User talk:Isenhand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Isenhand! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some pages to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini hablame aqui 07:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

[edit] Edit Summary Request

I have noted that you edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini hablame aqui 07:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NET

Hi Isenhand. I'm posting here because my talk page is a mess. Thanks for being brief and rational with your initial concern- I hate having to read essays to figure out what's going on. The reason I don't think the NET link should be included at the bottom is because the technocratic movement is very broad, and it's very rare for a movement to actually have an official website to begin with. Websites are listed when they are resources beyond that which a featured article could use (a transcript of a movie, for example) or when they are the official or umbrella affiliate of the subject (such as Tech Inc.'s website). In my admittedly novice opinion, I don't think the NET meets either of these relevant criteria, and since it already has a history subsection, I think it's sufficiently covered. The problem with adding a website for each geographical location is we end up with lists like this (this was about 25% of the links). If you disagree or have anything else to add, just let me know. --Wafulz 16:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The feature article doesn’t go into a great detail. NET’s site does contain more information beyond what the article on wiki has. In addition it has a forum site. To my mind both would count as “resources beyond which the feature article could use”.
In addition, as the technocracy article is about the technocracy movement it should cover more than just Technocracy Inc (which it does). I think its fair and reasonable then to have a link to both Tech inc sites and to other sites of official organisations around the world. As a precedence the Green Party page on wiki does have links to various geographical areas. Isenhand 08:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested revert

See m:The Wrong Version. Go seek mediation as noted here.-Wafulz (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I already know that, it’s not the first time we have had trouble with skip! But still the edit request remains. As we have the page locked it would be good if it could be a better version with out skip’s edits in it.
As you may have noticed skip appears to have no interest in the integrity of wikipedia or providing good edits supported by reliable sources nor in providing a positive contribution to technocracy. If you look at his actions both internal and external to wikipedia they are more consistent with a person who’s only intent is disruption and to bring about as much conflict with other people as possible and he appears to use wikipedia as his latest battle ground after he has been expelled from technocratic forums and organisations.
For evidence, I will just list two things but you can see his actions in the history of the technocracy pages for more evidence. First, after his initial attempt at bring about as much conflict as possible, it was suggested he submit his edits for discussion before making them. He doe s not do this, he goes ahead with his edits regardless. See the discussion page on the NET page where his first comments for his latest edits are dated 21 January 2008 but he stated his edits way back in the beginning of December 2007. Second, you may remember skip’s blog sites. One, that Hibernian pointing out, was a mock NET page and the other was technocracynow, where he had set him self up as the “official Technocracy Inc.”(skip has now, unfortunately, taken both down ). The fact that he put both up seriously brings into question his intent. Those actions are not consistent with someone who is genuinely making edits in the belief that they are good edits.
He does not appear to have the ability think rationally. For this, you can look at his comments in wikipedia. I will list use a few for evidence to support this claim.
From the technocracy movement discussion page:
“This link is Howard Scott stating who exactly the intellectual fore father of Technocracy is. Formerly the article gave the impression of that being Veblen which is wrong.”
Here, skip is using an argument from authority. Because the founder of the movement says it is so, therefore, it is so. He then dismisses any evidence that does not support his opinion (the importance of Veblin comes from research conducted by a sociologist).
“As I have noted a number of times NET is a group of 3 bloggers in Sweden”
“Net does not deserve a place on this page. They are four bloggers that are based in sociological concepts.”
Shows an inability to count and to understand basic concepts such as what a blogging site is.
I could go on as skip provides plenty of such examples.
Summary
The actions of skip doe not appear to be consistent with someone who wishes to make a positive contribution to wikipedia. His edits appear to be intended as disruption and to bring about as much conflict with other people as possible. He appears to lack the intellectual ability to engage in rational discourse.
Conclusion
Mediation can only work if both parties have a willingness to come to agreement. The actions of skip indicate that he would have no such willingness. Therefore, mediation will not resolve anything and when the edit protection gets lifted skip will return to placing erroneous information in the page returning it back to a battlefield. Isenhand (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Isenhand you have shown no interest at all in cooperation on articles mentioned. It is also noted that until recently you have edited under an alias of Technocrate. It is supposed that is done because you are in a conflict of interest with selling your book www.lulu.com/content/750510 Technocracy: Building a new sustainable society for a post carbon world by Andrew Wallace (Book) in Engineering That book is also sold here http://web.telia.com/~u11319012/index.htm Andrew Alexander Wallace It is also promoted on the NET website en.technocracynet.eu/index.php Network of European Technocrats - News -- It is also noted that you did indeed form a team to try and 'control' these various articles to conform to information in your book which is used to generate income for NET. en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=63&func=view&catid=7&id=853#1399 Network of European Technocrats - Re:"War" on Wikipedia over Technocracy I - N.E.T. Forum. All this seems like a classic conflict of interest. My only interest in any of said articles here on wiki is to present accurate information. That is all. You have not cooperated in any way or been willing to discuss any thing. Why should some of these articles be slanted toward what you present in your book which is considered inaccurate to many? It is noted that an attempt at trying to gain relevance for the NET site seems your only aim along with promoting your book. It is noted that an attempt to link what NET or Network of European Technocrats is doing to TechInc or North American Technocracy ideas is seemingly the reason why you are making the edits you are making on the NET page. There is no connection between the groups. None. No matter how much you desire that. They state publicly and print that they are not connected to other groups in North American or Europe. The claim in your edit that your group is an extension of North American Technocracy is just not true. You are the leader of NET. You are making claims that are not based on fact. As the NET director you are in not only a conflict of interest here, but also it seems unwise to denigrate a fellow editor. skip sievert (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Both of you need to assume good faith about each other's intentions, listen to each other, and seek some sort of mediation. Constantly approaching me and demanding a block is not going to do anything. I don't want any part of this anymore.-Wafulz (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Wafulz, if we assume something contrary to the known facts do we not delude ourselves? It’s not as if skip is unknown. We can, of cause, got through the motions of seeking mediation but for what point? No matter what, skip will just go back to entering his POV regardless. Then what? Either someone will have to keep going around behind him putting it back to something that has more support from the evidence or we just let the page go and leave it as an unreliable source. Isenhand (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] conflicts of interest

I am afraid that logic is flawed. It is true that you are a self published author attempting to link your information about NET. That is writing about yourself. www.lulu.com/content/750510 Technocracy: Building a new sustainable society for a post carbon world by Andrew Wallace (Book) in Engineering - That is a conflict of interest. Do you deny that? No. That is a fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mediation is fine with me, although I do not think it appropriate for you to be connected to this article at this point because of your wholesale reverts of better information. Better yet why not just improve the article with accurate and unbiased info. That is my only purpose here.

Now for instance you are claiming Isenhand that NET should be considered a continuation of North American Technocracy. It is not though. That is a false claim. That is only one example. You have removed links to Technocracy information that broadens many definitions of your (NETs) antecedents taken from the actual Technate design program. Your attempt to control this article is documented en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=63&func=view&catid=7&id=853#1399 Network of European Technocrats - Re:"War" on Wikipedia over Technocracy I - N.E.T. Forum.

So again in Network of European Technocrats article, editing as Technocrate, this is writing about yourself, promoting self published information. The NET book published by you yourself is designed to produce income for the site that you are promoting here and you are also the Director of the group that the article is about (you are the NET director Andrew Wallace ). Your very own self published book is used as an authority on Technocracy issues in the NET article here. You quote from three books written in sociological terms from your book. Those books are considered fiction accounts with Point of View interest only.

You also have a pattern of writing fake reviews under Isenhand for your book on the internet http://www.sustainabilityblog.org/ SustainabilityBlog.Org Scroll down to Problems Problems Problems... There you are reviewing your book under the Isenhand name on another site. The actual information from the Technical Alliance or Technocracy Incorporated which has published and printed much information is ignored. Although I have tried to engage this editor(Isenhand), posted lots of Q&A to this editor (Isenhand), and asked for opinions and so on he has not responded except with overall charges of POV or Vandalism. Both are not connected to the editing process here. I would note that many edits on Technocracy related things on wiki are made up of my edits, including the Willard Gibbs article. My edits are used because it is hard to argue with their being factual. Why on earth would someone take down a connection to Willard Gibbs cited by Howard Scott as the forefather of Technocracy concepts unless they had an agenda ? Isenhand did that repeatedly and called another editor here a vandal also for doing so, that editor being Hibernian. skip sievert (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wafulz come on. Technocrate just reversed my edit and used the accusatory term vandalism when reverting. Could you please help me ? Could you stop this user ? Could you restore my edit and lock the page ? He is using multiple accounts. He is giving no explanation of his edits. skip sievert (talk) 17:34, 1 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) 18:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

now signed. Isenhand (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brief comment

This evening I responded to the note you left on my talk page. -- If this is not an appropriate place to post this particular comment, then I assume that you will delete it. -- Astrochemist (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Some Technocracy Incorporated info that you may find interesting as reference

http://www.youtube.com/TBonePickensetc YouTube - TBonePickensetc's Channel

This information is endorsed by Technocracy Incorporated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skipsievert (talk • contribs) 03:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC) skip sievert (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it’s interesting. You know, your talent really lies in preserving this old stuff. Perhaps if you are serious in making a positive contribution you should stick to that? Isenhand (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Well the old stuff as you put it is based on thermodynamics and has not changed. TechInc did not use a sociological or democratic approach. That type of approach allows for special interest groups to control as in a Price System and it winds up being an oligarchic belief structure instead of functional governance. Glad you found the video's interesting. skip sievert (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thermal dynamics might not have changed but our understanding of other areas of science has. Since the 1930s our scientific knowledge has expanded. The early technocrats didn’t take much into account from psychology, sociology, :ats funny. You think that those issues were not around then ? They were. That was the time of Freud and Jung and Margarete Meade. Mead was involved very closely with our group. All brilliant people. These issues were not used in the design to a purpose. People control manipulation ala Neuro Linguistic Programming and such... things like public relations etc. are concepts based on manipulation and controlling people through devious methods. Those methods were rejected by Technocrats.

Interesting that Howard Scott protected the design until his death. Then the organization was infiltrated by a Scientoligist and some others that did not understand the design. There is no connection to belief systems and special interest groups thereof. Sociology is a pseudo-science. Mostly it is meant to control others actions. Actual Technate ideas don't do that. The actual Study Course with the Appendix is now out there and published. It is the literal scan. It is the unabridged edition. skip sievert (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Try reading what was written. Since the 1930s science has moved on. The ideas and design presented in the TSC are largely out of date.- So is the energy survey. 2008 is not the same as 1933! Also, try reading the TSC, you can see they did indeed include ideas for controlling people’s behaviour and contrasted it with the P$ methods.
BTW, why are you so obsest with controlling people?

I'm not. Not at all. Thats why I am trying to keep the articles objective. Not conforming to preconceived information that conforms to your book. That was my point above. Have you ever read the design chapters ? They preclude sociological control .. or special interest group control. skip sievert (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Read back your comments, especially on Wafulz page and see how many time you mention "control" and see how many time other people mention it. If you want to keep thing objective then you should use sources. Use secondary sources as much as possible. If failing that use primary sources but refer to the information as “the organisations sates” or something similar. Also keep you POV out of it. If you can do that you will make a worthwhile contribution. Isenhand (talk) 07:57, 11 March 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] Warning

If you re-create the deleted article on NET once more, I will block you for spamming. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)