=Am I disruptive ?
Steve, the criticism of Calo's paper is addressed in the two articles by Cloonan and Trell  that are also in the Wikipedia article about Ruggero Santilli. These two articles were there, you ignored them and quickly eliminated the entire section. There was also another article about ongoing experiments that you ignored and cancelled...but you erased everything so nobody knows....in addition you and i are not qualified to take on pros or cons, just to report it and you avoided and prohibited that. I do not know where the idea of law suit came from. You are the one who got the three legal points and said that you were saying everything you wanted since no legal  suit could be won against you . What a fine example of editorial ethics, I already told what I think about your position, but you ignored it.  If you  do not want to add the articles, as are in the Wikipedia page itself , I could not care less, it is the loss of the readers who do not read about ongoing research with its pros and cons. I thought  it was interesting since I am sure there  are more and that shows a vital field of research. However I take issue with associating Santilli, with fraud, kook, fringe  and I am sure that it is against the rules of Wikipedia on libel and reckless behavior with the clear intent to damage since the fringe scientist definition is not supported by anything of value,  except, perhaps some blogs and  tabloids which, according to the rules, have no source value since they are not peer-reviewed articles! Unless you change the rules again. Scuranova