Talk:Microwave auditory effect/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Hum/The Bloop

Seems like this effect combined with background radiation could help explain these unexplained noises. Is there any research to support this? The Hum Bloop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.179.21.221 (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

On the uselessness of this stub

The suggestion that this pathetic stub should be merged with my most authoritative (just google and see the ranking...) full length article "Frey effect" is simply a joke!

Indeed, when I first tried to fix this feable stub ( 04:41, 5 January 2005) it has been very quickly reversed by "The Anome" (11:07, 5 January 2005 ).

I then started my own Frey effect article.

Therefore, better than merging this now totally useless stub, it would be much wiser to delete it !!!

--203.198.108.159 12:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I think people are more familiar with the term "Frey" than "microwave auditory effect" and it is NOT much wiser at all to just delete it. --AI 07:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, there you have it. By the admission of the author, Frey effect is a knowing and deliberate content fork, and should be deleted. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Is there proof this is the actual "author." Yes, maybe the actual the author of his contributions... Author of the entire article ? ? Gimme a break. --AI 07:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

No one is afraid of the "CIA psychotronic superweapon". No one except you. You seem to be suffering from paranoid delusions, and I urge you to take your health seriously and get professional help. You are clearly not thinking straight, as evidenced by the fact that you openly admit that you didn't like the way an existing article covered a subject so created your own competing article, and then call it a "groundless accusation" that you created a POV fork. That's what a POV fork is. Your entire pattern of editing indicates that you are having trouble recognizing what is reality and what is delusion; I urge you once again to get professional help. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Are you going to denied that you are far from being perfectly fit mentally? Your own personal user page suggest otherwise:

"due to illness, I may be less active on Wikipedia for a while. Hopefully I'll be back up to strength soon"...

- Antaeus Feldspar

You are wrong to think that vandalism could be a cure to your physical ailments, for beams of muons that are the real cause can only be thwarted with depth of materials such as rock for instance or by adding some distance between you and their source.--203.198.242.116 11:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Again -- I urge you to seek professional help. These "beams of muons" are delusions. You need real help. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, personal comments are forbidden in Wikipedia. --AI 07:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

To clarify for anyone that might be confused, personal comments are not forbidden on Wikipedia. Personal attacks, such as yours, are. Even if I am frustrated by the behavior that originates from this contributor's paranoia, I am sincerely concerned by his mental health and I urge him to seek treatment. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Instead of deleting, redirect after merge. --AI 02:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

POV forks, because they are created to try and get the material in without consensus, have the burden of proof of showing that any of their material is worthy of merging. It goes without saying that whichever article is eliminated will in fact be made a redirect to the remaining article. It is not a foregone conclusion that any material from the POV fork deserves to be merged before that occurs. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Well you cannot just delete it before everything has been reviewed for merging and this is a complicated subject. The merge has already been done... --AI 07:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Now that the question has been openly raised by some readers, I can finally reveal that, yes, I was indeed working on several additional sub sections. So be patient, wait, watch and learn.

If the US build this psychotronic superweapon, we will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry, but we will conquer the Moon and Mars first.

-CAS Academician Ouyang Ziyuan

--203.198.242.116 11:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

For now I've decided to mark the article as NPOV, as well as requiring cleanup. As stated below, I fully intend to actually do some research on this topic (following the references that exist and are reputable) and remove any material that seems not well-supported. Hopefully this is an acceptable solution, though it means that the MAE page will be in a dubious state for the next couple days. Colin M. 09:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Frey effect / Microwave auditory effect merge

I've taken the liberty of merging the Frey effect page into the microwave auditory effect page. The microwave auditory effect page has now inherited the cleanup tag, as I believe most of the sections of the Frey effect page needed heavy copy editing and fact checking. I still plan on going through and finishing up this dirty work at some point soon. In the meantime, it's still the case that many references are duplicated. In fact, this has probably gotten worse because of the merge. Sometime in the next week or so I intend to be done with the cleanup and will remove the tag at that point unless someone objects. Colin M. 09:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar, Salsb and Colin M. this is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. note: added by an anon user who doesn't sign his/her accusations

Give it up. None of the changes I've ever made to this article even remotely count as vandalism. This is about the 10th "last warning" I've received from you. Given the stunning lack of my editing privileges being banned to date, I think it's more than safe to say these are completely empty threats. Also, quit pasting that on the article page, it's completely inappropriate for inclusion in the article. If you have a problem with the POV or facts of my edits, by all means discuss them on the talk page, but the real page is not a place for baseless, unsigned, personal accusations. Colin M. 14:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Colin, did you trim any of the contents of Frey Effect while merging? --AI 07:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

No. The only contents change that I made during merge was a slight rewrite of the introduction, to better explain the different names (it would have been confusing to have it referred to as the Frey effect and microwave auditory effect inconsistently). You can see the two versions here: Frey Effect before merge Microwave Auditory Effect after merge Colin M. 08:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, but now Salsb has blanked a section[1] before anyone else could discuss it. See discussion subtitle below: #Natural Carriers --AI 09:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Natural Carriers

I asked for a citation on the frey effect page as to the relationships of any of these natural carriers to neuron firings, since as written it looks like speculation. I can't find any myself, so I am removing the section pending supporting documentation . Salsb 16:56, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion that it looks like speculation should not determine if the section should be removed. Others may have references. Consensus should determine if the section is removed. --AI 07:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Please provide these references. Information need to be verifiable. Otherwise the section appears to be nothing more than a collection of basic facts about decay, combined with speculation about neural firings. BTW the web links to the different decay processes are misleading with the text following, as they link to explanations of the processes, but have no direct connection to neuron firing. Salsb 17:21, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Since this article is clearly controversial, my personal opinion is that every section should eventually have its own list of references that can be used to easily verify the veracity of each section. The section under discussion was not particularly relevant to the article and much of the content would be better off summarized briefly, with links to more detailed pages such as beta decay and so on. However, removing it entirely may not have been the best choice. I'm fine with it in or out, but if we bring it back in I thin kit will need substantial revision. Colin M. 11:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I restored this section which had been blanked[2]. --AI 12:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Allan H. Frey

I just created Frey's article and its still a stub if any of you are into doing some research and writing. --AI 06:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Colin M.'s response to personal attacks

I have decided I will no longer respond to any personal attacks directed against myself by any users on this page. Instead I will simply remove them outright. Anyone willing to discuss factual evidence about this article is welcome to do so. However, anyone who attacks or reverts my edits on the basis of groundless accusations such as:

• lacking "even the most basic scientific knowledges" [3],
• being a "fool" [4],
• being a "puppet remotely controlled with beams of muons" [5], or
• being "simply no match" [6] for understanding this article,

is in violation of Wikipedia policy and will simply be ignored. I have taken the liberty of removing these attacks, as they add nothing to the discussion.

Anyone who is concerned that I may be a vandal is encouraged to take a look at my contributions history, and anyone who is concerned about my professional/scientific qualifications is encouraged to search for me with CiteSeer or even Google. I use my real name on Wikipedia because I stand behind what I say. Colin M. 01:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Warning For The New Gang-vandals

Antaeus Feldspar, Salsb, Colin M., Sasquatch, Jtkiefer and 68.39.174.238, be warned ! The next time you vandalize a page you will also be blocked from editing Wikipedia.--218.102.23.115 05:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

As I warned you on one of your several talk pages once you submit edits to wikipedia the article no longer is your and thus you have no right to it, in actuality your edits are the ones that are the vandalism and I urge you to stop before we have to block you to stop the vandalism. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

heh heh, did I mention I permablocked that IP as an open proxy? well, don't use proxies as I will find out and block them, really, your doing us a favour by finding us more open proxies to block! Sasquatcht|c 05:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure this goes without saying, but just so everyone is clear: this anonymous user has been making these "last warning" about being "blocked from editing Wikipedia" threats against practically anyone who edits this article for at least a couple months now. Given that I've never been blocked from Wikipedia, I assert that this is a completely empty threat, and would like to let the users above know that this threat shouldn't deter them from making good-faith edits to this article. Colin M. 07:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh, nevermind, not open (i don't think, but they do have port 8080 open for some weird reason) but blocked anyways for repeated vandalism. Sasquatcht|c 20:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Tin-foil hat

Greetings. The "Frey effect" or "Microwave auditory effect" is a real effect. I can understand that some believers in government mind control conspiracy will have a field day with it. I have experienced the effect first-hand for decades, and I have so far detected no attempts of using this effect for anything. Quite the contrary. Various computer screens (CRT) and mobile phone (GSM) antennas on roof tops and WaveLAN (IEEE 802.11) antennas (esp. Apple AirPort) are for me the most disturbing sources of this electrosmog. For those who experience this effect, the reference to "tinfoil hat" is less than useful. Note that aluminum foil is almost transparent in radio spectrum due to it permittivity. OTOH, I have tried EMF safety garments from EMF Safety Superstore with some success. Theoretically, I can imagine someone might attempt to use the effect for mind control, but it appears rather farfetched. Wikiborg 2005-11-10 10 21:23:14 +0100.

Well, the reason tinfoil hat is linked in the See Also section is a little ironic. A lot of the material has actually been salvaged from the contributions of a believer in mind-control conspiracies who added "tinfoil hat" himself as, presumably, what he believed to be a means of protection from the "beams of muons" he thought were being used to control him and others. Much of his original research had to be taken out of the article, of course, but he himself demonstrated that there was a relevant connection between the two -- namely, that a tinfoil hat was regarded to be protection from the mind-control possibilities of the Frey effect, by those of course who believed that such mind-control possibilities were being used. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting.

Microwaves can be transmitted as a beam much like ultrasound usied in the HyperSonic Sound technology. Thus, theoretically, it could be for hypnosis of a subject during sleep. A comparable method has been tried with moderate success in hypnopedia. Those who feel they have reason for concern would want to install TEMPEST shielding around their sleeping quarters. Might this of relevance to tinfoil hat? -- Wikiborg

Hmmmm, TEMPEST certainly looks like at least something that should get a "See Also" link from tinfoil hat]. We'd have to be careful in going farther than that not to wander into original research, though. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• he believed to be a means of protection from the "beams of muons" he thought were being used to control him

Anteus, this piece of blattant lies from you is simply an outrage! I never pretended that a simple tin foil hat could block the beams of muons used by the CIA (invasive stupidity deleted), but did mention instead the deep mine shielding and the the deep space shielding. Sub-atomic particle psychotronic carrier such as mesons are way too penetrating to be stop by such a thin foil of aluminium.--219.76.154.49 08:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the link, it's not very professional and detracts from the subject material. Batvette (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Gay bomb/Homokaasu

Why are these linked from the "See also" section? As far as i can tell, they don't even have the tenuous relevence that Tinfoil hat has. Can they be removed?

Neutrinos, &c.

Article says: "While the USSR is supposed to have concentrated their effort in the microwave band of the spectrum, frequencies that can be easily thwarted with conventional EMF shielding like Faraday Cage or Tempest, it is highly suspected that the US might have explored and mastered more exotic, ground penetrating, metal penetrating long range carriers, possibly neutrinos, muons or pions, allowing by the same time the achievement of even higher limit of resolution." I don't know much about particle physics, but I know enough to know that these claims of using neutrinos, muons or pions are utterly preposterous and impossible. How, tell me, is any device to generate and direct these particles for use in a weapon supposed to work? And how are they (especially neutrinos) supposed to have a biological effect? The whole thing just sounds like incoherent conspiracy theory nonsense. --SJK 12:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does. I removed "pions neutrinos, etc." linas 00:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Full spectrum electromagnetic perception

This section seems a bit out of place. It says gamma rays can cause visual effects and proceeds to say that this was first observed on the apollo flights with cosmic radiation and gives a link to a NASA document conscerning the flashes. This document does not mention gamma rays at all or any other electromagnetic radiation, only the fast protons, alpha and beta rays refered to as cosmic radiation. Then we are left with only the two facts that IR radiation can make neurons fire and that x-rays can be directly observed visualy (which also has no references, though I believe it is true). This I think belongs more to a "see also" section or similar since they have nothing to do with the Frey effect other than being caused by EM radiation.

If no one objects I will delete the whole section.

Knuthove (14:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

Natural sources of electromagnetic perception

Meteor sound is neither microwave induced nor is it 'heard' indirectly such as microwave pulses are. Meteor sound is apparently heard by a transducer (conductive ground, piece of sheet-metal) that converts VLF electromagnetic energy to sound which is then heard. As the section has nothing to do with the article, I have boldly deleted it. There is a similar subsection in Meteoroid: Sound Jim1138 (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"Shorter wavelength portions of the EM spectrum"

The article states that "The microwave auditory effect was later discovered to be inducible with shorter-wavelength portions of the electromagnetic spectrum." Does anyone have a source for this? Googling it shows the exact same line crops up in numerous places but no source. If true and not referring to radiation of a wavelength below that of visible light such as X-Rays it would eliminate the main problem with using the effect to provide communications,i.e. the excessively high radiation dose the subjects were exposed to. If no-one can find a source I will delete the line from the article. 131.251.252.96 (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Who knew?

Learn something new every day, no matter how hard. Bearian (talk)

About adding Voice to skull to the See also section of the article

According to wp:see_also, "one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." Voice to skull is related to Microwave auditory effect because the former supposedly causes similar effect in human or animal subjects as the latter. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Given that Voice to skull is merely a redirect to the 'Conspiracy theories' section of this article, the redirect is utterly pointless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Somehow I mistakenly added this section here while I meant to put it in the talk page of Auditory hallucination. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Medical Usage and Experimental Treatment

The articles Ambulance and Lobotomy may expand on this topic. So may Pest control. Keep up the good work.Habatchii (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There is also a WIP:

WIP patents

Habatchii (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Update: 101719a See also; Project MKUltra Habatchii (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Patent applications that are not yet issued are self-published, non-independent, primary sources for Wikipedia purposes. Also, patented ideas need not be workable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternative views

should be represented so long as they are sourced and credible and taken out of proportion to the majority view. Baphy93 (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies before telling us what this article 'should' do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Violation has since been removed thus remark invalid. Is not consistently removing any view opposite to your own edit warring? Baphy93 (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You have been reverted in two different articles, by multiple contributors, for promoting the same fringe conspiracy theory. You appear not to understand the purpose of Wikipedia. I suggest that you do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Given that that same users are the ones consistently doing it, people who have not researched the topic themselves and consequentially not weighed all opinions relevant you are yourself guilty of edit warring over revisions which were not exaggerated but fairly stated. You own neither the website nor the articles and vehement opposition to the presence of opposing opinions in spite of the strength of your belief does not merit forever drowning them out. Baphy93 (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Baphy93/TANA WINKLER, work it out here. Creating multiple accounts to skirt a 3RR will likely get you a longer block. - Location (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Not me, just someone else who wishes the whole story be represented in proportion in article. Baphy93 (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The proposed text is entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia as it is based on flimsy sources. When someone is facing charges of "a bloody shooting rampage" they are likely to propose all kinds of defense that may be totally unrelated to reality, and Wikipedia is not available to promote such personal statements into encyclopedic content. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

They both died in the process. Did you read the citations for those? Baphy93 (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not useful for Wikipedia for generic discussions to take place. Instead, please present some proposed text and a reliable source. The core of my comment is that the personal thoughts of the person responsible for a shooting rampage is by definition unreliable for whether or not microwaves can influence/control people. If there is a disagreement here about whether a source is reliable, the approach is to raise the issue at WP:RSN. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The original article itself even say this is possible. Giving Alan Rucker's opinion WP:UNDUE weight in violation of Wikipedia policies as he is neither a neuroscientist nor a military communications expert. It is a question of psychology in as much as it relates to the capability of torture to produce the posited result but beyond that it belongs to science. What I've added is within the policies of Wikipedia, it does not give unfair bias and merely presents other relevant and popular opinions in their appropriate place. Baphy93 (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered..."

That is grounds enough for the justification of the edits. Baphy93 (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And we are back to someone inserting conspiracy theories. I would ask that the person discuss here please. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a long-term problem, so I've requested 6 mos. to 1 year semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Might take a while, though, it looks backed up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Sticking to what is known

The feasibility of transmitting speech by exploiting the Frey effect is documented in the scientific literature. This, with other capabilities that are also documented as feasible in the scientific literature, could, in theory, enable applications that would abuse human rights by inflicting what might be described, without melodrama, as mind control. The applications potentially enabled are consistent with the testimonies as to what they experience, of believers in the so-called "government mind control conspiracy" who believe in that conspiracy theory because of their own experience. I think Wikipedia could simply mention this in an objective, factual, and neutral way, without either denigrating that community gratuitously, or championing its (possibly misguided) cause. I don't see that objective, factual neutrality as having been exemplified on either this page, or the rival page of the fork.

Clearly, maintaining objective, factual neutrality requires the reining in of all those with emotional commitment to propaganda agendas. There are (for example) those with the dominant agenda of poo-pooing what they might call the government mind control conspiracy theory. There could be those who believe in the conspiracy theory, and who wish to promote it through Wikipedia, which is not what Wikipedia is for. There are those who believe the conspiracy theory, and who wish not only to promote that, but who also wish to expound florid pet theories of their own about how so-called mind control is inflicted (if it is), for example using muons.

Somebody really needs to write an objective, factual and neutral entry, which is fair to both sides, perhaps starting from scratch. Alas, although I could provide input to that process, I am not qualified to write the entry myself. That is because I am (some might say) part of the conspiracy theory camp. No matter how hard I tried to be neutral, some would consider that I was exceptionally incapable of that neutrality, because of my role in publishing the science page at Slavery.org.uk, and my other activities.

The important thing is to stick to the known facts, rather than setting out to influence the opinions of those new to this topic who are only just beginning to form opinions. John Allman (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

You can't just jump from "We can make people hear voices" to "we can mind control people". Indeed, we've had the ability to make people hear voices for hundreds of thousands of years, yet we still haven't ever demonstrated real mind control. We've even had the ability to remotely make people hear voices which seem to come from nowhere for decades. Still no mind control.

Even if we had demonstrable mind control to reference, we're not using this article to take two disparate claims and combine them together to make new claims about what they could do, even if both claims were true. We're certainly not going to speculate that something is happening just because we believe it could happen. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I would argue the citations used to 'discredit' the large numbers of people reporting electronic harassment are pretty shallow of and by themselves. One calls a statement delusional, but is simply a direct link to a single write up (which is then used as a strawman argument to infer any and all other write ups are of the same line). The Cardiff University study is the most bizarre one - marking the citation of scientific literature and MK-Ultra (the latter well documented via the Church Committee) as 'signs of delusions' - last time I checked, no-one could 'delude' a scientific paper into existing, and the Cardiff paper seems pretty circular - presuming the writings are false, then using that to ascribe mental illness - this is despite the fact microwaves are detectable, can be easily recorded (albeit with expensive devices) and there has been at least one case won involving microwave based harassment ("Kathleen Watterson, plaintiff vs. Matti B. Aro"), which begs the question why Cardiff is using psychologists and not electrical engineers (how are psychologists going to detect microwaves if their training has no bearing of relation to it?). The citation of the New York Times is also questionable, given that the Guardian exposed their active collusion with both the CIA and the US government (and given this is government technology, they have a vested interest to deter any possible lawsuits from occurring) - I wouldn't count the citation of one relatively unknown psychiatrist to be an overwhelming consensus, and no model has been proposed on how one would separate genuine mental illness from that caused by such technologies, which would ascribe near similar symptomology ("Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C Clarke). It's pretty clear there's rear-guard action going on here, essentially trying to poison the well with a lopsided, adverse form of reporting, and I doubt Wikipedia will allow original research criticisms to stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.187.47 (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories"

under "Conspiracy theories" it is stated that: "Numerous individuals suffering from auditory hallucinations, delusional disorders[9] or other mental illness have claimed that government agents use forms of mind control technologies based on microwave signals to transmit sounds and thoughts into their heads as a form of electronic harassment, referring to the technology as 'voice to skull' or 'V2K'."[10]

Unless the parties authoring and promoting such statements have an obvious agenda evidenced by including such statements under the rubric "conspiracy theories" started as: "Numerous individuals suffering from auditory hallucinations ...", I wonder how are they so sure about it. Even if "verifiable", I found the citations very shaky. I could produce plenty of more substantive citations to the contrary directly from U.S. research facilities and both APAs.

Sonic guns are being even commercially used in the open. Why could those claiming "those listening to voices are just crazies" be so sure about it? MIC themselves have admitted to it!

// __ Hear Voices? It May Be an Ad: An A&E Billboard 'Whispers' a Spooky Message Audible Only in Your Head in Push to Promote Its New 'Paranormal' Program, by Andrew Hampp. Published on December 10, 2007 http://adage.com/article/news/hear-voices-ad/122491/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_weapon

// __ Obama approves sonic cannons for use in east coast gas and oil exploration theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/18/obama-sonic-cannons-gas-oil-exploration

// __ Sonic Bullets to Be Acoustic Weapon of the Future http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130225

On the abusive torturous radiation beaming on people:

// __ D.R. Justesen. "Microwaves and Behavior", Am Psychologist, 392 (Mar): 391–401, 1975 ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1137231

Microwave ray gun controls crowds with noise DAILY NEWS 3 July 2008 by David Hambling newscientist.com/article/dn14250-microwave-ray-gun-controls-crowds-with-noise/

Army Yanks ‘Voice-To-Skull Devices’ Site 05.09.08 8:26 AM wired.com/2008/05/army-removes-pa/

The Other MEDUSA: A Microwave Sound Weapon 08.16.07 8:21 AM wired.com/2007/08/the-other-medus/

Report: Nonlethal Weapons Could Target Brain, Mimic Schizophrenia 02.18.08 6:14 AM. wired.com/2008/02/report-nonletha/

https://sites.google.com/site/targetedindividuals101/home/v2k

DAVID HAMBLING SECURITY 07.06.08 7:00 AM. The Microwave Scream Inside Your Skull wired.com/2008/07/the-microwave-s/

Weapons Technology. MEDUSA (Mob Excess Deterrent Using Silent Audio). Microwave ray gun controls crowds with noise. July 2008 by David Hambling thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/03files/MEDUSA_Ray_Gun_.html

Court to Defendant: Stop Blasting That Man’s Mind! DAVID HAMBLING. SECURITY 07.01.09 5:59 PM wired.com/2009/07/court-to-defendant-stop-blasting-that-mans-mind/ Albretch Mueller (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. Wikipedia editorial policies do not allow us to "connect the dots" and conclude something that our sources have not expressly concluded (e.g. speculations about uses of technology + microwave research = government is using microwaves to covertly torture people). Also read WP:RS our policy on reliable sources, as sites like "thelivingmoon.com" are not usable here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Except the article links are clearly not 'speculative' (unless Wikipedia editors are fond of pro-government cherry picking), and in this case, the US government isn't 'covertly' torturing people, so much as as *overtly* doing so: "Microwave ray gun controls crowds with noise". If it's done overtly, zero steps are required to infer covert operations (how exactly is Wikipedia expecting evidence of a *covert* operation to materialise anyway? Is it covert if it's openly proven, readily available as documentation?). We know by logical deduction that if guns exist, they'd also be used covertly (likewise with cars, or planes, or chemicals, etc etc), there's absolutely no reason why a naturally stealthy weapon that leaves it's target relatively physically unharmed would not be used covertly if it's demonstrated it's worth in an overt setting. Heck, even the last article the guy above you cited is literally covert microwave usage, and you're claiming it's not a thing that happens? Who do you guys work for, the US government? Doesn't that violate Wikipedia's vested interests policies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.187.47 (talk) 08:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I noticed this section as well. The wording is unfair and unbalanced. The first referenced news article gives the balanced view. First the individuals are interviewed. Their view. Then the psychiatrist is interviewed. His view. Then the article finishes up by saying "But these men disagree". At no point does the article explicitly state that it has been shown that all the individuals identified are sufferring from medical problems that have been proven to cause what these individuals believe. Therefore the text is unbalanced and does not show both points of view. Michael Z Freeman (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

When it comes to fringe theories and claims (and the claim that the government is using technology to inflict mind control on large numbers of the population is certainly fringe), Wikipedia is not "neutral", we follow the WP:FRINGE guideline, which prohibits us from giving equal validity and "balance" (per WP:GEVAL). Primary weight is correctly given to the high quality academic sources cited in the section that explicitly emphasize the mainstream view of psychiatrists and mental health professionals. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

-> Maybe someone can edit the article? In part Electronic Warfare, the sentence: 'Microwave effects have been discussed as a possible source of the otherwise unexplained illnesses of U.S. diplomats in Cuba and China occurring in 2017 and 2018,[11] though this possibility has been discounted by numerous experts.' is no longer valabel. The fresh report: A Consensus Study Report of National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2020 / http://nap.edu/25889 proves that the possibility of RF as course of the illness is very likely. In the summary, is is more likely than other circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.87.232.193 (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

NPOV?

"...people fearing mind control" seems to be pushing a point of view. If mind control is real, then they are right to be afraid, or at least concerned. "Concerned about an abuse of the technology" would be a little more open-minded. Ideas?

Kortoso (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

There are websites about this topic which were made by people who were declared sane by psychiatrists. For example, Todd Giffen (author of www.obamasweapon.com) was released from the mental hospital after he was declared sane by Dr. Seth Farber (www.sethhfarber.com) who confirmed in writing that Todd Giffen is not delusional and that he was falsely diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic. Other example, Eleanor White (author of www.raven1.net which used to be the most popular site about this subject for 16 years) was declared sane by a psychiatrist. Your problem is that you look only at the weirdos who write crazy stuff. Compare the problem to rape: most women who are raped, won't make a website about their ordeal. It's only the craziest women who will do that. By looking at those crazy websites you don't have the faintest idea about what people believe. Therefore, this article is not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.178.3.105 (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

People who lived through psychiatric episodes are not necessarily insane; those who suffered from psychosis may not be schizophrenic; people also fully recover from delirium episodes. Of course, many also believe in nonsense for non-psychiatric reasons. But what matters to us are what are considered independent reliable sources. —PaleoNeonate – 00:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Todd Giffen and Eleanor White exposed their views to psychiatrists who declared them sane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.178.3.105 (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Satellites used for covert harassment

I removed an addition which said "Dr John Hall has published two books based on direct experience and evidence of his research into covert satellite technology being used to harass targeted individuals. He describes the covert and classified technology within these satellites that can project voices into targeted individuals..." etc. The addition also mentions the European Coalition against Covert Harassment (EUCACH). Here are the cited sources:

• https://www.amazon.com/Guinea-Pigs-Technologies-John-Hall/dp/163135552X
• https://www.amazon.com/New-Breed-Satellite-Terrorism/dp/1606939440/
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iywpTJLajwQ
• https://www.facebook.com/eucach
• https://eucach.wordpress.com/

The two Amazon references point to books that are self-published, the publisher being a very sketchy concern that charges fees for fake work. The writer of the books is Dr. John Hall of San Antonio, whose claim to fame is that he was interviewed about mind control on the conspiracy theory radio show Coast to Coast AM.

The Youtube video is self-published by EUCACH which doesn't tell us that the larger world has noticed. Same with the Facebook page of EUCACH and their blog page on Wordpress.

If someone wanted to re-insert this material then what's needed are independent third-party reliable sources talking about Dr Hall or about EUCACH. The New York Times piece I already linked above mentions Dr Hall, but it doesn't say anything about microwave auditory effect, which means it's off-topic for this article. Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for opening the dialog, I appreciate you taking the time to keep Wikipedia good. Let me try and address your points and see if we can improve the content or provide better references or remove the contribution.

You say the two books are self published, self published would mean Dr John Hall published them but you link to a website called Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, Inc which states on its about page "Founded in 1965, SFWA informs, supports, promotes, defends, and advocates for its members." It is clearly biased in favor of its members and not an impartial source. Its members are authors of science fiction and fantasy books. The page you link to "Alerts for writers" gives a detailed account of Strategic Book Publishing & Rights Agency, LLC the company that published Dr John Halls books. Therefore Dr Hall did not self publish his books. The page you link to mentions nothing about Dr Hall as a writer. It does have a section relating to the publishing company not Dr Hall. Dr John Halls authored works and the business practices of a company that published his work have no bearing on each other. Dr John Hall is a customer/client of the publishing company not the owner and not an employee. I disagree with you trying to link Dr Hall and his work to poor business practices performed by employees of the publisher that chose to publish his books. You state also the publisher charges fees for fake work. It is irrelevant what the publisher does in its day to day business activities within this context of wiki contribution, the publisher is a commercial business and not the author of the books by Dr John Hall. In response to your statement that "Dr. John Hall of San Antonio, whose claim to fame is that he was interviewed about mind control on the conspiracy theory radio show Coast to Coast AM ". Firstly I was not aware one had to be famous to be taken seriously, secondly linking to the New York Times (NYT) a commercial newspaper that on its wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Accusations_of_bias_stance has a section accusations of bias. Further on its Reputation section it says a 2012 survey from Pew Research Center "asked respondents about their views on credibility of various news organizations. Among respondents who gave a rating, 49% said that the believed "all or most" of the Times's reporting, while 50% disagreed" and further again in that specific NYT article you link to it states "While Dr. Hall has faced scrutiny from the Texas Medical Board over his mental fitness, he retains his license". Clearly his mental fitness was assessed and clearly if he retains his licence then his mental fitness is fine and continues to be a respected medical professional to many people. Lastly in the same sentence where you link the NYT article you state "whose claim to fame is that he was interviewed about mind control on the conspiracy theory radio show Coast to Coast AM . On the Wikipedia page for the radio show it states "Coast to Coast AM is an American late-night radio talk show that deals with a variety of topics. Most frequently the topics relate to either the paranormal or conspiracy theories" and the page goes on to state "According to estimates by Talkers Magazine, Coast to Coast AM has a cumulative weekly audience of around 2.75 million unique listeners listening for at least five minutes, making it the most listened-to program in its time slot.[2] Today, the program is heard on more than 600 stations in the U.S., Canada, Australia and Guam" It does not account for listeners in other countries like the UK from where I am from. So coast to coast deals with a variety of topics, its the most listened to radio show for its time slot and it also states "hosts have cut interviews short when it became clear that guests were being dishonest, unethical, unintelligible, abusive, or patronizing". Just because this author was interviewed by this well known radio show doesn't warrant your statement his claim to fame and has no bearing on his published books and the content within them. A quick search of youtube for Dr John Hall brought up hundreds of interviews with various people.

I do agree that this video is self published however as it was in the European Parliament there will be official EU Parliament recordings. You state "doesn't tell us that the larger world has noticed" is that not the point of informing law makers in the european parliament and posting to youtube and contributing it to wikipedia so that the wider world does notice what is going on. Their website is located here https://eucach.org but it is having DNS issues, it seems they were mapping their domain to their site on wordpress.com which is done and used by many professional people and organisations around the world. I am happy to remove this section regarding EUCACH and I will go look for the official EU Parliament material regarding this briefing.

here is a 3rd party review http://www.icaact.org/articles-new-breed-movie.html#.WRC6I_nyuUk I will search for more. On EUCACH this section of the contribution can be removed and I will come back with some better resources. 86.141.42.217 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC) many thanks

He was also interviewed by Alex Jones on infowars.com. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzNBPxP-bl4 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfgZrRoflCI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.178.3.105 (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2017‎ (UTC)

AS the SFWA link points out, SBPRA (Strategic Book Publishing and Rights Agency essentially a vanity/predatory publisher. It certainly doesn't seem to be considered a reliable publisher. --tronvillain (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Microwave auditory effect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.navysbirprogram.com/NavySearch/Summary/summary.aspx?pk=F5B07D68-1B19-4235-B140-950CE2E19D08
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010211200244/http://www.brooks.af.mil/AFRL/HED/hedr/reports/human_exposure/humtb31.html to http://www.brooks.af.mil/AFRL/HED/hedr/reports/human_exposure/humtb31.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://es.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/sbir/other/monana/kohn.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060218181108/http://www.his.sunderland.ac.uk/durhamab/ramin.doc to http://www.his.sunderland.ac.uk/durhamab/ramin.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 - Hello, Goodbye, Goodnight

This edit added a sentence about an Air Force project that looked into the feasibility of producing "voices in the head". A sentence from an article by Sharon Weinberger entitled "Microwave weapons: Wasted energy / Despite 50 years of research on high-power microwaves, the US military has yet to produce a usable weapon" was isolated and the surrounding context (no such weapon was produced, the quality of the research was questioned, etc.) intentionally omitted . I don't understand how this might have improved the article, and Wikipedia is not in the business of fear-mongering, so I have reverted the additions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Please explain what is factually incorrect about the sentence or how it misleads vis a vis its original context. I can't see it. sirlanz 02:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a selective quote, from an article that barely mentions MAE and that concludes that no viable MAE weapon was developed. VQuakr (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Selectivity, when executed in an attempt to distort truth, is surely a fault. What is the distortion/untruth in the sentence here? sirlanz 02:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

As outlined in both this article and the Electronic harassment article, there is a WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory that the government is somehow actively using microwave technology to transmit voices into people's heads on a large scale, and that various government patents and research programs are evidence that this fringe theory is true. For us to comply with WP:FRINGE, "the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear". The edit in question extracts a detail from a source in such a way to support the fringe theory (there was a military research project, it researched the feasibility of transmitting voices into people's heads) but neglects to place it into the larger context given by the source (it was part of a larger defense research project with many other areas of focus, the quality of the research was criticized, no such weapon was ever produced, and experts say that such weapon technology is problematic due to heating effects). I'm sure you've read WP:NOTEVERYTHING; i.e. we don't automatically include stuff solely because it is true or even useful. The question is, how will it improve the article (especially if it lacks the proper context to distinguish it from a fringe theory?) - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It was never my intention to distort truth. I only added what was written in the article. This is a completely separate issue from the Electronic harassment article, and therefore WP:FRINGE does not apply. There is documentation supporting the view that the airforce attempted to weaponize MAE as a method of electronic warfare under 'Project Hello'. This is important information. It is important because it gives the name of a specific US Govt. program, the same way including MEDUSA is important because gives the name of a specific weapon. It is important to keep information about 'Project Hello' in the article.PaulGosar (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)PaulGosar

WP:FRINGE does indeed apply here, as it does to all articles. Particularly relevant is the section WP:ONEWAY, which (roughly paraphrased) discusses how fringe ideas generally do not merit mention on mainstream articles. So far, a single source has been presented - which discusses MAE in a single-sentence aside in the context of a discussion about how military microwave weapons in general have been, to date, a useless waste of money. This isn't sufficient coverage to demonstrate that any discussion of "Project Hello" is due. Paul, as a reminder the onus is on you to establish consensus before reinserting disputed content. Others, please as a reminder please assume good faith. VQuakr (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any input on wether or not to include 'Project Hello', (the classified attempt by the US Air Force to beam psychologically devastating voices into people's heads using MAE? What is the wikipedia policy in regards to classified information?PaulGosar (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)PaulGosar

No good faith editor is going to support its addition if you can't produce sourcing beyond a passing mention. VQuakr (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Good faith editors have their own voices, VQuakr. You have already given your opinion on including 'Project Hello' (which the source reports is classified). Please allow for each editor to speak for themselves.PaulGosar (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)PaulGosar

No good faith editor is going to support its addition if you can't produce sourcing beyond a passing mention. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

No good faith editor is going to support its addition if you can't produce sourcing beyond a passing mention. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

No surprise, I also agree with VQuakr. As to your question, What is the wikipedia policy in regards to classified information? Not quite sure what you're asking here. We don't have a specific policy for classified information that I know of. Wikipedia requires encyclopedic content that is verifiable by reliable sources; see WP:V. When classified information is reported on by multiple WP:RS (Pentagon Papers, Downing Street Memo, etc.) it meets WP:V so we go by what is published in the WP:RS's. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Good faith editors have their own voices. Please let each good faith editor to speak for themselves. PaulGosar (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)PaulGosar

Speaking only for myself; I am not going to support your proposed addition if you can't produce sourcing beyond a passing mention. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

What say you stop playing your silly little game and admit that, after several editors have indicating agreement on something, it is perfectly OK to refer to that consensus. Or do you need to see several editors write the exact words "Speaking only for myself; I am not going to support your proposed addition if you can't produce sourcing beyond a passing mention"? Or would that simply result in another silly demand? Here is a novel idea: why not address the fact that you can't produce sourcing beyond a passing mention instead of wasting our time playing word games? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The harassment aside, I disagree that 'Project Hello' is fringe at all. MAE is widely accepted science. The weaponization of MAE is widely accepted as well, as per source describing MEDUSA. That is why 'electronic warfare' section of this article exists. 'Project Hello' is a fact that fits into this theory. It is not fringe. It has been printed in 2 very reputable sources. It is important to include. The source feels it important as well, as evidenced by her 6-tweet thread discussing the omission from an NYT article. I support sirlanz edit and propose we update the page. I would also like to direct editors attention to WP:GANG to remind editors that they do not own this page. PaulGosar (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)PaulGosar

So, no sourcing beyond a passing mention then? WP:TWITTER isn't a usable source about anything except the tweeter. VQuakr (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

"Passing mention" I don't think is a balanced characterisation. Not the major thrust of the source, yes, but a serious inclusion in the article as I see it. Look, the text now is balanced, it warns readers not to get over-excited about the idea. It states the fact that this was not a practical application. Relax, I say. sirlanz 03:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Well, it did until the material just got suppressed again. sirlanz 03:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It is literally a single-sentence mention in an article about how ineffective microwave weapons are in general. In the absence of any other sourcing about the project, due coverage is no coverage. VQuakr (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with PaulGosar and sirlanz. Project Hello is well sourced. It is a serious inclusion in the article. There is no justification for excluding it from the electronic warfare portion of the WP:Microwave auditory effect. Please stop censoring and edit warring, VQuakr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handlerendings (talk • contribs) 19:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC) --- sockpuppet edit --- The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

In support of his/her argument, VQuakr started out saying the source "barely mentions" MAE and then builds on that to claim it has a "single sentence" and that the reference was only a "passing mention". All of that was blatantly false. And he/she ended up accusing another editor of lacking good faith in his/her promoting the text, in reliance upon those strident but false claims. That was evidently hypocritical because there was a distinct lack of good faith in VQuakr totally misrepresenting the source. The 2,505-word source is on the subject of weaponisation of high-power microwaves. It deals with two classes of weapon: those targeted at machines and those targeted at people. It started out with 1,204 words on disabling equipment and then moved on to provide 564 words about the Active Denial System, the system attempting MAE the subject in this article (from "The effort to disable ..." to "... who declines to discuss it.") These words encompassed 25 sentences and one section title. It describes how ineffective and impractical the system was and that it was a failed project. It then devoted 71 words to HPM for bomb-detonation (now that might attract the "in passing" descriptor, though that was four sentences so VQuakr can't have been confused about this). The article concluded with 666 words about HPM generally, a discussion encompassing the aforesaid forms it had laid out in its exposition.

The purpose of this post is to invite editors to reconsider their positions in light of the three-fold deception perpetrated by VQuakr. Do not be deceived into thinking the source was not a serious one, genuinely put forward by the editor VQuakr attacked as failing to edit in good faith in relying upon it; the remaining only question for consideration is whether or not the information is so fringe as to be excluded from the eyes of our readers. Editors may also wish to know that VQuakr succeeded in having me blocked in relation to this difference of opinion - a first for me in 11 years of editing here. sirlanz 01:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Fringe? There is an entire well-sourced WP article (58 footnotes) on the Active Denial System (ADS). It appears the system is not considered a fringe subject for WP, so why try hard to suppress one of its three planned functions? Simply because there are crazies out there who promote conspiracy theories about the deployment of such technology? By publishing that it was attempted and that it failed, surely we serve the interest of balanced information for readers. Conspiracy theorists can always come up with wild ideas but we are not in any sense promoting such bent thinking by publishing a well-sourced fact here. sirlanz 02:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times and Ars Tecnica have recently published material about MAE and ADS in relation to the US Cuban embassy worker health reports. Shouldn't WP inform its readers of a reputable source's report of the system's complete failure and impracticality (burns people up before they hear a whisper)? sirlanz 02:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

It's unclear what occurred at the embassy, with rumors and hypotheses of various plausibility levels. As for ADS, its purpose was non-lethal crowd control/dispersion by heat and pain, not a device to transfer covert audio signals to the brain. Moreover, ADS appears to not really have been used except for tests or demonstrations. —PaleoNeonate – 01:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I too am unclear on why sirlanz is bringing up ADS in a discussion about mentioning "project hello" in an article about MAE. That point of confusion seems to underlie his following "three-fold" conclusions regarding my character (and nearly everything else about me short of my parentage). VQuakr (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Adding information about causal effect of microwaves

@LuckyLouie suggested the following information may be well suited for this page. An article in 'Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology' discusses the mechanism by which microwave weapons can work. From Source:

The potential mechanisms for injury by incident energy include cavitation bubble formation in body fluids. Cavitation bubbles can be produced in aqueous solutions by directed energy sources. Thee energy released by the bubble collapse produces local jet, shock wave, and acoustic emissions. Cavitating gas bubble formation also has been associated with local tissue nitrogen accumulation in decompression illness, which may be mimicked by underwater exposure to intense sound sources.

Considering the information concerning the mechanism of microwave weapons is discussed on this page, we should consider adding here as well as WP:Directed-energy weapon. --PaulGosar (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: Appears on WP:Directed-energy weapon but needs citation. --PaulGosar (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I suggested no such thing. -LuckyLouie (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)