Hello GLPeterson! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GLPeterson!
We thank you for uploading Image:TeslaEffect.gif, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I appreciate the efforts you're putting into improving the Wireless energy transfer article, but I have two gripes:

• Could you please use edit summaries!
• Could you please combine some of your many small edits into fewer, larger edits in the future, if possible.

Both of these are currently making it very hard for people who have the page on their watchlist to tell what's going on!

Best regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 14:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GLPeterson. You have new messages at Talk:Wireless energy transmission.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The article Factor auctus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable product.

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. ^Bongo_matic 06:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the WTE article (induction sec), isn't it structures ... s ... for the launching and receiver elements? If I am wrong, please restore. Thanks on you quality work though. --J. D. Redding 20:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Tesla beat receptor 02.gif. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there GLPeterson, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:GLPeterson/Beat receptor. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Teleforce , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Monty₈₄₅ 16:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of New Art of Projecting Concentrated Non-Dispersive Energy Through Natural Media, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.teslaradio.com/pages/teleforce.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article New Art of Projecting Concentrated Non-Dispersive Energy Through Natural Media has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Copyright violation (copied from http://www.teslaradio.com/pages/teleforce.htm).

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Lugia2453 (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on New Art of Projecting Concentrated Non-Dispersive Energy Through Natural Media requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. NTox · talk 16:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Contactless energy transfer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Man-made (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wardenclyffe Tower, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Accretion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wardenclyffe Tower, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to World Wireless System may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 5 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• page_3601.html "Episode 126: Capacitance and the equation C =Q/V"], Institute of Physics website > Schools and Colleges > Projects > Teaching Advanced Physics > Electricity > Capacitors, accessed September 25, 2008</ref>
• [http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_todre.html PBS Tower of Dreams] the wireless global communications]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GLPeterson, thanks for expanding the article Transposer. However, I see that you have changed the word transposer to translator . As far as I know in professional documents the word transposer is preferred for ground station technology. Can you please check if the word translator has replaced transposer recently ? Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably not devote excess space in an article on historical dead ends tangential to the current state of the art. We probably don't serve the reader well with lengthy quotations from Tesla on how he thought the laws of physics worked, when these are (hem) at variance with the current understanding. The article wireless power is already far too long for its contents and needs to be a concise overview of the field, not just another place to trot out the same old tired fanboy claims (which are already lovingly and minutely detailed in the Tesla-specific articles), --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When knowledge, facts, or solutions are sought, there are a number of techniques available from which to select.  These techniques can be ranked according to their effectiveness, from the most certain to the most uncertain.  At the top, or level one, is measurement; but even excellent measurements can be subject to small amounts of error.  Level two is cause and effect.  That's a rigorous deduction based on the laws of nature; on the conservation of mass, energy, and momentum; on Newtonian mechanics, Ohm's law, Charles's law, and all those kinds of relationships.  These techniques for solving problems are not error free, but they do provide reliable and repeatable results.  At the third level I put correlation studies.  These are statistical techniques which allow the drawing of general and reasonable conclusions, but imprecise conclusions.  An example of this is when you hear a conclusion such as 62 percent of the people who eat pistachio ice cream 20 or more times a week tend to gain weight.  The fourth level is opinion sampling.  Conclusions here can be useful, but they are often temperable and not repeatable. . . . — Neil Armstrong

Thanks for expressing your opinion.GPeterson (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:GLPeterson/Rufus Ritchie and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the .
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Origamite^ⓣⓒ 03:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! GLPeterson, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Origamiteⓣⓒ 03:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted at Talk:Wireless power the problems with your edits re: drawing conclusions from primary sources and/or using them, or FRINGE writers opinions on them, as statements of fact in Wikipedia (see WP:YESPOV). I have also noted, (and noted before at Talk:Teleforce#Proposed Deletion) your ownership of the main sources you are citing, tfcbooks.com and TESLARADIO.COM, which, with wholesale quoting and paraphrasing of these sources, is getting to the point of violating WP:NOTMIRROR. I noted your use of Wikisource[1] for this material. May I suggest following that line of editing for this material instead? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When knowledge, facts, or solutions are sought, there are a number of techniques available from which to select.  These techniques can be ranked according to their effectiveness, from the most certain to the most uncertain.  At the top, or level one, is measurement; but even excellent measurements can be subject to small amounts of error.  Level two is cause and effect.  That's a rigorous deduction based on the laws of nature; on the conservation of mass, energy, and momentum; on Newtonian mechanics, Ohm's law, Charles's law, and all those kinds of relationships.  These techniques for solving problems are not error free, but they do provide reliable and repeatable results.  At the third level I put correlation studies.  These are statistical techniques which allow the drawing of general and reasonable conclusions, but imprecise conclusions.  An example of this is when you hear a conclusion such as 62 percent of the people who eat pistachio ice cream 20 or more times a week tend to gain weight.  The fourth level is opinion sampling.  Conclusions here can be useful, but they are often temperable and not repeatable. . . . — Neil Armstrong

Thanks for expressing your opinion. GPeterson (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not getting us anywhere, just reverting each other's edits, and edit warring can get us blocked. I don't understand the rationale behind your edits. If we talk about this, maybe we can figure something out. --Chetvorno^TALK

Your concern is noted. GPeterson (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit (ignoring and editing contrary to this talk) without any form of comment is disruptive editing per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #1, #2, and #4. If you continue to follow this pattern I will have to take it to WP:ANI. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you have reverted without comment again[2] Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read.
   GPeterson (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly recommended that you make a statement at the above linked noticeboard with regards to your edits, particularly those that other editors have raised concerns about. Continued disruption of articles with original research and synthesis, both of which are prohibited on Wikipedia, will only lead to your edits being reverted and your account being blocked. Blackmane (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read.
   GPeterson (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:GLPeterson reported by User:Chetvorno. Thank you. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read.
GPeterson (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have what appears to be a copy of World Wireless System on your user page? I haven't compared it to see if it's identical, but, regardless, user pages are intended to be used in that manner.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

Thank you for taking an interest in my case. As you may already be aware, I have contacted Wikipedia by e-mail on 12/7/2014 with a request for assistance in my ongoing effort to counter what I perceive as a violation of Wikipedia policy and to correct a fundamental error that has been introduced into the Wireless power article (see RE: [Ticket#2014120710007851] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents).  I learned that no mechanism exists for the assignment of legal counsel to assist me, in light of which I proceeded forward in the best manner that I know of.  This involved making changes to the article with accompanying explanations of those changes.  This good-faith effort has resulted in the present state of affairs.

In answer to your question about my user page, I had no idea that such use is strictly forbidden.  I'll make the appropriate adjustments forthwith.

Getting back to the matter at hand, to wit, my ongoing work to improve the Wireless power article and what I perceive as a disruptive effort on the part of three Wikipedia Users to stifle my efforts, how do you suggest that I proceed?  I am willing to endure the psychological pain that I am presently experiencing, suffer the 48 hour block, and then resume my present interaction with these individuals on the article's Talk page, if this is the least offensive alternative to all parties involved.

Respectfully and sincerely yours,
Gary Peterson, GPeterson (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. What adjustments do you plan to make to your user page after your block expires? I can remove the article portion of your user page now if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you in advance for your assistance.  Please remove everything following

Take the initiative.  Go to work, and above all co-operate and don't hold back on one another or try to gain at the expense of another.  Any success in such lopsidedness will be increasingly short-lived.  These are the synergetic rules that evolution is employing and trying to make clear to us.  They are not man-made laws.  They are the infinitely accommodative laws of the intellectual integrity governing universe. [Buckminster Fuller]

, down to but not including

.--GPeterson (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your assistance.--GPeterson (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Wireless power. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir (Bbb23). It appears my intellectual tools are insufficient to cope with the present level of uncivil discourse that exists on Wikipedia, and all the more so as time passes. Are you available to review my next comment when I post it on the Wireless power article talk page after my being blocked for edit warring? The link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wireless_power#Electrical_Conduction .--GPeterson (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23. Is the bulk removal of technical details from an article bearing the tag, "This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve this article to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. The talk page may contain suggestions." a violation of Wikipedia policy?--GPeterson (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir (Bbb23). I have spent a sleepless night worrying, Looking forward to your guidance. Respectfully, Gary Peterson, GPeterson (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your seeking guidance, but I'm not altogether clear what you're asking. What's most important at this point is that you use the article Talk page to discuss any changes you wish to make and that you obtain a clear consensus from other editors for your proposed changes. Otherwise, if you change the article in any way that restores your preferred version or even part of it, it will be seen as a resumption of edit warring and may result in a longer block. Does that answer your question? Finally, don't lose sleep over this. It's not worth it. If it's too upsetting to you to edit here - and I acknowledge that editing at Wikipedia can be hard for many people until they become experienced - then don't edit here. I don't mean that "to get rid of you". I mean it sincerely. Your health and your real life are much more important than Wikipedia. Oh, by the way, I can't always respond quickly as I, too, have a real life. --Bbb23 (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you prompt response. I'm interested in learning if the bulk removal of technical details from an article bearing the tag, "This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve this article to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. The talk page may contain suggestions" might be judged to be an infringement of Wikipedia policy. As for my poor behavior, I have learned my lesson and will be operating in a much different manner from now on.--GPeterson (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that a significant removal of material from the article based on the tag is a bad idea at this point. However, you may propose such a removal on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is valuable information.--GPeterson (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23. Please note that User:Roches and User:Chetvorno have made additional changes to the Wireless power or Wireless energy transmission article during the period starting 13 December 2014 up to the present. While the recent modifications have some merit, previous issues of contention are still to be addressed. I too have a life other than Wikipedia so further pursuit of these matters by myself may not be immediate.--GPeterson (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23. Re: Reverted edits by GLPeterson (talk) to last version by Bbb23 - not on your user page (again)).  I need to work on a Draft of proposed revisions to the above article and used my user page by mistake. Where do I find the instructions for Draft creation?--GPeterson (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23. Found it! (Wikipedia:User pages)

Good, but I'm confused by what you're doing. First, normally you would create a draft as a subpage of your user page, not as a subpage of your talk page. You've done both.

The Talk page associated with /Draft came into existence when I placed a first entry on the /Draft page's Talk page.

Second, generally a draft is of a new article, not of an existing article. Are you trying to create "your version" of the existing article? I don't have the time to compare the two, so it's easier just to ask you. Anyway, please explain a bit more what you're doing.

The Draft page is a duplicate of the draft text, plus subsequent changes, that was posted as a replacement of the actual article without full consensus on 16 December 2014. I alerted you of this action in my previous message. The existing illegitimate "article" contains errors and omissions that I am preparing to address at this time, hence the two new user pages.

Also, I can delete subpages that you don't need, or you can request the deletions yourself by adding {{db-U1}} at the top of the page, in which case any administrator can do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip.--GPeterson (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your desire to improve the article. But we're all working toward that goal. I don't understand some of your edits, for example the figures in the "Directivity" column of the table in the "Overview" section. Can you please discuss your edits on the Talk page first, and give edit comments, so we are not working at cross purposes? --Chetvorno^TALK 21:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Chetvorno: The directivity of an actual antenna can vary from 1.76 dBi for a short dipole, to as much as 50 dBi for a large dish antenna. See Directivity. GPeterson (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now could you discuss your proposed changes on the Talk page so everyone interested in the article can participate and we can achieve consensus? --Chetvorno^TALK 03:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Chetvorno:- So we are now in full agreement that the directivity of a large dish antenna is 50 dBi, and that of a short dipole antenna is 1.76 dBi? -- GPeterson (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wireless power, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plasma. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GLPeterson. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Rufus Ritchie".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|User:GLPeterson/Rufus Ritchie}}, paste it in the edit box at , and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JMHamo,

    Thanks for following up on the draft article submission, entitled "Rufus Ritchie." . . . After his pioneering contribution to the advancement of science and technology is recognized perhaps someone else will see fit to reintroduce his name. . . .

-- GPeterson (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...of "Get out of my face" is not conducive to editing in a collegial atmosphere. Please restrict yoruself to the issues, especially in edit summaries which cannot be withdrawn or struck afterwards. SpinningSpark 22:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spinningspark,

    Thanks for your comment. . . .

GPeterson (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm MrX. I noticed that you made a change to an article, World Wireless System, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please avoid using archaic wording from 100+ year old primary sources when describing technology and please check to make sure that what you add is actually in the cited sources. - MrX 03:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per this revert without comment and this revert with comment that you are "Continued development in anticipation of merging with the "Surface wave article", redirect pages are not for developing articles, please use your personal project space. If you are WP:BRD restoring this page it has been returned to the status quo ante, so you should "discuss" and not engage in back-and-forth reverts because that will probably be viewed as edit-warring. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

- MrX 21:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at World Wireless System. - MrX 21:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GLPeterson: it might be helpful if you chimed in on the talk page of World Wireless System to discuss your proposed changes with other editors. clpo13_(talk) 22:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

clpo13: I've tried that in the past and my efforts have been stifled. I would like to take a stab at implementing a program of consensus decision-making using the Quaker-based model (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#Quaker-based_model) but have come to believe there is no mechanism for assigning a facilitator to get the ball rolling. Wikipedia editing used to be a joyful experience. Over the last 12 or so months it has become psychologically taxing. Nevertheless, I will try to persevere, with hope that I might eventually make a small contribution leading to betterment of the human condition. Thank you for your kind concern. GPeterson (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

“Starting from two facts that the earth is a conductor insulated in space, and that a body cannot be charged without causing an equivalent displacement of electricity in the earth, I undertook to construct a machine suited for creating as large a displacement as possible of the earth's electricity.”

“If ever we can ascertain at what period the earth's charge, when disturbed, oscillates with respect to an oppositely electrified system or known circuit, we shall know a fact possibly of the greatest importance to the welfare of the human race.  I propose to seek for the period by means of an electrical oscillator, or a source of alternating electric currents."

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wireless power transfer‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Hello, GLPeterson. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

GLPeterson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

You have my assurances that I will no longer continue to make revisions in this fashion.GLPeterson (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Thank you. I have taken you at your word that you won't continue and unblocked you. Please use the article talk pages to discuss your ideas with the other editors. Even if other editors disagree with you, there are ways of getting other opinions and mediation that helps avoid edit wars. Of the editors that disagree with you, good ones will still try to help you even if all you can do is agree to disagree. Just ask them.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GLPeterson. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Beat receptor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

Hello, GLPeterson. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Beat receptor. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:GLPeterson/Beat receptor. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:GLPeterson/Beat receptor. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: This topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beat receptor.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Beat receptor. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]