used corporal punishment. It is a seminal example of how even when corporal punishment at the school was supposedly regulated, it was horrifically abused; and even when corporal punishment was supposedly banned, abuses continued - decade after decade. This must all be presented fairly, and in a neutral manner; but I think it might still be a good use of your time. I am also hopeful that it can be linked from Wikipedia front page (with a potential audience of a few million), including images. If you might be able to help, just let me know and I will write up some material on what needs doing - there is a lot of press coverage and archive material that needs incorporating. The key people involved in exposing the abuses, and one of the two key journalists who were nominated for a Pulitzer prize for that exposure, have already offered their help. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing a television news report about a reform school that was essentially a house of horrors. One of the survivors had become a movie producer and I wonder if he plans to eventually make his story into a movie. Your project sounds interesting and I will assist in any way that I can. Our office has handled a number of very unusual cases and I am not at liberty to release information about those cases. It never ceases to amaze me how petty, stupid and outright vicious some adults can be to children. AnnaBennett (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AnnaBennett, I just wanted to let you know that I tood a look at your recently created article Student Senate for California Community Colleges--However, I think the article seems to contain a few errors the article does not contain Wikilinks, and so doesn't follow [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style {linking}|Wikipedia style guidelines]]. Have a fun and productive day! Cheers,Amy Z 04:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyxz (talk • contribs)

I changed the link for "signed into law" into an "Interwiki link". That does look better. Thanks for the suggestion Amy Z. AnnaBennett (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

could you please give me a copy of the link on my talk page? Zedshort (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you have been here a little longer and hope you would know the procedure to level a complaint against the user AndyTheGrump as I can take no more from him and am about to go off. Thanks Zedshort (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I do not know how to direct you. I have never used the Wikipedia complaint procedures. I have never before encountered a user who is as grumpy as Grumpy. AnnaBennett (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Energy Catalyzer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Transmuting

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right in assuming that the 'Journal of New Energy' is sourced from here: [1]? If so, it clearly isn't a reliable source and shouldn't be treated as such in links etc. I know you are keen to promote Miley's research, but Wikipedia has clear policies regarding what is acceptable, and citing obscure 'Journals' with no evidence of meaningful peer-review, never mind mainstream credibility, isn't the way to do it. If Miley is making genuine advances in LENR, I'm sure he has the clout to get them recognised in mainstream scientific sources - at which point they may well be relevant to Wikipedia, For now, they appear not to be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I copied that reference link from the George H. Miley article. Are you going to delete that reference link from the Miley article too? If you do NOT, then I will put the link back into the CETI Patterson Power Cell article. AnnaBennett (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It probably shouldn't be linked there either - however, statements that you will do something to one article based on what somebody else does on another are hardly appropriate - see WP:POINT. Given that User:Chris Howard seems to have inserted the link, I'll point out the problem to him, and we can take it from there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miley's article is listed in Google Scholar, which indicates that the article has been cited 59 times. The Journal of New Energy is peer-reviewed. Miley's article is available for downloading under Title 17, Section 107, of the U.S. Code (Fair Use). See http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/SelectedPapers.shtml AnnaBennett (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS, and in particular WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals". If you want to cite the 'Journal of New Energy' for anything of substance, I suggest you take it to WP:RS/N - it in no way qualifies as a reliable source by the criteria Wikipedia sets. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Miley's article is referenced in Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia: Science, Technology, and Applications, edited by Steven Krivit and Jay H. Lehr, page 538, reference number 132. And Krivit put Miley's articles in the "Selected Papers" section of his New Energy Times website because he believes that Miley's article is scientifically important and I concur with his judgment. If you think that you are smarter than Krivit then you just go ahead and delete the reference to Miley's article on transmutations in thin films. AnnaBennett (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then take it to WP:RS/N. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm just going to use the new Grump-approved version of the reference. AnnaBennett (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get to 'approve' anything - the article can be cited for existence of you like, but for content, I suggest you stop wasting our time, and take it to WP:RS/N. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#George_H._Miley_and_the_Patterson_Power_Cell. If you won't take this to WP:RS/N, I will... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought maybe you wanted to know: If you want to link to a part of a youtube video you can add #t=1m11s to the end of the url. (m for minutes s for seconds) 84.106.26.81 (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I applied this linking technique to the "It Runs On Water" video link. Thank you very much. AnnaBennett (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please DO NOT link YouTube videos to articles without finding clear evidence that they aren't copyright violations first - as most YouTube material of this type is. Wikipedia has to take copyright concerns seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:CETI_Patterson_Power_Cell#Cravens_and_a_patent. Contributors are expected to discuss contested material, not merely edit-war it back in. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you removed a {{failed verification}} tag from the cite to webpage http://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-99/issue-11/features/power-gen-95-show-preview.html although that webpage contains no mention of Patterson or CETI. Such behaviour is considered disruptive editing and may leave you subject to sanctions should you repeat it. Please stop now and take some time to read WP:IRS so that you can understand what is required of sources for use in Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to show a positive aspect to the CETI Patterson Power Cell. Such efforts are the reason it is up for deletion, with a significant number of editors arguing to delete it.

Strategically, your effort will be wasted if your participation lends credence to the deletion arguments. If you really wanted to put a positive spin on the hopeless device you should wait until the AfD has concluded. Not that I wish you any success in the matter! I think the article should be brutally short, with the device prominently said to be considered bollocks by mainstream physicists. Binksternet (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please discuss this on the article talk page. Patents are primary sources, and without evidence from secondary sources that they are seen as significant, are of little note. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for egregious aspersions on the motives of other editors, and other disruptive activity, as you did at Talk:Patterson Power Cell. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This block is indefinite (note the distinction between indefinite and permanent) as there has been no indication thus far that you understand why your edits are disruptive. This comment is truly beyond the pale: editors should absolutely not be expected to be accused of being government plants on the most specious or invented of evidence. Should you wish to resume editing here the onus is on you to first acknowledge the reason for your block and then to confirm that you will desist from the same in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anna, I encourage you to distance yourself from the conspiracy theory. You have done good work elsewhere in wikipedia and certainly capable of more. Think it over. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be a little clearer, Wikipedia editors are free to believe that there are conspiracies, and they are free to state that they believe there are conspiracies, but stating it's likely that other Wikipedia editors are involved in those conspiracies is not compatible with productive editing. Anna does not have to (or at least, should not have to) renounce her belief in the existence of conspiracies, in order to edit Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the block was a big overreaction. I can imagine Anna is pretty shocked about it. Thanks for making it clearer. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]