User talk:Wafulz/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

← Archive 5 |
Archive 6
| Archive 7 →
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

User talk:Jacob valliere

Could you take a look at this? --BirgitteSB 16:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this appears to be a very young editor and perhaps needs a bit more patience and explanation than normal. --BozMo talk 12:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Users

I have recently had issues with two wiki editors, and I am unsure as to were I need to report this. Both Darksabre and Matt Brennen have been aggressive and deceitful in their conduct regarding several articles I have been involved in. These articles are Gothador and Hoofmaster. Matt Brennen has been especially problematic due to his close connection with a 'rival' game. His involvement with starships! has resulted in him agressively attacking Gothador and similar games. Parts of both articles (which pertained to their validity and were 3rd party sources) were removed/deleted and aggressive messages were sent to editors.

Unfortunately, a lot of the 'talk' messages have been removed by this pair, which has resulted in people involved in editing the articles looking onesided and stupid.

I am sorry to have to bring this to your attention, but I am unsure as to were else to take it. I feel the whole involvement with this pair has resulted in articles that may not have been 'ideal', being speedy deleted due to a different agenda. On several occasions, the relevant references were put in - and promptly removed.

This has me feel that myself and my friends have no place in wiki, which prior to this incident we had used regularly and enjoyed.

I would like to add, editor Adambro has been very helpful and understanding about this issue. I understand if the article has to be deleted for failing to meet certain criteria, but I do not agree with the witch hunt that appears to be taking place at the moment. KathrineS 17:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fallensword was yet another article that was speedily deleted despite hangons and relevant information added. Once again it was done by the two editors I just mentioned. I would like to quote the following:

Starships! I thought we did well on Gothador. Could I possibly get you to take another look at Starships! and change your vote? Matt Brennen 18:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


(this is posted on Darksabre's talk page)

He's well aware of that. He's also well aware that I told Matt Brennen he was way out of line for doing so in the Starships! debate and that I didn't change my vote. If you could please provide examples of when I'm supposed to have removed any of your talk page messages, I would be grateful, as I haven't knowingly done so, and My Contributions list isn't throwing up any immediate suggestions. I would also like to know when and how exactly I'm meant to have been deceitful? Again, I can't think I've been anything other than totaly straight with my current editing. DarkSaber2k 19:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know Kathrine, these two editors aren't in cahoots, and they're not admins, so they have no actual tools to delete or restore articles. They've almost been at each others' throats for a while, to be honest. They may be aggressive, but they're not being deceitful, and I haven't found evidence of them outright removing relevant comments from other users. There's not a "witch hunt" going on- they're just rexamining a category of browser-based games. This happens all the time- there have been examples where dozens of articles on sex positions or drinking games have been deleted all within a short period of time. The bottom line is sometimes an article doesn't meet criteria for belonging on Wikipedia, and sometimes several related articles don't meet the criteria at the same time.
As for that last comment ("I thought we did well on Gothador..."): I think Matt may be trying to "bargain" for an article or compromise with "I accept this article being deleted if you accept this article being kept" or something, which he shouldn't be doing. Either way, it didn't have any effect on darksaber. --Wafulz 21:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I know several comments that were posted within the Gothador, Fallensword and Hoofmaster thread were removed. One such example was from iaganatzi pointing out Matt Brennen's known links with a certain game. As I also stated previously - it is very hard to meet criteria when edits are removed/altered or deleted as soon as they are made or factual items are removed due to being false of lies - which they are not. I even had an article instantly deleted on the grounds of copyright infringement - despite providing proof of right to use images. Contrary to comments made elsewhere - I am not trying to play 'victim' here. When supposedly 'unbiased' editors brag (off wiki) of their results getting x games banned and doctoring discussion threads and deleting before time, what else am I left to think/believe? I am told to provide evidence - I do so and it is removed as soon as I do. I can't even add that Andrew has an honours degree as several editors have decided that is untrue. I added DoB etc and now that isn't enough either. What angered me the most is how the article lost all of it's formatting and links just as it's content was being questioned. KathrineS 23:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide specific edits (ie show me some "diffs") and articles deleted as copyright infringement? If you add evidence here, it won't be removed. --Wafulz 03:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Hunted Cow Studios. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://www.huntedcow.com/ in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions. If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Hunted Cow Studios with a link to where we can find that note; If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Hunted Cow Studios with a link to the details. Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:Hunted Cow Studios saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your original contributions are welcome. --Finngall talk 16:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC) KathrineS 07:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 19:46, 1 May 2007 Matt Brennen (Talk | contribs) (3,907 bytes) (rv unsourced material (anybody can sell anything on amazon.com...bottom line is the ISBNs are bogus)) (cur) (last) 19:41, 1 May 2007 Adambro (Talk | contribs) (4,400 bytes) (rv. Put books back in. All checks out on Amazon.) (cur) (last) 19:20, 1 May 2007 Matt Brennen (Talk | contribs) (3,907 bytes) (Please provide *VALID* ISBNs for any books this person may have authored.) (cur) (last) 19:18, 1 May 2007 Matt Brennen (Talk | contribs) (4,023 bytes) (No Andrew Mulholland ever graduated from Abertay University- There was a Darren P Mulholland, but he did not recieve honors. Please do not post accreditations without proof, we *will* check.) (cur) (last) 19:04, 1 May 2007 Matt Brennen (Talk | contribs) (4,122 bytes) (Removed list of books with invalid ISBN numbers) (the books and the degree were factual and valid) (cur) (last) 23:11, 2 May 2007 72.75.73.158 (Talk) (3,536 bytes) (correct way to cite a reference, rm assertion "BSc (Hons)" not supported by reference, rm bogus category, rm POV) (cur) (last) 22:11, 2 May 2007 Adambro (Talk | contribs) (3,555 bytes) (Added degree back in as per reliable source cited in refs section and reformatted ref) (cur) (last) 21:07, 2 May 2007 Matt Brennen (Talk | contribs) (3,496 bytes) (11 copies sold does note make one noted-in fact notability is what is in question on the delete page) (cur) (last) 21:05, 2 May 2007 Matt Brennen (Talk | contribs) (3,488 bytes) (Degree and honors already proven not to exist, please do not replace this invalid info unless you can cite it.) (cur) (last) 19:42, 2 May 2007 Adambro (Talk | contribs) (3,562 bytes) (Begun a tidy up) (cur) (last) 19:34, 2 May 2007 DarkSaber2k (Talk | contribs) (4,417 bytes) (Reverting malicious removal of nformation. (But the articles still nowhere standard.))

  • I will also post the examples from Gothador and Fallensword later - I have to leave my desk now. How do I access talks and logs for pages that have been deleted?KathrineS 07:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Uh-huh, so the only evidence you have of me doing anything to Hoofmaster is when I RESTORED information that had been removed. DarkSaber2k 08:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • When I asked for diffs I meant if you could provide me with some URLs. From what I've managed to find, there hasn't been anything malicious. Anyway, you commented that you held the copyright for Hunted Cow Studios, but you said this about an hour after the article's deletion- the talk page was deleted automatically afterwards. I took a look at the article, and it would have been deleted under speedy deletion criteria for advertising anyway because that material is clearly written entirely in a promotional tone. In response to accessing deleted pages: only administrators can see deleted pages. However, you can link the articles and I can take a look at them- just be sure to check the spelling and capitalization or else you'll link me to the wrong article. --Wafulz 16:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Once again it has been removed/deleted. It doesn't matter what I add, someone comes along and edits it out or throws allegations of fraud.KathrineS 10:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Please be more specific, I have no idea what "it" is. Hunted Cow Studios has not been deleted since April 30th. --Wafulz 14:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • 'it' refers to anything I contribute. Currently 'it' relates to Hoofmaster which vanished over night. I am unable to find evidence as the articles get deleted. I post proper secondary sources, and they get removed. I go to bed, and awaken to find yet another article has vanished over night. KathrineS 00:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Hoofmaster was deleted properly over the course of a five day discussion. There weren't enough reliable secondary sources to justify notability. --Wafulz 12:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ice Hockey Project discussion of hockey player notability and project scope

Please come join the WikiProject Ice Hockey Notability standards for hockey players discussion. I'd like to see input from all our project members who have an opinion. Thanks! ColtsScore 02:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:24.57.69.217 lock, please?

HalfShadow 19:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of a gaming page

The page List of Bomberman Hero Levels was tagged with a move to gaming wiki tag and I moved it. Now it can be deleted from wikipedia but I am not very familiar with the deletion process. please help --Cs california 20:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you've carried out the process correctly. We just have to wait five days and then we can delete it. --Wafulz 21:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: SA

Your "established consensus" is based on Keep it Real, Shii, LordKenneth, and similar people, all of which are banned users with a pathetic internet grudge against Something Awful. If you want to listen to them, be my guest, but it's your (and wikipedia's) loss. - McCaine

Shii had no part in the rewrite, KIR was indefinitely blocked for massive POV violations after they were all removed and Lord Kenneth has never edited the article. The "trustworthy" article you linked to had only three non-SA sources, a ton of random lists and trivia and several deleted images. I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. --Wafulz 21:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Not that they edited it, but they took part in the discussion and voting on the article. --McCaine
KIR was blocked, so he had no part in anything, and supporting a merger which was already pretty well-supported (20 in favour) was relatively low impact. I still don't see the point of this complaint, particularly since part of being a neutral article is listening to opposing points of view, even if they are dissidents. The old version of SA's article was not compliant to verifiability or summary style and was basically a list of contributors and a ton of original research backed up with forum threads/annoucements as sources. This version is sourced through secondary sources and complies with guidelines and policies. --Wafulz 23:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Might and Magic Tribute

Wafulz, I never requested this be deleted!!! What the £$%& man! Whats going on!?! Good on you for turning it down! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.42.127.129 (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

User:Plaasjapie requested deletion via author request, but other users seem to have worked on it, so that's not a valid avenue for deletion. I can't guarantee this article won't be deleted, but if it does get deleted, it will have to be via Articles for Deletion. --Wafulz 22:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry wasn't sighned in, I didnt request the deletion dude! I'm glad you turned it down... How could this happen? --plaasjapie 22:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Your account might be compromised. I think you should change all your passwords (including e-mail) immediately. --Wafulz 22:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll do that them. How can this happen? --plaasjapie 22:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how it happened, thoug it was probably someone you know or live with. --Wafulz 22:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Sorry for my poor spelling, I'm slightly dyslexic. --plaasjapie 22:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Something Awful article

I think you need to do more to establish the article's consistency before going after "good article" status. It seems like there are a lot of holes in the article, especially in comparison to the version of the article you reverted.

There's a lot of stuff that I think needs to be mentioned in the article that isn't, and the lack of information on the forums is the most glaring example in there. The subculture of the site needs to be emphasized more before it's worthwhile to most users. - Stick Fig 01:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is. Descriptions about subculture tend to be original research, and enormous lists of writers and content are bulky and unnecessary. If I can find more sources on the forums, I'll try to flesh that section out a bit beyond a one-sentence paragraph. --Wafulz 12:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Everything in the article is sourced, all copyright issues have been resolved and the article provides an excellent summary of the history and function of that website, I think your nomination is completely valid. Cumulus Clouds 06:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey, I just saw your revert, I apologize for changing it as I understand the policy better now. 24.17.205.115 18:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Diablo 2

Hi I was just wondering how the online part of Diablo2 is not MMORPG? It is basically the same thing as Guild Wars but instead of the towns there is the lobby? Thanks for your time.

According to Blizzard and the gaming media, Diablo 2 is not an MMORPG- it's an action RPG that happens to have a large multiplayer base. --Wafulz 19:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Nechvatal

What do want verivied at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nechvatal

The images illustrate the text. I fail to understand your objections.

It's not about verification- it's about conflict of interest. The tag is a flag that the article has been written by people closely associated with the subject, which means that it may not be entirely neutral. I've been monitoring the article for months and nobody other than those associated with the subject have made substantial edits to the article. --Wafulz 14:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I understand. But really all the content at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nechvatal is objective, factual and historically acurate.

Rydernechvatal 14:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

At some point later today I'll ask a few other editors to examine the article just to make sure. This is more or less procedural, but the fact that it's written by people close to the subject tends to raise a few eyebrows, particularly if a critical evaluation of an artist only contains a single point of view. --Wafulz 14:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. What do you propose?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.34.12 (talk • contribs)

Asking some editors later in the day to examine the articles. --Wafulz 16:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I find your interference unjustified, as the page uses neutral language and cites independent, reliable, third-party sources that verify all content and show that the subject is notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.34.12 (talk • contribs)

Seeing as it's neither your article nor mine, I'm not "interfering" with it. The articles may be neutral to you since you wrote most of them, but there are some issues. Namely the fact that an artist's article has no non-positive critiques of his works, and an historian's article has the following:
Popper is nearly peerless when it comes to documenting the historical record of the relationship between technology and participatory forms of art, especially between the late 1960s and the early 1990s. Sharing his focus on art and technology are Jack Burnham ('Beyond Modern Sculpture,' 1968) and Gene Youngblood (Expanded Cinema, 1970). Popper, Burnham and Youngblood are considered indispensable in showing how art has become, in Frank Popper's terms, "virtualized."
There are some issues with the articles, and the conflict of interest is the most obvious one- sometimes an article isn't non-neutral through what it presents, but rather through what it does not present. Since you are obviously associated with at least one of the subjects, it's hard to assume your view is purely objective. --Wafulz 17:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


Hello Wafulz

I see that this is still at the top of pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nechvatal and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Popper

"The creator of or main contributor to this page may have a conflict of interest with the subject of this article.

This page may be deleted unless it uses neutral language and cites independent, reliable, third-party sources that verify all content and show that the subject is notable. Please discuss further on the talk page.
This article has been tagged since May 2007."

As I pointed out yesterday, there is only neutral language and the information does cite independent, reliable, third-party sources that verify all content and show that the subject is notable.

Can you please remove the tags or allow me to do so?

Thank you

Rydernechvatal 11:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just give it a few days to let other editors look at it. The Popper article was particularly bad for being overly praising. This is a fairly low-traffic article, so it's not doing any damage to have these tags up for a short period of time. --Wafulz 12:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Y3a5t

Thank you for your action. I have been adressing vandalism for years on Wikipedia, without the tools. Sometimes the vandals turn against me. gidonb 16:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


Please explain your reverts

Please explain why you keep undoing my edit on the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact. I've explained my reasons for making the edit, and it surely isn't too much to expect that you would explain why you undid it. Preston McConkie 18:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I put it back in. I restored it while fixing vandalism. --Wafulz 18:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Preston McConkie 19:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey thanks for whacking those vandals on my talk page. I s-protected my page yesterday but they are back...--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Tha King of B.R.

You deleted Tha King of B.R., from which i had earlier removed a speedy-delete tag. This articel was about an album, not a musician, and WP:CSD#A7 does not cover albums. Also, when you delted it, it was tagged with {{prod}}, not with a speedy delete tag. Please consider restoring this as it was deleted out-of-process. DES (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the artist was deleted under WP:CSD#A7, so by extension, the albums were too. It doesn't make sense to delete only the article about just a company/person/whatever and then leave several "sub" articles floating around for a five-day discussion.--Wafulz 01:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I Strongly disagree, and the matter has come up before. There has not been anything like a consensus to speedy delete albums in the past, extensions of A7 have each required significant debate. A7 does not work "by extension". It is possible for an album to be notable when the artist is not, and if not, what harm does the article do with a prod tag for 5 days? Please restore this, so we needn't spend five days at deletion review instead. DES (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh whatever, fine. --Wafulz 02:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

LinusK

Hello,

Could you please tell me if including the information is bias, in and of itself,

or

if the problem is the way the paragraph was written.

Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LinusK (talk • contribs)

The material was poorly sourced (from forum threads), it's dragging forum drama into the article, and it's selectively presenting a largely satirical privacy policy to make it seem bad. The actual policy states "Something Awful LLC reserves the right to disseminate usernames, IP addresses, or email addresses to third parties in certain situations (ie, situations involving credit card fraud, harassment, stalking, illegal activities)." It seems like every other week SASS wedges itself into some aspect of the article.--Wafulz 14:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Benzion Freshwater

Not sure why you deleted this - any specific reason? DavidFarmbrough 13:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. Human error? It's restored now. --Wafulz 13:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RFA, which passed with 53-1-0. I will put myself into the various tasks of a administrator immediately, and if I make any mistakes, feel free to shout at me or smack me in my head. Aquarius • talk 17:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hey there Wafulz. I was looking at the history of the The Notorious B.I.G. article and one edit summary of yours caught my attention. It's dated on 04:03, April 2, 2007, saying remove "successful" per manual of style- show, don't tell. I recall reading a Wiki page where it tells you to show, don't tell but I can't find it. If you know where it is, please tell me. Thanks! Spellcast 06:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. --Wafulz 11:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. The reason I asked is because the 50 Cent page used the words success/successful 5 times in the intro. Spellcast 17:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

And BTW, I love your user name. It gave me a nice chuckle. "Waffles" ... heh!

Thanks again, - Tenebrae 19:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The College of William & Mary

Hi,

Please correct the article to reflect the entire legal name "The College of William & Mary"

This is the official name of the college. It is similar to a few other schools that include the word The in their official names such as:

The College of New Jersey

The Citadel

Thank you for fixing this. I would fix it except I do not know how to link it properly.

Thank you for kindly fixing this. It is much improved!!!!

My Signature

I did actually earlier today, but after my posts to the admin board. DemosDemon 00:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for nuking the Culture of Indonesia vandal on AIV, even though many admins would have declined and told me to just watchlist it. I think it's the right way to go, and appreciate it. --barneca (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. This guy was clearly malicious. --Wafulz 14:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Technocrate

Hello I am Skipsievert Skipsievert 19:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC); I have had problems with at least one user I think that goes by the Technocrate, and possible some others also, I know for a fact one of the people vandalizing links to Technocracy Movement material I am putting up is Andrew Wallace , who is a member of NET Network of European Technocrats, they also have a Wiki entry on Wiki. Andrew Wallace published a book recently purchase about $ 40 dollars. He is advertising that book on the Technocracy Movement site, which is not so bad , but he deletes a book that I edited and published a year ago on Technocracy , over and over. My book is Free. Also He deletes the link I put up to my Technocracy Blogging spot over and over. http://technocracynow.blogspot.com/ Technocracy - The Design of the North American Technate. This is a serious site that presents archived material , and discuss`s Technocracy concept. It also contains archived material in a great volume , and this material is being deleted to put unlinked information , that is not directly mainstream Technocracy. 3 or 4 article's by Howard Scott unlinked as opposed to dozens of linked ones. I would say that the person deleting my linked material has an agenda of promoting their book more than editing information on the Technocracy Movement. I have done my editing in good faith in order to make people aware of the Technocracy movement. A file site on google that has a free copy of the Technocracy Study Course http://www.google.com/base/a/1264040/D15768569411099866373 Google Base: Technocracy Study Course. original.-- Also, Beyond the Cloak of Deception - and the book I edited has also been taken off over and over. I feel that he is competing book wise with me. I have left his book up, he has taken mine down. Here is another site I operate regarding Technocracy, http://technocracynow.stumbleupon.com/ StumbleUpon | technocracynow's web site reviews and blog I also have others, and I am a person highly involved in the movement. My edits have been vandalized. Please help. Skip Sievert, Skipsievert 19:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC);

Both of you have sought third party intervention, but I don't see any evidence of you two communicating. Try discussing the issue with each other first. --Wafulz 19:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have left an interrogatory message with him here on the site, and he has not responded, I also know his email address, and he has blocked my communication with him outside the site. I would be willing to work with this person, but every time I edit something he takes it off. A good example on the Technocracy Movement site is a section that describes Technocracyvan a website in Canada as being a legal corporation in the United States connected with Technocracy. I have pointed out in several edits that it is not legal or possible to incorporate an American Corporation in Canada. His information is wrong. Also as I have said he has repeatedly taken down links to a wealth of information and material from other sites that I have put up. This is valuable archived material directly related to Technocracy. He has repeatedly taken down my book I edited, I believe for commercial reasons. My book is free as said , and his is between 35 and 40 dollars. I am going to go ahead and re-edit the site again, but this person does not seem reasonable and as said I believe he is only using Wikipedia to promote his book at the expense of having a good site that explains the Technocracy Movement. I am going to copy this message, and give Andrew Wallace, or Talk, or Technocrate, a copy also. I feel now that it is impossible to work with this person, at least so far. Thanks, Skipsievert 01:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC);

I have left Andrew Wallace a message covering the fact that he will not communicate with me. I am requesting page protection, so that my links to 'Technocracy movement' archived material will stay up. I am new here and do not know a lot of the ins and outs. I do know that my edits have been maliciously deleted, for partly commercial reasons, as previously stated. The persons user name here that I call Andrew Wallace is 'Technocrati 'Skipsievert 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC);

Dr. Andrew Wallace, / Technorati, / Isenhand.

This or these users continue to take down links to my Technocracy Movement blog site, also a free file site with archived material. They/ he also takes off my information on my book, Beyond the Cloak of Deception, by Skip Sievert. He is apparently doing this purely for commercial reasons of promoting his own book, author Andrew Wallace, post carbon world. He has repeatedly put up unlinked material which I have replaced with linked material. He has taken down a description of a legal corporation that represents Technocracy Incorporated, in favor of naming two branchs of the same group.

Here is a message I have left him concerning this problem.
He does not respond except by deleting material.

Again here is a message just left on his talk site.

Vandal problems on the Technocracy movement site. Done by Andrew Wallace/Isenhand, taking off info.

It has been revealed that Andrew Wallace, 'Technocrate' is his editors name, is deleting material from the Technocracy Movement site. He has commercial interests in a book he is promoting on the site, which sells for nearly 40 dollars. He continues to delete a link to a book that I edited, that is available for free on the link he continues to take down. Here is the blogging site link they he also takes down, http://technocracynow.blogspot.com/ Technocracy - The Design of the North American Technate. That along with this link http://www.google.com/base/a/1264040/D15768569411099866373 Google Base: Technocracy Study Course. original.-- Also, Beyond the Cloak of Deception - Has been repeatedly taken off the site due to his own agenda of promoting his book. Andrew Wallace is an active participant in the European Technocracy movement at Net or Network of European Technocats. It has been stated on that site that he is doing this malicious editing. I consider him a vandal , because he is taking down links to pertinent archived material ```` He also has taken down this link to material, http://www.technocracynow.org/ Again, these sites are Technocracy sites, that contradict his views, and he is censoring them.Skipsievert 14:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC);

I am now going to put the links back up again. I will state again, that Isenhand will NOT communicate or discuss this with me. Skipsievert 13:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC);

I have redone my edits again that Isenhand or friends from NET have taken down I appeal for protection of page.

I have made some edits, put back some links, and tried to explain all this in my edit comments. Isenhand did take down my former edits, which I sincerely believe deserve to be up. I have tried to communicate with him on his talk page, he does not respond. He continues to take information down concerning my book. I have not tampered with info. about his book for some time now. I feel he is doing what he is doing for commercial interests of selling his book that he has directly linked to a sales site. I have made my edits in good faith. He has not contacted me. I am going to put a copy of this letter on his talk page also. I have tried communicating with him now many times. Protection please. Skipsievert 14:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC);

I now think that Isenhand should be blocked.

I just put up information on the Technocracy Movement site again , and he has removed it. It is good information and pertinent to the page. This user has not communicated with me. I have tried repeatedly to communicate with him. I request that the page he just altered be put back up prior to his last edit, and be protected. Skipsievert 14:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC);

Hasek

Sorry I haven't been able to help you more with this. I've been a little busy. But in the next few days I should be able to do a lot of work on it. Sportskido8 16:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Skip Sievert's edits and accusations

Ok, I haven't read all of the above discussions, here and elsewhere, but from what I can gather Skip is up to his old tricks again. The material he added to the Technocratic movement article was almost entirely inaccurate, biased and Unencyclopaedic, I have thus reverted the page entirely to an April 26th version, before all this began. Unfortunately Skip Sievert is well known in Technocracy circles as a troll and an obstructionist. He basically goes around the Internet picking fights with anyone who happens to disagree with him on anything, this is just the latest manifestation of that. He has fallen-out with almost everyone else in the Technocracy movement and now seems to see himself as the only legitimate representative of it. Again his interpretations of Technocracy are his own opinions and nothing more, I am sure he will argue against that, but no one else agrees with him nor even takes him seriously. If you read what he has written on Wikipedia so far I think you will see the kind of Trollish-ness I'm talking about. As for the issue of people reverting Skip's edits, I don't know who most of those editors where, but I think they were quite correct to do so. In talking about User:Isenhand, the idea of banning him for removing Skip's Baloney is crazy, besides if you look at his User contributions: [1], you'll see that he only edited the article once on the 19th, so I certainly don't see how he can be responsible for everything Skip is accusing him of. The other reverts were done by other users, I don't know who they are (probably less experienced members of NET), but they have committed no crime in doing so. To sum up, if Skip has something useful to add to the Technocracy articles or if he believes them to be in error in some way then he should discuss any changes on the relevant talk pages before going ahead and editing. Maybe he can add something positive to the article, but I somewhat doubt it, if he insists on links to his site and his book then perhaps something can be worked out, but that must be discussed on the Talkpage beforehand. Alternatively I would suggest that you in-fact ban (or at-least punish) Skip if he continues with this Vandalism (which is essentially what his edits are). Thank you. --Hibernian 03:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. There was one more thing I forgot to add, you see I've been reliably informed that Skip Sievert was in-fact kicked out of Technocracy Incorporated some time ago for harassing other members and other similar behaviour. This kind of Trolling is nothing new for him and is one reason other Technocrats do not wish to deal with him. --Hibernian 03:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As Hibernian says, Skip is well know as a problem in the technocracy movement. More about him can be found here:

http://www.technocracy.ca/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=21421&POSTNUKESID=c9dcc4d8fd559eb41539eca28bd71472#21421 - Isenhand.

Please give page protection against Hibernian if he also continues to take down information links.

TO HIBERNIAN and Isenhand, and Wafulz. --- I request Wafulz that some of my additions be put up. I have not bothered to put them up my self for a couple of days now because Isenhand immediately takes them down. He has made no effort at compromise.

I have now found out that Hibernian has also trashed my links and contribution to the Technocracy Movement page. Please stop it. I have put this material up in good faith. Please do not post any more demeaning comments on my talk page either Hibernian. I am all for constructive conversation. I do not like the name calling from you. Do you understand ? I will note that at least Hibernian has made an effort to talk, although in a negative way. He has offered to compromise. Cease and desist. Please put the links to my book back up. Also the links to other Technocracy sites, including, http://technocracynow.blogspot.com/ Technocracy - The Design of the North American Technate. and also the other link you have taken off.http://www.technocracynow.org/

I would add that the TechnocracyCa site that you are referring to, is not a Technocracy site in the strict sense of the word. The person that runs that site is not a member of either Technocracy organization, as you are not, and that site is not a sanctioned site by either. Also just because some bloggers on a site have an opinion, I do not think that is 'evidence' of anything other than free speech. Attempts at demonizing me is not particularly appreciated because of disagreements we might have. You are casting me as some kind of spoiler which I am not. By taking down my links repeatedly, and also by promoting a money making connection, it is clear where your sympathy lies. Please leave my links up in the future. I have no financial interest at stake. Only the desire to make Technocracy material available to the public. Petty quarrels aside that is the important thing. Skipsievert 18:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC);

How about we move this discussion to Talk:Technocratic movement, rather than my talk page.--Wafulz 15:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Skip Sievert article

The Skip Sievert article is so marginal that it does not have any right to exist. It is about an unknown person who once were a member of Technocracy Incorporated, and now pretends that his blog is a whole technocratic movement. Besides, it was he himself who created that article. It is shameless self-aggrandizement.

~BDJ

B.D.J. puts in his two cents worth. Who is that person ? There is no way to know.

I am clueless as to why this 'person' has posted this. If speech patterns are any indication, this was probably written by Enrique Lescure, he is the accountant for the NET site where Isenhand posts material and advertises his book. Enrique follows me around the internet stalking me. He also has a financial, and intellectual, stake in Isenhand`s or Dr.Wallaces book that is promoted on the Technocracy Movement site. That book also has a direct link on the Technocracy Movement page with which to buy it currently.

I have not written any articles for one thing. All I have done is put up links to a couple of Technocracy sites, and also put some broader info. as to the group and its history. I suggest that perhaps 'someone' is piling his friends in here to make derogatory comments. I would remind Wafulz that Isenhand has commercial reasons for taking my book off and putting his up. I think this is a free speech issue for me, and a commercial issue for these others. I would also mention again to Wafulz that Isenhand will not communicate with me to work this out. Hibernian, on the other hand has graciously offered to compromise, and suggested for starters putting my book back up again. So, this odd information from B.D.J. tells me that something is being propagandized here.

I still request that my last batch of edits be restored. (Skipsievert 21:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

I have created a new page and would like you to overview it, or someone else.

Wafulz, I have created this page. Technocracy Study Course to reference this much cited document. I have given this reference now on the Technocratic movement page. I have made some other edits as well there today on the Technocratic movement page. If you could please look at the page I created and let me know if it is alright the way it is or should be improved. If you see some obvious thing that would improve it please do. I have left a link on the page back to Technocratic movement where a link to the Study Course is.(skip sievert 18:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

Walfulz I have just posted this on the technocratic movement page, "I see again that this page has been rewritten to bad effect. This is vandalism. I think the people have an agenda that are doing this. They have taken off my links to other wikipedia information. They have put up a canadian blogging site. They have taken off material about the Technocracy study Course. I am asking for page protection against this sloppy and miserable person. I see also that that they have not discussed any of this in this space.Skipsievert 16:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC))"

I'll take a look later today or tomorrow. --Wafulz 16:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

TIM ADAMS

Hey Wafulz, you just deleted an article I wrote about myself, fair enough... I actually wrote the thing as a little experiment though. I'm a jounalist and am writng a story about wikipedia for the Observer in london. i interviewed Jimmy Wales and so on. Anyhow, I wondered if I could ask you a question: you seem quite hot on vandalism. Is it a big problem in the community? What is the worst/most amusing case you have come across? best Tim

Your vigilance in protecting Sidney Crosby

You get a <TEXT BARNSTAR!> from me for your anti-vandalism work! Thanks for being wiki-riffic! ColtsScore 04:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou Wafulz,

I think that you have done a fair and honest job of getting to the bottom of the Technocratic movement page that has been so problematic. As a newer user, I have learned a lot from this experience. I am assuming that your new edits are the ones that are the standard now as far as links and so forth. That is as it should be. I will be working on that page in the future, with the hope of improving it. I have rewritten the Technocracy Study Course page again, I think more according to your suggestions. When you have time could you comment on the discussion page there ? I am very curious as to your opinion of that article now. As my first article I am very excited about it. I will follow more suggestions. I have asked some further questions on the discussion page. Thanks again, (skip sievert 02:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Ishtar

I noticed that you follow the Isthar (film) page pretty closely. Have you ever seen it? Are you a fan? Just curious.

No, it was just a target for vandalism and the page was written fairly poorly, so I watchlisted it. --Wafulz 12:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

vandal strikes Technocratic movement page

Wafulz, this user`s I.P. address (diff) (hist) . 11:39 . . (-8) . . 89.172.185.101 (Talk) (→External links) is listed as having put a link back up again to the external link section in Technocratic movement, to the Network of European Technocrats site. This is in violation of your ruling. Please intercede. I will take this link off as per. your previous administrator edit. Is it possible to block this user? It would be suspected to be a blogger from NET, that has disregarded instructions from the Discussion page. (skip sievert 16:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

i apologise

sorry if i have broken the rule, i was just trying to get a user to read the discussion, and wait for neutral parties to help give some support to either side of the argument before allowing or not allowing the edit, but they refused to accept that

sorry again --Jac16888 19:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Justifications for the inclusion of the NET link

Wufulz,

The link to NET should remain in the Technocratic movement page for the following reasons.

1. From then “External Link” page.

“What should be linked 1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.” The page is about the Technocratic movement and not just about Technocracy Inc. , that includes the technocratic movement in Europe as well. Therefore a link should got to both organisations."

2. It is not a personal home page nor blog nor does it meet any other given criteria for exclusion.

Isenhand 05:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no connection to what NET is doing and the Technocracy movement. Technocracy was and is designed for North America, and it is a non-profit. Technocracy Study Course Your site is a blog site Isenhand that is also a commercial site that is trying to drive business to itself, partly to give you Andrew Wallace, a link to sell your book from which you posted here before over and over with links to Lulu your self publisher. If you want to put up a site that actually has Technocracy related information put this one up, http://technocracy-incorporated.wikispaces.com/

You appear to be a bit of a confused as to what a blog is. You might like to check here: Blog and note that a blog has the definition of “ a website where entries are written in chronological order and displayed in reverse chronological order. Blogs provide commentary or news on a particular subject such as food, politics, or local news; some function as more personal online diaries”

If you care to actually check http://en.technocracynet.eu you will note that it does not have such a characteristic. As for my book. You will also note that the NET site has no such advertising on it. The only site that actually advertises it is at: http://web.telia.com/~u11319013/ and there is no link to that site from the NET site. Isenhand 05:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


technocracy-incorporated » home -- I notice also that someone has rewritten the copy that I did in the space for NET, and put back the edits that I pared down. Wafulz had said that it was about the way it should be, and now all that ridiculous information has been added by an Anon. user that is obviously a poster to the NET blog site. I suggest that perhaps the NET link should be taken off completely since it is trying to become a parent article here. It would be better as a link below for people to go to if interested. I will say again that there are many movements, that incoporate Technocracy ideas. NET is just another. It is not a part of the movement of technocracy thought, which specifically states that it is NOT connected to any other movement in Europe or elsewhere in the first couple of pages of the Technocracy Study Course. The movement stands on that document,and they have stood on that document as representing them, for about 80 years. Could we please get rid of the NET section ? The I.P. address of the person that just vandalized the NET section is there to see also. Also Wafulz a bunch of references to related things have been put up that are not related, such as Buckminster Fuller , etc. a big pile of them. This is not Technocracy information, and is NOT related to the movement. (skip sievert 15:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Urbanates == The urbanate section here is not a part of the Technocratic movement. It is referenced to a blog site that is operated by the person that wrote this article. This violates Wiki. The reference links for the most part reference material written by Hibernian. Also the person that wrote this article. Hibernian is listed on TechCa blogging site. Hibernian posts there under the name Icuras, and is Ross Murphy from Ireland, and is an administrator on the TechCa. site, in the sense that he writes articles there and answers questions from new users in their chat forum under the name Icarus. That fact does not square with previous info given by this usere. This article was written poorly, and without back up except by articles written by this writer on a blog site. This is self promotion. It is arguable that the parent page of this article should even exist, as it is self promotion of ideas that exist on a blogging site, and never were a part of the Technocracy movement. I have suggested before that members of Technocracy such as Wilton Ivey, who was a famous Technocrat and wrote extensively on urban planning , be put here, or linked here below. Hibernian and the people of TechCa, Kolzene another user here who edits this page concocted this term Urbanates. It has nothing to do with the Technocracy movement. It has everything to do with a stubborn poster here. I suggest again that the parent article is not a worthy contribution to wikipedia, and violates its policies in just about every way.(skip sievert 16:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

You also appear to have some confusion on what the technocracy movement actually is. The technocracy movement predates Technocracy Inc. and the study course. During the 1930s there was a number of technocratic organisations in the US and in Europe all promoting one form or another of “rule of the skilled” (which is the central characteristic which defines something technocracy). The only one to survive that time was Technocracy Inc. which is still around in the US and NET represents a new part of the movement in Europe, although it is not part of Tech Inc. not formal associated with it. You might find it interesting to read some of the early books on technocracy mentioned on the technocracy movement page to gain a better understanding of technocracy and realise that technocracy is not confined to one organisation and one document. Isenhand 07:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Isenhand I do not need a lecture from you about your rhetorical perceptions. Also a discussion like this would be better put on the page discussion page in question, for the page Technocratic movement. I will say that your statement above is wholly inaccurate and not credible. The Technocracy movement is obviously based on the Technocracy Study Course and the information from the Technical Alliance Your mention of 'rule of the skilled' also does not jive with the definition of Technocracy, except on your blogging site NET. Your opinion is not a definition of something. No one 'rules' in a Technocratic society. It is 'administration by science'. I read the books in question you mention. There is no connection to the claims you are making. (skip sievert 15:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

STOP ARGUING ON MY TALK PAGE. THE ARTICLE HAS A TALK PAGE FOR A REASON. Unless you must speak to me directly, or you need my services, do not post here. I have the Technocracy-related pages on my watchlist and can track changes there. If you have a proposal related to the article, post it on the article's discussion page. If you think it's something I need to see as soon as possible, post a message saying "Could you please look at (whatever)?" or something similar. --Wafulz 16:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

wafulz could you please look at the page as soon as possible Technocratic movement (skip sievert 15:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

Ron Liebman sock?

I replied on my talk page, hope that's okey-dokey. :) -Ebyabe 15:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

Hannahrama left an unsigned, personal attack on my talk page. It's the only edit that the user has made, so I suspect that the user is a sockpuppet. In any event, could you remove this attack from my talk page? I didn't want to remove it myself since that might be seen as controversial. Chicken Wing 18:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, you can remove rude/inflammatory contents on your talk page without consulting someone- if they just blindly accuse you of something, it can be removed. If the user makes another disruptive edit, they'll be blocked. --Wafulz 18:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Avantoure

Just a quick note - this article, which you deleted via CSD G11, also exists in userspace User:Avantoure so probably needs to be deleted as well. Thanks, EliminatorJR Talk 20:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ashen Empires

Why do you keep deleting Ashen Empires from the list of MMORPG games? It is, in fact, a currently operating MMORPG game.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Msongy (talk • contribs)

Ashen Empires

Why are you removing Ashen Empires from the MMO list?

looking at the logs it seems you have some kind of vendetta against this game as you are the only person who was actively looking to delete it (way back in feb07 you started this crusade). This game is still active and has 1000's of current players. Perhaps do a bit more research before you haphazardly delete entries... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneybill (talk • contribs)

Well, if you did your research, you'd see that I hadn't deleted it. It's been deleted several times by several people. However, this new article falls under speedy deletion criteria for recreated material, so it will be deleted unless the decision is overturned at deletion review. --Wafulz 21:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Under the criteria for deleting it in the first place, you would have to delete 99.9% of the links from the MMO listing page. Wikipedia has gone downhill fast and given way too much power to people who have never set foot in the real world...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneybill (talk • contribs)

Setting casual insults aside, do you have anything to back up your claims that 99.9% of the links are non-notable or that Ashen Empires is notable by the web content notability guideline?--Wafulz 03:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankish empire

Why did you revert my edits without explanation? I explained my reason on User talk:NawlinWiki#Wikipedia:redirect#What do we use redirects for? Cheers, Pædia 22:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was a test edit of some form. You should've just said "Redundant redirect". Apparently I clicked the wrong revision link. I guess I'll delete it, but does it really matter if the redirect exists though? I know the guideline says not to create them, but it doesn't say anything about deleting them if they exist. --Wafulz 23:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Good question. True, it does not really matter, but many searches are lowercase, e.g. frankish empire returns Frankish Empire. I think this is more professional, than redirecting to the correct capitalisation. Cheers, Pædia 01:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. --Wafulz 03:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

hi

john ralston


Narvin Kimball

Not sure where you are seeing the notability WP:MUSIC. [2] I agree that he had been a banjo player for a long time, but I don't see where that makes him notable. If you are seeing something that I missed could you point it out to me? Music is not my high suite so I often miss things that others see. Jeepday (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

From this revision I saw that he'd played with several notable artists. I also had to remove copyrighted information copied from three websites- so that's three independent sources. --Wafulz 03:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it can be helpful if you are able to list the references when you find them. In its current version the next editor who comes along may assume WP not Memorial applies. Jeepday (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually he might be a merge candidate or something. The sources I found aren't as independent as I thought, but he had an obituary in NPR and The Guardian and all sorts of non-commercial jazz websites, leading me to believe that he was probably well known within the jazz world. Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz could help? --Wafulz 13:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

iLike deletion

The wiki page for iLike was nominated for deletion and quickly deleted for reasons of it being of little notability. I can understand for some websites however, iLike is growing daily. Just this week it grew in numbers of users since the website facebook started using 3rd party applications. iLike is ranked number two for the amount of users for this application (nearly 1 million). As of notability, there are plenty of other pages for items of much less importance. Shotmenot 14:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, whether it's growing daily or not is not of importance- it needs some reliable third party sources. But I may have made a mistake in deleting it so quickly, so I'm restoring it. Anyway, you'd better show that it meets notability criteria for web content or it could end up being listed on articles for deletion. --Wafulz 15:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

protection from vandal needed

Wafulz could you please look at the Technocratic movement page soon. (skip sievert 15:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

There is a significant difference between a content dispute and vandalism. I don't know much about the technocratic movement, so I can't do much to dispute most of the actual content.--Wafulz 16:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Wafulz, can I ask you to please comment on the Technocratic movement talk page again, in particular can you address my last post. I'm eager to get the links back and get the article back on track, I'm waiting for your response before putting them back. Thanks. --Hibernian 20:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)