Talk:Rustum Roy

message: Regarding the tone tag applied by Victoriagirl, exactly what were you referring to? If you can improve the article, please do so, or explain here what you think is unencyclopedic.  --Blainster 23:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In short, it is both inapprpriate and unencyclopedic to refer to a subject by his or her first name. Easy enough to fix, but I would prefer leaving the clean-up to one familiar with Roy and his work. Victoriagirl 03:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now I see I've embarrassed myself... My apologies.Victoriagirl 03:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedic tone

message: Apparently this guy has worked out a way to liberate hydrogen and oxygen from water (Article in National Geographic).  I'm trying to work out if this is hokum or not.  While the source (National Geographic) is reliable enough, this article and Mr Roy's website makes me think it's yet another "free energy from water" scams.  Is there any independent proof of this?  Scientific paper?   Richard W.M. Jones 12:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Singapore: the Nature article is irrelevant to Rustum Roy so the link has been deleted. — Rgdboer (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Burning" salt water 

message: I'm concerned that there seems to be a lot of claims made here but no citations proving them.  He seems to have won a lot of awards... but?  Everything looks impressive but Wikipedia does not work that way. I suggest this page should have a nice lookover and get it straightened out.Sgerbic (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree here with this comment by . This page has chronically had bad problems with content that has no sources at all. Further, the whole articles is backed up too much to primary sources heavily. 69.50.69.34 (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with  and removed the "awards" that had zero sources backing them up at all. 69.50.69.34 (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies again for that mistake with my revert to your edits. I'm glad to see that you've undone what I did. Yeah, dude... if there are obvious problems with the article, have at it! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs)  00:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, apologies accepted, no big deal ! :) 69.50.69.34 (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Calling out explained edits in edit summaries with detailed explanations as vandalism perhaps underlying point-of-view motivations on the part of the party actively attempting to cast aspersions. This appears to violate Wikipedia policies not to "assume bad faith". The disrespect for use of references on Wikipedia is disgusting. We should not include material that is questioned and then not backed up by any references of any kind, such as the "Awards" section. 69.50.69.34 (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

text: The awards section relied very heavily on a primary sources, which is the main concern and why I removed those awards.  I didn't catch the other content that I caught in that revert, which i've added back in. -- Dane2007 talk  03:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations?