User talk:Hibernian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Hibernian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Djegan 10:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Requests for comment - Skipsievert

It's up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Skipsievert

Could you add your name asap? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isenhand (talk • contribs) 09:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to get back here, anyway, I've signed it now. --Hibernian (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gibbs

OK, sorry Hibernian its not vandalism this time but still not acceptable as there is no verifiable authoritative source (the words of the found is not enough). Just because the Scott says something does not make it a fact. We would need some external verification for this. Neither Arkin nor Loab mention this info and both of them make a point of showing that there was nothing new with Technocracy in 1933. Loab points to Frederick Soddy as the source for many ideas although he also says that Scott said there were similarities but he did not get the ideas from Soddy. In the end to include this info we need to get soume source external from Scott to verify it. Technocrate (talk) 06:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I understand what you're saying, and certainly external references are needed. But it seems to be a fact that Scott and/or other prominent members of Tech Inc. did claim Gibbs as one of their main influences. Whether that is true or not, I can’t say, I wasn't there and haven't researched it enough to know, but the point is, we can have a sentence stating simply that "Prominent Technocrats called Gibbs the "Forefather" of the movement". That way or may not be correct, that's not for us to judge, but they clearly said it and believed it, so it therefore deserves a mention on the page. It's pretty clear that there are some major disagreements between Authors like Akin and some of what Scott and others said about the History of Technocracy, I'm not sure entirely which one to believe. But, remember we're not here to say what the truth is, we're just here to put across the opinions of the various parties. If Scott said something that contradicted Akin, then we don't just delete one and say the other is "the truth", we present both views in a Neutral manner. --Hibernian (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, if its put as "Scott says this" rather than "this is so" then its acceptable. A note on Akin vs Scott etc. As Akin is coming from out side and is a sociologist I would consider his research to be more valid. However, it would be interesting to read what Henry Elsner has to say too. Technocrate (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/History%20&%20Purpose-r.htm History and Purpose of Technocracy Why don`t you both read this ? The argument surrounding this stuff mentioned is really not making sense except to people with vested interest in these ideas about the antecedents of Technate design. I have about given up trying to make thoughtful additions here. It is noted that Technocrate is a sock puppet for Andrew Wallace, Isenhand wiki editor. That is why he is pushing for this 'version' which relies on outside sociologists, and not the actual information brief from Howard Scott. How much more definitive is there to get than what the chief of the organization said in an official document ? Technocrate is quoting the authors that make up the bulk of Andrew Wallaces book on Technocracy which is a commercial enterprise which he is promoting http://web.telia.com/~u11319012/index.htm Andrew Alexander Wallace - I think that violates wiki policy. That is the same person that suggested a team be assembled to control the article. I won`t bother to give the link for that again. Hibernian none of this makes sense really. Why have a version of this article that caters to a side group in Europe that is unconnected to the actual group and its ideas ? http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/Technical%20Alliance%20Profiles-r.htm The Technical Alliance Profiles Not only Gibbs is correct here, but also the place given Veblen still is way out of line. Scroll down on this info. also and read about Gibbs here. Also there is NO connection to Taylorism as claimed by Technocrate except that those concepts were just 'around' then. Scott says specifically many of the things that I have tried to put into this article, and been prevented from doing so. There are multiple sources for the information. Andrew Wallace cites a couple of Fiction books by people unconnected to the group except by writing books or having a very marginal connection or understanding of the dynamic that occurred and why it occurred. skip sievert (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Technocracy

Hi, glad to see you on wikipedia. If we get some more people active here we will have to start up a wiki technocracy group.

Trfs 04:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Dublin Riots (25-02-06).JPG

Great image, has been renamed per your request. --Duk 01:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks.--Hibernian 02:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, the image is fantastic! You must have some stories. . . Peace, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 01:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good photo

I like the photo of the Dublin riot, but you seem to have spent more time on your user page info boxes than on Wikiepdia articles. Just my impression. AWM -- 68.122.118.161 13:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Federation Credit

About the Federation credit article, I agree it needs to be redone. I can't claim to be an expert on the topic, so I'm not sure I can contribute much more than what I said in its Talk page. Still, I can help you give it a go when I have time. Not just yet, though; I want to see to it when I have time to do it properly. Aridd 11:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Belatedly, I've got round to editing it. I've added references and explained how it obviously works. There's no actual (major) contradiction in canon, despite what the article implied. Aridd (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Price systems

Actually, communism is not a price system; that's the whole point. Communism is based more or less on a gift economy, and certainly would not employ currency. I invite you to read anything written by any communist on the subject; you will find that I am correct. I would also highly doubt that communism is in any way better known than socialism. The communist movement is just a branch of the wider socialist movement, after all. -- Nikodemos 22:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok I assume the "Communism" you are talking about is "final state Communism", in that case you are correct that it is theorized to be a society without money (and I would assume not be categorized as a price system by Technocrats). However the Commonly understood meaning of the Word "Communism" is the System practiced by the Government of the Former USSR and that advocated by Communist Parties in the world today. That is what I and Technocracy are Talking about when we says Communism is a Price system, as those examples all involve Money.
You may say (and may be technically accurate in saying), that the USSR was a Socialist Country not a Communist one, however this will not be understood by most readers, and thus the Common meaning of the word should be used as per Wikipedia’s policy on naming.
So it should be clear what the sentence in the article is saying, that is that Technocracy is unlike any political ideology, the 2 main ideologies being listed as examples, i.e. Capitalism and Communism. You don't hear people talking about Capitalism vs. Socialism, they will always say Communism, even if that is not technically accurate it will be understood.
Anyway to reiterate people understand the term "Communism" to mean the "Socialist" system of the USSR, and that is the way it should be termed in the article.
--Hibernian 03:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
We actually have two separate articles for the two different understandings of the term "communism" on wikipedia: Communism, which is about "final state communism", and Communist state, which is about USSR-style social and economic systems. It's a useful way to avoid confusion. However, I disagree that "you don't hear people talking about Capitalism vs. Socialism". I do in fact hear that a lot, and I talk about it myself quite a bit. I think it largely depends on where you live, but overall socialism is more widely known and talked about than communism. -- Nikodemos 06:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Alright then how about editing it to...
The Technocratic movement aims to establish a [[socio-economic]] system known as '''technocracy''', which is based upon [[abundance (economics)|abundance]], as opposed to [[scarcity]]-based economic systems like [[capitalism]] and [[Communist state|Communism]].
Which will look like this...
"The Technocratic movement aims to establish a socio-economic system known as technocracy, which is based upon abundance, as opposed to scarcity-based economic systems like capitalism and Communism."
Or perhaps it should be rewritten to something like...
"The Technocratic movement aims to establish a socio-economic system known as technocracy, which is based upon abundance, as opposed to scarcity-based economic systems used in Capitalist and Communist states."
Would that satisfy you?
Also I don't really like some of your edits to the Urbanates Article I wrote, Thanks for eliminating the capitalization and standardizing spelling, but I think I'm going to rewrite some of those other edits as I don't think they are very useful.
--Hibernian 23:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner. Due to my current schedule, I can only spend time editing wikipedia once every few days. So there might be a delay in my replying to your messages or reacting to any edits you make. I do agree with your compromise, in a slightly modified form: "...[[scarcity]]-based economic systems like [[capitalism]] and the system used by [[Communist state]]s." I hope that will settle our dispute.

By the way, I want to mention that, although I am by no means a Technocrat myself, I do sympathise with some of the ideas and goals of Technocracy. So if you need my help in editing Technocracy-related articles, just ask. :) -- Nikodemos 02:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Dyslexic Wikipedians

Category:Dyslexic Wikipedians which you have included on your user page has been proposed for deletion you can comment at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Wikipedians by mental condition. --Salix alba (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technocracy Movement

Hello! Thanks for your message, it is a clear rebuttal by a member which I have to take into account. I'm not really sure about the distinction he makes between "managing machines", and "engineers replacing politics" — as I understand it, engineers can replace politicians only insofar as politics become managing of machines & not anymore of humans — this, by the way, reminds Marx & Engels' "administration of things" which would replace politics... This is an interesting subject, which would need more time and analysis. In the time being, thanks for having provided an explanation! Regards, Tazmaniacs 15:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ashmoo vandalism by Hilter

Thanks for that. I was actually aware but thought I'd leave it until her lost interest to save multiple reverts. Ashmoo 01:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology

Since you are interested in flags and emblems I would like to inform you that the WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology has just been created. Why not take a look? I hope you can join. Inge 20:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Army

Hi,

Good work on the Irish Army page. I'm wondering if we need a seperate page for the History section, or perhaps for the UN missions alone? I'm interested in your opinion.

Jdorney 19:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks. Nice work on the history section BTW. Eh, I'm not sure if we need to split the article into a separate History or UN article, but I suppose it is very large now. I think I'll leave that decision up to you, if you think there is enough material to make separate articles then I suppose go for it. I think what I'd really like for the article would be a much more thorough analysis of the Irish Army's capabilities and doctrines. I wrote a small part about the army's weapons and equipment but because information is somewhat hard to find and because I'm not an expert on this, it's difficult to write satisfactorily. It would be good if we had someone who knows about the Army's Philosophy and Doctrine of War/Defence in detail. --Hibernian 22:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. I don't have any specialist military knowledge however, so I wouldn't be of any use in writing about their capabilities/doctrines. I'll leave the history where it is for now. Howevr, I can get my hands on quite a lot of info about the foundation of the army, the civil war era, the 1924 mutiny and the emergency, so I might start a history article based on that in the future.

Cheers, Jdorney 07:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

Thanks for fixing the boxes. It was only last night that I saw they'd been 'nicked' (Wikipedia:Userbox migration) Hope you found some good ones - Culnacréann 18:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hibernian, Thanks for using the userbox that I created (the one about supporting environmental protection). I'm glad that there're people in the world who care about the environment just as much as I do. Currently I am doing double major (Biology and Environment Science) at University of Toronto. If you have any questions about environmental protection, please don't hesitate to contact me by wiki.
OhanaUnited 04:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Userboxes

I've been meaning to put a note on my page saying they are free to take, I just forget and/or get lazy. BTW, I don't think you have enough userboxes yet. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Similar Interests

I was just noting the huge number of similarities of beliefs and interest to myself in your page. Atheism, evolution, Isaac Asimove (who I quote lots in my politics books (see Bob_Fink. Also see "Role of the Drone in the Development of Harmony" [here http://www.greenwych.ca/drone.htm] -- Bob F. 65.255.225.36 12:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh hi there. Well it's always good to meet someone of similar interests, so Hi. So you're the guy on the Bob Fink page? Wow, Interesting stuff. I took a look through some of your Website a while ago (when I came across the Prehistoric music page), it's very interesting stuff, though a lot of it is a bit over my head. I do find the subject of Prehistoric music quite interesting, although because I don't have any Musical training, it can be very difficult to understand the Jargon. I really liked hearing the "Oldest Song" on your site, very Cool! You know, you should really get yourself a User account, instead of editing as an anonymous user, people don't really respect anons. Anyway, it's good to see people of your calibre contributing to Wikipedia. --Hibernian 13:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clondalkin Toastmasters

Why did you delete the Clondalkin Toastmasters Entry in the Local Clubs Section? You claim it's "Blatant Advertising". Toastmasters is a worldwide nonprofit educational organisation for the purpose of helping its members improve their communication, public speaking and leadership skills. Surely if you're deleting the Clondalkin Toastmasters Entry, you have just as much right to go and delete the "Toastmasters" Entry? I'm new to Wikipedia so maybe I'm missing something? I'm simply letting people know what it is we do. If there's an acceptable form of entry, let me know. Odhranobrien 09:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Odhranobrien, I removed that entry on Toastmasters because of the way it was written. I can understand that you're new to Wikipedia, but you've got to learn the rules of how things are written and included. Wiki is an Encyclopaedia not a place to put up advertising (even if you mean well), there can of-course be an entry about the Clondalkin Toastmasters club, but only if it's written in a neutral and factual way (i.e. in Encyclopaedic language). I'm going to go over and rewrite the entry to make it NPOV, it should then be acceptable. --Hibernian 15:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Grand stuff Hibernian - I was annoyed that it was taken out altogether. I see what you mean regarding how things need to be written. I got carried away in my role of Public Relations Guy for the Club :)

[edit] Image sizes

Please don't change image thumb sizes as you did in the X-38 article. This is contrary to the Manual of Style. By hard-coding the size, you force people to view them at that size. If you leave a size out, the user preferences then dictates the size that the image is seen at. Thanks. Akradecki 04:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I must say I've never heard of that rule before. I've seen hundreds of Pictures all across Wikipedia with specific sizes in the code, I assumed that was fine. I was under the impression the one should attempt to make the images as big as practically possible as displaying the detail of the pics was important. It seems strange to me that you advocating that there should only be thumbnail sized images on Wiki, if you think that then you're going to have to go change thousands of articles. Anyway I still don't see what was wrong with larger images on that page, I think they looked quite good and I was quite happy with my work there, oh well. --Hibernian 05:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EU vote

Hi Hibernian, I noticed your comment on EU talk. I really appreciate it, because so far there are many deletionists trying to reduce what they can in the article. If your are still interested in keeping all of the pictures which make sense, then vote and keep an eye on it in talk. Would be great. all the best Lear 21 03:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hahaha

Umm, homophobia m ans a "fear of gays" which I have none of. All I am doing is pointing out the truth that it isn't natural and it is wrong. If you're not born with it, then it can be fixed and is down to your choice, and therefore it is wrong. Why are you so offended, are you unlucky enough to be gay ??? ahahahahaha. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.24.18 (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

You know, most people would just delete the moronic ravings of a Vandal from their Talk pages immediately, but I think I will keep it here for people to see just how Moronic you truly are. Let's begin, "hahaha", I don't see what you're laughing at, nothing particularly funny here (although it did give me a bit of laugh to see you actually wrote that), perhaps you thought of something funny to say but neglected to write it down...
Yes you are defiantly Homophobic, you may not fear gay people, but you fear a world in which Gay people have rights. It is by no means the "Truth" that Homosexuality is unnatural or wrong in any way actually. In-fact if you would take the time to research it, you would find that Homosexuality occurs in all animals (including humans) naturally. The explanation is not necessarily certain, but it's got to be somewhere in the genes, which By Definition makes it Natural (things don't get much more natural than stuff that's in our genes). "Wrong" is a moral standpoint that has no objectivity. Religion (which is I assume what you base your claim on) certainly provides no definitive morality, a few centuries ago Christianity saw Slavery as right, now it is wrong, see how easily morals change?
As for being gay myself, no (I'm sure you'll be relieved to hear) I'm not gay, if I was I'd have put it on my User page (read my page, I'm what you'd call a Left-wing Radical, I'm sure you and I would really hate each other). Though I do like defending gays and keeping Wiki clean of crap, and certainly enjoy getting rid of Homophobe Bull Shit. By the way I'm not offended what so ever, I don't get offended by Right-wing trolls on the Internet, LOL. When I saw your stuff I just though "Yawn. Another dumb Vandal, time to revert him. Why do these people waist there time? Don't they know they'll never get away with that kind of crap on Wikipedia? Oh well". So please don't give yourself any credit of Offending me, it would take a lot to do that. "ahahahahaha", wow a bizarre maniacal laugh when there is again nothing funny, perhaps the sign of a deranged mind?
And of-course I hope you know that I'll be watching everything you do on Wiki from now on and reverting any crap, that is, if the Admins don't just ban you very soon (which is very likely). I suggest you save yourself the trouble and just get off Wikipedia. Find another place to spill Garbage, perhaps the KKK's website would be more to your tastes.
I'd like to close with the interesting observation made by many, that Homophobes are often closet Homosexuals themselves, and that it is their insecurity of their sexuality that drives them to persecute others. I've always found that highly amusing. --Hibernian 06:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Now this is funny, you actually tried to Vandalise me, that's a first! I'll see it as a badge of honour, most people who tackle Vandals get their page done at one time or another, now I'm part of the club, Hehe. Man it just shows once again what a total Child you are, you discredit your whole cause and all those like you. And I didn't even have to revert it myself, thanks Persian Poet Gal! --Hibernian 06:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We can't allow fair use images in user pages

You have fair use image Image:Murphy-CoA.jpg on your use page. We can't allow that because of Rule #9 in the fair use image rules. You will need to remove it.

BTW: It appears that one of your images (probably either a flag or a coat of arms), was replaced with a SVG image. You might want to upgrade in case the old image is deleted. Will (Talk - contribs) 07:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, are you sure that applies? The image is of the Medieval Coat of Arms of the Murphy Clan/Family, how can that be copyrighted? If so, who could possibly hold the copyright? I mean I used to draw that image in Primary school, I don't see how it can be anything but public domain. Maybe I could argue that, seeing as I am a Murphy, I can use it? What's the world coming to if a person doesn’t even have the right to display their own family heritage without getting sued?! --Hibernian 19:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The arms of the Murphy family cannot be copyrighted; but that particular drawing (which is not just the coat of arms, but a full "achievement of arms") was drawn by someone, and copyrighted by someone. The copyright is not in the arms themselves, but in that specific drawing thereof. --Orange Mike 16:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC) (a patriot who likes a lot of your userboxes, and may gank some)

[edit] Fair use images aren't allowed in user pages

I found you are using the fair use images listed below on your user page. As per Rule #9 of the fair use image rules, you will need to remove those image. You can link to them, but not display them. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

If you don't understand why this is nessecary, you can ask the administrator Durin. He is better at explaining the problem than I am. You could also go to the policy portion of the village pump and ask there.

The list
Image:Murphy-CoA.jpg

I will probably check back in a day or so to verify the images were either removed or converted into links. If you need help making the change, let me know.

I should also note that the image Image:Dwik.PNG does not have a license. You might want to remove it until an appropriate free license is added. Will (Talk - contribs) 10:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You are me

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that you and I are the same person, except you are from Ireland, and I'm from the United States. Wikipedia brown 22:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the cryptic message. It's uncanny how much we have in common. I guess it's bound to happen. By the way, I was on technocracy.ca for a while (as PeakToil) but haven't checked it recently. Also by the way, we should trade notes on what's cool (music, movies, subjects), since it appears that we have VERY similar interests. But feel free to ignore me if you have better stuff to do! Wikipedia brown 22:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Connolley using Wikipedia to blog?

One administrator thinks so. ~ UBeR 23:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, well, looks like you've got your way on this one. You know, you're a petty, petty man. --Hibernian 18:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged "North Star Republic" movement

When I googled for "North Star Republic", all I got was echoes of the two Wikipedia articles. Where did you find anything else? --Orange Mike 15:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well Like I said, the evidence is certainly very scarce, but it is mentioned on this site http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4968/homeland.html. They claim that the Movement has a Website, but the link leads nowhere, possibly they once had a site but it has now gone. That site isn't exactly a reliable source, but they do list a lot of other real secessionist movements, so I would be willing to think it's real also. This page also mentions this movement, http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/news/global/090800b.html, the thing about this page is it was written in 2000, before Wikipedia even existed, so Wiki couldn’t have influenced this article (not that it's a particularly reliable source either though). There may be other mentions, I haven't taken the time to look very hard, but from these it indicates to me that there probably is (or more likely was) an organization advocating a North Star Republic. Now it may very well have been a tiny group and they may no longer exist, I don't know, but it seems that at-least some trace of them is out there. Someone would have to do some in depth research to find out who they are/were, but that's a bit above me. So I'll leave it up to you as to what to do with the entry, Delete it, or leave it with a Citation needed tag for a while, or list those sites as the citation, or perhaps try to find more reliable sources. --Hibernian 16:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been active in Wisconsin politics for thirty years, and I've never heard of them. I think we'll leave it with the "cite needed" tag for a while. --Orange Mike 16:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Nae King! Nae Quin! Nae laird! Nae master! We willna be fooled again!

[edit] Image:Kosovo pisg logo.PNG

Hello, Hibernian. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Kosovo pisg logo.PNG) was found at the following location: User:Hibernian. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 17:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North Star Republic

if your interested in updating your links to our page here it is: http://northstarrepublicml.googlepages.com/home


[edit] Message to Hibernian also posted elsewhere.

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

TO HIBERNIAN and Isenhand, and Wafulz. ---

I have now found out that Hibernian has also trashed my links and contribution to the Technocracy Movement page from myself. 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. I am all for constructive conversation. I do not like the name calling from you. Do you understand ? 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);

Hibernian your writing on Urbanates is not a part of the Technocracy Movement as designed by the Technical Alliance. It is a construct made up by people on the TechCa. site and the Technet site. It has nothing to do with the design laid out by Technocracy Incorporated. It should not be there. (Skipsievert 14:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC))


[edit] email

Could you send me an email. If you don't have my address, ask Enrique. Thanks. Isenhand 12:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've asked him for it, but what do you want me to send you an E-mail about? --Hibernian 02:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Consequences of personal attacks

Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated personal attacks, that should not imply that they are acceptable or without consequences. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to be handled through the dispute resolution process, possibly including the serious consequences of arbitration, and may become subject to a community ban.

In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity, in particular, may result in a block without warning. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less severe situations when it is unclear if the "conduct severely disrupts the project". Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption". Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks.(skip sievert 02:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Block

Sorry to do this, but you've been blocked for six hours. Don't call other users trolls, despite how obvious it may seem.-Wafulz 12:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technocracy

This is completely and utterly STUPID. There is hardly any rational way to deal with this person. He continues to attack everyone who disagrees with him and has now started to attack me because I didn't like how he attacked people. What the fuck is going on here? --77siddhartha 19:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject U2 invitation

You have been invited to join WikiProject U2, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the U2-related articles on Wikipedia. You recieved this invitation due to your interest in U2 and/or your many edits to U2 articles. If you would like to join, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of project members.

Thank you, Dream out loud (talk)

[edit] Image:Technocrat speaking.jpg

Yes, I was the one who deleted the image. It was listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 June 22/Images. Unfortunately the tagger did not warned you as he should have. Sorry about that, I do try to check but with so many images/articles sometimes I miss some. The image came from [1] however there was no indication on the source site that the image was indeed released under a creative commons license, therefore I deleted the image. Garion96 (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll just post this here too. I'm afraid it was not correct to delete the image, you see I've got permission from the Website owner to place any of the photos in his gallery ([2]) to Wikipedia under that licence. There really is no copyright issue anyway, as the people in the pictures are almost all long dead and the organization doesn't even care about copyrights anyway (i.e. they're basically an anti-copyright group). They certainly won't be suing Wikipedia even if there was a problem, which there isn't, because as I said, permission was given. I guess I'll have to re-upload it. --Hibernian 17:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
About posting a response, the standard is to write your response on the talk page of the person you are responding too. That way you get the orange "new messages" bar. If you like to keep conversations together on one page you can choose for instance the keep the discussion on the talk page where the discussion started. If so, you might want to mention on your talk so people know what to expect.

About the image, I can undelete it in 2 seconds if necessary. The fact that people in the picture are dead is no reason to stop copyright. Copyright. in general. works till 70 years after the death of the maker, not the person pictured. Is Technocracy.ca the copyright holder of the image? If so, could they state on their website that they release all (or just that one) image under the cc license you used. That would be the easiest. Or could you/they send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org? This way it will be registered in our system in case someone else later will again tag the image as a copyright violation. Garion96 (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technocracy disambiguating

Hello,

First, I absolutely disagree that technocrat and technocrats should link to technocrat (derogatory). The latter article is, as its title states, about one sole aspect of the term: how it's used in a negative sense, either as an insult or for cultural commentary. If you look at the articles talking about technocrats, you'll see that almost all the time, they are discussing technocrats in a neutral, purely descriptive way: someone who's hired or noted for their technical skills rather than their politics. It makes no sense to link to an article that has nothing to do with what technocrats actually are. In fact, I really don't see why technocrat (derogatory) even exists. We don't have fascist (derogatory) or Nazi (derogatory) articles; the content can easily be merged into the generic technocracy (bureaucracy) article, as a separate section on "views of technocrats" maybe.

Second, check the articles at Category:Technocracy movement. The only one I've edited is Howard Scott, and that was in this context:

Howard Scott and the Alliance used their findings and conclusions to formulate a solution referred to as Technocracy. Scott then dissolved the Alliance (as its tasks were finished) and became the first Director-In-Chief of Technocracy Incorporated in 1933, a position he held until his death.

Now, given that there is already a link to Technocracy Incorporated, which redirects to Technocracy Movement, I didn't see any point in having a second link to the same destination in the same paragraph. Far better to describe the general background of what technocracy is, rather than a specific political movement, I would think. If you disagree, then you should remove the first link, because two links to Technocracy Movement are superfluous. -- Hongooi 03:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well firstly, I didn't say all instances of the word technocrat should be directed to technocrat (derogatory), I said it should be linked when it is appropriate, I believe there are several instances (though I'm not 100% sure), where it is being used in an article as an accusation, thus denoting a derogatory intention. But yes I also agree that the technocrat (derogatory) has never been a very useful one as it doesn't actually describe the term completely (i.e. there are people who don't use it as an insult), and I've been thinking about some kind of rewrite for a long time.
And well actually you also edited Technate, and Walter Rautenstrauch (who is somewhat incidental to the topic, but...), I didn't look through all of your edits that deeply to see if you had been doing all of them when I wrote my message, I just saw a few done and assumed, and went to ask you. Anyway...
As for the multiple redirects to the movement article, yes I'm aware of it, but there are some reasons it's like that, number one being that Technocracy Movement and Technocracy Incorporated used to be separate articles, and number two, they may well be again soon, as there's a debate about splitting, so I was just going to leave it alone until that was done.
Anyway, what I was going to say was, that the Technocracy disambiguation page isn't useless, it may allow people to get to the form of Technocracy their looking for, when the meaning in an article is not clear. The bureaucracy article isn't just a fix all to be used for everything. --Hibernian 04:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
If you look at Walter Rautenstrauch, you'll again see that I did in fact dab it to Technocracy movement, just like you want. As for the technocrat (derogatory) issue, check the links and you'll again see that I have linked there wherever I found it appropriate: mostly when it's being used as a clear insult. The substantive content at technocracy (bureaucracy) far outweighs that at the derogatory article, hence I consider it safer to link there if there's any doubt.
Further, in most cases the meaning of "technocracy" or "technocrat" in an article is clear. Most of the time, it's referring to technocracy in general (not the specific political movement you seem to be a member of), or someone who is, well, a technocrat (as described above). In any case, this practice of referring vague meanings to dab pages rather misses the point of such pages. A disambiguation page is just a place to link to other pages with specific subjects. If there is no specific page that meets the need of a given link, that indicates a new page should be written or an existing page expanded, rather than just linking to the dab page. I refer you to WP:MOSDAB, in particular: "Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the information they want quickly and easily. These pages are not for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific article." -- Hongooi 04:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I should say though, that this sort of feedback is very valuable, to make sure I don't go off-track. Thanks for your comments; they're much appreciated, even if I may be a bit curt in my reply. At least it means someone is using those links! -- Hongooi 04:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hibernian/Ross Murphy, could you give a lot of specific examples of energy credit use

In Technocracy literature ? I do not see that term used. You did not explain your edits on the Energy Accounting article that you did. I think you may be absolutely wrong in your description of energy credits. Mainstream Technocracy does not use the term Energy Credits to my knowledge. (skip sievert 04:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

Here is a recent example that proves you wrong about your usage of the term energy credit to describe energy certificates in energy accounting.

The usership right is a part of the social contract which is the technate. It is physically manifested through an energy certifikate. The available capacity is divided into energy units, which could also be called energy credits although it might be misleading. Why? Because the units, since they most correspond to the available consumption capacity in the technate during a given time period (minus of course usage during said period), would not be possible to save over that period. Instead, the certifikate will be reloaded with a new share more corresponding to the new total production capacity of the technate.

This is from here, http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_jd-wp&Itemid=93&p=7 Network of European Technocrats

I will simply state it again for you, it is used in Technocracy Incorporated official documents (i.e. TTCD) and websites, and is in common use by Technocrats. Energy Credits, Energy Certificates, Energy Accounting, Energy Distribution, they all mean the same thing. I have no more interest in hearing your ramblings, and do not intend to discuss this issue with you again, as it has already by talked about extensively. And Skip, if you think I'm going to courteously engage with you while you are still running a website which personally defames me, then you've got another thing coming. --Hibernian 15:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not see your points and you are not citing examples. The personal defame thing started on TechCa. Free speech works both ways. My site is a parody site. Lighten up. Lets be creative and present the material free of personal bias here. (skip sievert 15:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

HA! You! Suggesting non-bias!??? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard all week. --Hibernian 15:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of Energy Accounting accurate information http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm The Energy Certificate The information from the TTCD is edited by Kolzene and therefore considered biased. It is possible to find obscure references in Technocracy material, even by TechInc, about energy credits, but almost always that term is used like an allegory and is not the actual term but a reference to money and its concepts. Let stop the personal stuff here and work toward the good of the article, which means presenting accurate information with the weight of that information being the arbiter of judgment.(skip sievert 16:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

Here is another 3rd party description of Energy Accounting/Energy Certificates http://gloryoftechnocracy.blogspot.com/ Glory Of Technocracy This site makes it very clear that the term credit is not a good description.(skip sievert 00:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Why did you remove the Technocracy Incorporated publications I put into the Technocracy movement article ? (skip sievert 02:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

I removed them because they are only essays, that section is for books published by Technocracy, not all the essays that have ever been written. We can't start putting in every single thing published by Tech Inc. or the list will become enormous. That's not to diminish their importance, but as I understand it, that section is for books only. --Hibernian 13:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You may be wrong about that. I am the Price System was originally published in booklet form. I have an original copy. Also the TTCD using that criteria is not a 'book'. It is also an information brief only. The ONLY book is the Technocracy Study Course, that I am aware of that was published by TechInc. I am the Price System is a very famous piece of writing that should be highlighted in the article. The list should be expanded with selected essay publications, along with the general link to archived publications. As said, using that criteria, you are giving, the TTCD is absolutely not a book and should be removed then for that reason, if that is the argument you are using. It is listed as an information brief, or longer essay.(skip sievert 03:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Star_Trek_Human_Montage.JPG

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Star_Trek_Human_Montage.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Ross

I was just reading your User page, alot of Userboxes i must say, and noticed that you support both Welsh and Scottish independence from the United Kingodm, i would ask that you put this:

This user supports the secession of England from the United Kindom.

On your page too, as support for independence for England is the fastest growing movement of the UK countries (and arguably the most popular). Cheers. Gazh 15:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh hello there, while I see where you're coming from, I don't think I'll be using that Userbox, at least for now. You see it doesn't really make much sense to me, to directly advocate English independence, seeing as if Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the other dependencies become independent of the UK, then England automatically becomes independent also. Let's face it, the "UK" is just the English Empire by another name, so it seems like a strange idea to advocate that the Imperial power become "independent" of its own empire. Although I would certainly support the idea of English people wanting to break up the UK, as our goals would be the same, namely secession of all the nations. --Hibernian 16:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand, many Irish give similar replies - probably because we are looking at the same situation just from a different angle. I will add though that English independence is a struggle of the people and not the government (who ofcourse would love to keep the union going forever) - so to support English independence is to support it's people and not an 'Empire' of sorts. Remember not all of England received the wealth of the Empire, infact some regions are still poorer than the other Union countries to this day. Gazh 08:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Formation and evolution of the Solar System

Aside from the obvious (the lack of citation) what else do you think is needed for the article? I'm thinking of tackling it after I finish my current crop. Serendipodous 18:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I mainly put that tag there because of the atrocious grammar in many parts of the article. For instance this paragraph that I am currently attempting to rewrite into something understandable...

During this time, it is possible that the icy moons around Jupiter and Saturn, such as Titan and Europa, as the temperature also rises by roughly up to 100 degrees warmer, its frozen atmosphere will gradually sublimate into globes of liquid oceans, and the average temperature can maintain anywhere between freezing point of water and 30° C, and as its anti-greenhouse effect also gradually releases, can trap in appropriate atmosphere such as oxygen which they are currently lack of, can possibly create some reserviors for possible current known lifes.

Now I don't know about you, but this is almost impossible to comprehend, it sounds like it was written by someone who doesn't speak English very well, and the whole paragraph is just one big sentence. Hence the need for some serious cleanup. I've already tried to make a few other similar parts better, but some of it is so badly written that I don't even really know if my changes are adequate.
Also there is one thing which seems to be factually questionable, in one part it states that the Asteroid belt is "10th the mass of the Earth", and later it says it's "10th the mass of the Earth's Moon", I assume this can be easily corrected by looking up the value, but its another reason for cleanup. Then there's also the question of the multiple dates for the various events, which many editors seem to be putting in and changing without citing anything. (I may also post this message on the talk page if that's useful). --Hibernian 18:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Well for the record, the correct answer is "A tenth the size of Earth's moon" (in fact, it's a lot less than that). The Kuiper belt is a tenth the mass of the Earth. I can provide citations for both figures, if you're interested. Serendipodous 20:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy Accounting reference point

http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm The Energy Certificate an original copy and a reedited copy, http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dfx7rfr2_93dqt642 The Energy Certificate/Energy Accounting.Technocracy system. The predominent terminology as to energy certificate energy accounting. Lets keep it simple, and easy to understand. Energy Certificate is the term that is most easily understandable and the one that is used in most of the literature. (skip sievert 21:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

Yes Skip, I'm well aware of the Certificate (and I have no problem with them being in the article), but as Kolzene was attempting to explain to you some time ago, it is not the only term in use in the literature, Energy Credits and Energy units are also mentioned many times. The objective of a Wikipedia article is not to write what you think Technocracy should say, but simply write what is does say, and at the moment I see Credits galore, so until that changes, they stay. Oh and that second link, I hope you know that if it was reedited by you then it is no longer an official document, as I (and anyone else) will have no idea what you may have put into or taken out of it (or could do in the future). So it is not an acceptable reference here, only the originals please. Oh and you mentioned on the Energy Accounting page that your edit had "been there for weeks" (or some such), you realize that the only reason it was allowed to stand for so long was because I wasn't online for a month, if I had seen it any earlier, rest assured, I would have reverted it then. --Hibernian 17:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read some of this material material before proceeding with Technocracy related edits if you would.

http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/History%20&%20Purpose-r.htm History and Purpose of Technocracy

http://www.technocracy.org/origins-1.htm The Origins of Technocracy

http://web.telia.com/~u11319012/index.htm Andrew Alexander Wallace - Also keep in mind that this editor runs a large commercial enterprise connected with 'selling' Technocracy related items. skip sievert (talk) 08:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technocracy Study Course info

Not sure if you are actually interested in the subject Hibernian but currently a new scan of the Technocracy Study Course is being done by http://technatedesign-tnat.blogspot.com/ The North American Technate TNAT

It should be done fairly soon. It will be the actual scan of the paper study course that was published between 1934 and 1948. That includes the energy survey as well as some other very interesting information published after the last two chapters that outline the Technate design.

The current copy that is on wikipedia was done to a purpose and that purpose was not to inform people as to the contents of the actual Technocracy Study Course. If you care to order through any rare or vintage book seller you will see what I am talking about. It is hoped that the new scan will be done in the next week or so. You perhaps could special order a copy of the Study Course in your library system where you are. Perhaps. It is in multiple libraries in the U.S. and also in the Library of Congress here. skip sievert (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formal request for mediation filed

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Technocracy movement 2. Sign at the bottom to begin mediation.-Wafulz (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, sorry I'm late, I'll got sign it now. --Hibernian (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You may find this interesting in regard to Technate design ideas.

http://www.youtube.com/TBonePickensetc YouTube - TBonePickensetc's Channel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skipsievert (talk • contribs) 03:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC) skip sievert (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Technocrac movement.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 13:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Article importance scale for WikiProject Equine

Hello. WikiProject Equine is discussing an article importance scale here. Your POV would be appreciated. --Una Smith (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Technocratic views of the Price system

I have nominated Technocratic views of the Price system, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technocratic views of the Price system. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] London

London is sinking by 1-2 mm per year due to sea-level rise. If London is sinking by 1-2 mm per year, then a calculation can be made that by 2100, London will sink 100 mm and by 2200, it will sink upto 200 mm. My question is that if a city like London sinks 200 mm, then what will the effect? Will it become inhabitable? After permanent sea level rise due to global warming, what will be the effect if London permanently sinks by 200mm? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? Eh, are you sure you've got the right userpage? I don't know much about this issue. Although it is interesting and if I was to speculate, I'd say that a figure of 10 to 20 cm rise isn't a lot. I doubt much would be flooded by that. However, considering the real implications of Global Warming, this measly rise is the last thing to be worrying about, if the polar Ice caps do melt then most of southern England (let alone London) will be underwater (i.e. there'll be many metres of sea level rise See the article on Sea level rise). In-fact my guess is that this rise (or rather sinking) is due to geological activity, that is to say; the sea is not rising around London, the land London is built on is sinking into the sea. Perhaps it is due to the long term geological process that is making Scotland rise up from the Earth's crust and England sink down (I think that's been going on for tens of millions of years, see Subduction and Plate tectonics). But anyway like I said, I'm not an expert on this. --Hibernian (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)