User talk:Wafulz/Archive 14
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
{{editprotected}}
Wafulz, the edit dated 07:32, 17 January 2008 represents the last good edit of the Technocracy Incorporated page. I would like to request that you return the page to that edit. Thanks.
- Editprotected requests are only for the talk pages of the protected page in question. This doesn't seem to be the case here; please place the editprotected on the appropriate talk page. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
edit problem
Wafulz could you please ask Technocrate to not edit the Technocracy movement page the way he is doing in regard to not being in any way involved with the discussion of the article ? Also after each edit he mentions the word vandalism as his reason for editing. That is always his only explanation. As someone who has worked diligently on this article and someones who's edits have been adopted in many cases in this article, this is out of context. I have also included an information site on the Technate design in external links. http://technatedesign-tnat.blogspot.com/ The North American Technate TNAT
This is only an information site from a Technocracy movement related group. It can not be posted on either. To remove a link like that seems out of sync with the intention of this article. If that link is removed then other ones such as NET could be removed as well. Removing either link seems like a bad move as both are directly related.skip sievert (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Blogspot links are not appropriate. I'll leave a note about the use of "vandalism".-Wafulz (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Wafulz, could you justundo the last edit (18:00, 17 January 2008 ) before lock Technocracy Incorporated page. At least then we will have it in a good state for a month before skip starts “editing” it again. Thanks.
- skip sievert (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)One reason the page was locked was because Technocrate refused to discuss or collaborate. Also the conflict of interest of (Dr. Andrew Wallace, Isenhand, Technocrate) being a person that is the director of NET and a self published author promoting a book seems a direct conflict of interest.
The current edit while not perfect by far is better than the biased previous version. I request that it be left in place, and that my self and other editors discuss the future and plans for the article. It seems very inappropriate to write a book and then edit an article to conform to it. skip sievert (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Wafulz I would also like to request page protection for Network of European Technocrats page. This page is full of inaccurate material still. There are broken reference links that lead no where. Technocrate (Isenhand, Wallace) has an obvious conflict of interest reverting edits without discussion, and he continues to use an inappropriate word to describe the work of another editor. I would like to stress here that my only interest is in accuracy. skip sievert (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've disabled the editprotected request. It doesn't seem to apply to User:Wafulz, it seems to apply to some other page. Please place it on the appropriate talk page. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- ok, now done that. Thanks.
Heath Brandon
why did you delete the page of Heath Brandon? He is an up and coming nyc-based musician who has recently gotten to the top of the French Jazz charts. He is ALWAYS confused with a nashville musician named Brandon Heath and I think having his own Wiki page can help avoid the confusion.
this was the page you deleted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heath_Brandon
- It didn't assert meeting inclusion criteria for musicians, so I deleted it via speedy deletion. You can recreate it if you make some claims towards notability, but be aware that if the artist doesn't meet inclusion criteria, the article will be deleted through the articles for deletion process.-Wafulz (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Illustration of sex pillow in missionary position article
Hello, I got the OK from the president of Blowfish to release one of his images into the GFDL (with credit to Blowfish) and use it in our article as an illustration of the use of specially-shaped sex pillows to enhance the missionary position. He did give the caveat that we would need to specify which image it is since some of them belong to his vendors and thus are not his to release. Anyway, I was thinking any of these images might be relevant (see http://www.blowfish.com/catalog/toys/cushions.html ):
- Wedge
- Wedge/Ramp (regular) Combo
- Wedge/Ramp (short) Combo
- Wedge/Ramp (tall) Combo
Let me know what you think would be the best, or if you have another idea. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, I'd go with wedge I guess. Does nobody on Wikimedia Commons own one of these? Considering we get hundreds of people taking pictures of their genitals, you'd think one would have a sex pillow to photograph.-Wafulz (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
references
With a reference like this that goes to a broken link is it better to just take the reference out? ^ Emanuelsson, Erik (3 November 2006). Det teknokratiska idealsamhället. Noden. Retrieved on 19 June 2007. I have noticed for some time that it leads to an unavailable page. It is on this page Technocracy movement. skip sievert (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, the reference is still good. If it was just a broken URL, then you could remove it.-Wafulz (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This is what the page leads to... "Not Found The requested URL /node/200 was not found on this server."
Is that is broken URL ? Should I leave it in or take it out? skip sievert (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Leave it for now. As I said, if it was just a broken URL (as in, "the reference was nothing but a website address pointing to nothing"), then you could remove it. You should ask whoever put the link in if it was a newspaper article or online entry somewhere.-Wafulz (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 1 | 2 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 2 | 7 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding discusion in erotic spanking article
Why would you want to change the name of the article to "erotic flagellation"? I suppose you might think that as a more detailed description of the article referring to the actual striking of the bottom as an erotic behavior. However, erotic spanking encompasses more than just the striking of the bottom. What makes spanking erotic is the submissive positions when spanked, the role-playing that is sometimes involved (all though not mentioned enough in the article i think), and the whole psychological complex that goes on between the spanker and the spankee. Theokay (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- The references I've seen redirect "spanking" to "flagellation", so I wanted more input.-Wafulz (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Proprietary stuff
Do you have access to the full article at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14992209 ? Perhaps you can be of help in getting some of the stuff we need from JSTOR because I don't have access. Does this have any implications for verifiability? Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Verifiability isn't an issue- we just treat the sources as if they were books. I'll take a look and see if I have access.-Wafulz (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think I have electronic rights to that article in particular- I'll have to check with a librarian during the week. I'm fairly sure I can get my hands on a print copy though. I generally have access to JSTOR, though in this case, the journal's rights transferred to the University of Chicago.-Wafulz (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
History of missionary position
I'm having some trouble finding much historical and cultural info about the missionary position, other than that one Nerve article, which I don't want to rely on exclusively. What's happening is that I try googling for it (under both "missionary" and "man on top") and come up with a bunch of stuff that helps fill out the other sections, but the History section doesn't get much added to it. I think perhaps the issue is that most people on the internet would rather write about the practical and sensual aspects than the academic aspects. But these databases you have access to may turn up some more useful stuff. I've postponed rewriting the lead until the rest of the article is close to its final form, as the lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article.
As you may have noticed, the Advantages and disadvantages section has become rather lengthy; perhaps it should be subdivided or parts broken into other sections? Also, I stopped adding new positions to the Variants section while we await the outcome of Talk:Missionary_position/Votes_on_inclusion_as_missionary, although it sounds like you've settled the issue with your definition? Anyway, please let me know if you think some other positions should be included... Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah the advantages/disadvantages is a bit unwieldy. Maybe if we split it up into "Physical" and "Psychological"? I think we could also do more to summarize the quotes. As for the history- I'll take look through some more databases today.-Wafulz (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's hard to resist; some of the quotes I run across are just golden. Anyway, I'm going to take this to FAC today, as I'm running out of stuff to add and it seems to be getting close. Maybe we're 2/3rds there? Should it go to "good articles" first? Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Take it through GA first. I can guarantee that it'll get rejected or slowed down at FAC.-Wafulz (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I tried the premature FAC with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. What an ugly mess that was. Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- That was a funny satirical article... Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I tried the premature FAC with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. What an ugly mess that was. Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Take it through GA first. I can guarantee that it'll get rejected or slowed down at FAC.-Wafulz (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's hard to resist; some of the quotes I run across are just golden. Anyway, I'm going to take this to FAC today, as I'm running out of stuff to add and it seems to be getting close. Maybe we're 2/3rds there? Should it go to "good articles" first? Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll remove the scans and cite as you suggest
Thanks Wafulz,
I'll get on this immediately tonight. Appreciate your time.
Pete
--Petebertine (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
opinion about another editor
Isenhand or Technocrate or Andrew Wallace (the one that recently defended calling other editors Vandals) is promoting the idea of a 'Technocratic' movement because he has written a book about it as such http://web.telia.com/~u11319012/index.htm Andrew Alexander Wallace This book promotes the idea that his group of which he is the director (Network of European Technocrats) is a part of the Technocracy movement. This is a made up construct.
Technocracy Incorporated states over and over that it is not associated with any other groups in the U.S. or in Europe. The NET site states that NET can be considered an extension of Technocracy Incorporated`s original movement. That is not the case. I have attempted to edit that information correctly. This then is a blatant conflict of interest for an editor here who is directing web traffic to self published articles http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php Network of European Technocrats - News. http://www.lulu.com/content/750510 Technocracy: Building a new sustainable society for a post carbon world by Andrew Wallace (Book) in Engineering ---- This is another sales site set up by Dr. Andrew Wallace, Isenhand or Technocrate I think this editor is editing material to conform to his books claims, a book which is self published.
Is it wrong for me to point this out ? Is it not a blatant conflict of interest ? I believe that the NET Network of European Technocrats part of the Technocracy movement article should be either removed or made into a very brief mention. I do believe that a large amount of editing by said party is P.O.V. - It also seems like the main article about NET is stilted and self serving toward promoting self published and self promoting information related to the making of money. Sorry about the length here skip sievert (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Technocrate continues to mark his edits in defense against vandalism. He also defended a couple of times against your mentioning it to him. Also I have tried to shorten the NET aspect in a couple of articles Technocracy movement. Technocrate offers no explanation to his edits. I have tried very diligently to research and present reasons in my edits for them. Again Technocrate/Isenhand/Dr.Andrew Wallace, NET or Network of European Technocrats Director seems to be in a very basic conflict of interest here. His edits revolve conforming information to his book a commercial interprise self published. Despite the fact that you asked him to stop the name calling and also suggested he contribute info and be careful in conflict of interest situations nothing has changed. I would prefer an open discussion and comparing material for the article. skip sievert (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This is Technocrate's response to the suggestion you made him "I think it’s quite clear from the edits made that they are largely POV. I think it is also quite clear from internal and external evidence to wikipedia that the edits are not simple honest errors. It appears that the edits are made with the deliberate intention of undermining the integrity of the technocracy article (and by extension wikipedia) with the intent of causing trouble. Therefore, that is a form of vandalism." skip sievert (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Missionary positions: Christian, modernist, postmodernist.
I got access to this source, and it's extremely useful on the history of the missionary position. I have to go teach for a bit, but I'll try to have some information up later tonight or tomorrow.-Wafulz (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Awesome! FAC, here we come! Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helicopters in popular culture
You name came up in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Helicopters in Popular Culture. Bovlb (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Please remove my improper images
Hi, I'm having trouble deleting the images that do not conform to copyright. Could you do it and if you have the time show me how to do it myself? Thanks --Petebertine (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Have to remove the "The"
It is called The Turner Brook Reserve, but I should pull the "The" because it really is just refered to as TBR or Turner Brook. Thanks for the image info. The Thedore Gordon image is from a fly fishing website I'm associated with and they may be using it improperly, it is over 70 years old though? Different and frustrating matter... I've been trying to use a documentary from Vice Magazine's vbs.tv called "Toxic Brooklyn." They've asked me to put in my opinion regarding their blacklisting. If they're jerks then they deserve to be blacklisted. I don't care about most of their "stuff" but they have done some good work and they have said they'd consider making "Toxic Brooklyn" public domain for me to use as an "environmental teaching aid." I'm in over my head as a new contributer to wikipedia, but I am very interested in this Vice vs. Wikipedia "situation" I'm on the sidelines of. How does an entire web domain get blacklisted? What do I do to keep myself far away from the trouble Vice is in?
Richard Peddie article
Hi Wafulz
The request to update the Richard Peddie bio has come directly from Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Ltd. and the individual who wrote Richard Peddie's bio for the media guide. Is this not allowed?
76.69.126.220 (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Updating the bio is fine, provided it remains impartial. I removed the text from the talk page because it was copyrighted, and thus incompatible with the GFDL.-Wafulz (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
My image of letter from Sharon to Wechsler was deleted at the turnerbrook reserve
Hi Wafulz:
Kylu deleted the sharon letter I uploaded. I have permission from Wechsler to use it (I'm getting permission for the other deleted images) and I was under the impression that the sharon letter was placed in the right category. Shouldn't Kylu have said something to me before deleting it? What is the process to get it back up in wikimedia? Thanks, Pete Bertine --Petebertine (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Request page protection
I have had zero luck with Technocrate to cooperate or discuss Network of European Technocrats article. That editor continues to preface his edits with an accusatory and inaccurate term (vandalism) I hope that my actions are not interpreted as disruptive here. The time line on the article in his edit is wrong(when his group became registered). The implication that it is an extension of North American TechInc is wrong, and there are several other wrong statements in Technocrate`s version. skip sievert (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
RE: Network of European Technocrats Conflict of interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As I understand it an article should not be edited by the leader of the group or members under most conditions. I know there are exceptions. However when a certain Technocrate attempts to dominate and control things without contributing to any real discussion and is also not in the least bit contrite about labeling other editors 'vandals' it would seem like any attempt at good faith non P.O.V. edits or edits that apparently go into a loop that revolves around self published material is the only purpose and aim of said editor. I think a block is in order? skip sievert (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Wafulz, Isenhand Technocrate will not cooperate on the article Network of European Technocrats. He will not communicate and does not add to the talk page about editing. I just reedited again. Could you page protect my edit? My only interest here is accurate information. To lead the reader to conclusions drawn from a self published book by the editor/author here (Technocrate), made to generate income for a website - and present articles by the director (Andrew Wallace/Technocrate) of the Website (movement) in question seems very much a conflict of interest? skip sievert (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Cartoonbook
Hey, this guy is completely ignoring everyone's advice about images so I think a short block is in order? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. He's blocked for a week.-Wafulz (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hope you don't mind- I just added "and failed to tag them correctly" as uploading copyrighted images is not a blockable offense per se. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Point of grammar
W. r. t. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Embassy_Golf_Links "per nom" seems to mean above nomination. I meant the one right above mine; it is also a nomination (the weak keep). Abhijitpai (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you help me out here
Wufulz, sorry I'm not around as much as I would like for this. First, technocracte is not me and I've noticed that you have blocked her. Silly really as she is the main person trying to maintain the integrity of wikipedia! Second, I have had a look at skips edits and its the same old story; deliberately editing the article and placing incorrect information and his own POV in it. The information is correct at the moment (07:03, 2 February 2008). As for mediation, give me a week on that. I think that might lead to some good but I need to get hold of the others first. Thanks. Isenhand (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Wafulz, Isenhand Technocrate will not cooperate on the article Network of European Technocrats. He will not communicate and does not add to the talk page about editing. I just reedited again. Could you page protect my edit? My only interest here is accurate information. To lead the reader to conclusions drawn from a self published book by the editor/author/Net director here (Technocrate), made to generate income for a website - and present articles by the director (Andrew Wallace/Technocrate) of the Website (movement) in question seems very much a conflict of interest? skip sievert (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Technocrate just reverted my edit and used the term Vandalism. Could you please do something with this user ? Close his account or block him ? He is using multiple accounts. He is not commenting on the talk page. He is giving no explanation for his edits. Could you revert the page and lock it ? skip sievert (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you stop Andrew Wallace or Isenhand from editing the NET article Wafulz?
Isenhand you are Dr. Andrew Wallace the NET director and I assume that if you are not Technocrate which may or may not be true... you control Technocrate. You should not edit the article Network of European Technocrats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - You are writing about your self or the organization that you are the Director of to control the flow of information. That is censorship if you maintain only one depiction of your own making and try to prevent other accurate information. You are listed in the article itself as the Director of NET.
The article leads to your self published information. Technocrate who was blocked was a part of your team you assembled from NET. Here you form the team to control the article http://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 -
You reverted my edits in whole because they contradict self published information. You also promote a book which you adapt all the edits in the NET article here to... http://www.lulu.com/content/750510 Technocracy: Building a new sustainable society for a post carbon world by Andrew Wallace (Book) in Engineering also here http://web.telia.com/~u11319012/index.htm Andrew Alexander Wallace This book is self published and not peer reviewed. It was written with the express purpose of generating income for Network of European Technocrats. Getting a hold of some others from your group may not be a real form of consensus. It may be a way to censor the article though.skip sievert (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Wafulz it is also noted that they have enlisted another fake user oddbot is the name on the Network of European Technocrats article to revert me in whole without commentary or debate. I am going to revert that edit. Could you then please page protect this article with my edit? skip sievert (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Something Awful
Thanks for adding the citations to Something Awful. 192.91.147.34 (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Wafulz could you ask another editor to stop wholesale reverts
User Hibernian is doing methodical reverts of everything on entire pages. No information provided on the talk pages. He is taking down information to the official website for Technocracy Incorporated such as links and references. I am not connected to Technocracy Incorporated in any way only interested in making their version of events available in an objective way. By doing wholesale reverts it would seem that this editor Hibernian is not interested in cooperation or compromise to material. Technate and other articles have recently been edited this way. skip sievert (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok it's about time I came back to this, no more fussing around, let me just lay out what I've been doing. For the past month or so I haven't been monitoring the Technocracy articles so of-course, just like every time I'm away, Skip starts trouble again. You say Skip, that I have reverted you without discussing it, well I don't know how good your memory is, but I seem to recall discussing all these same issues for about the last 6 months. I've dedicated a significant amount of my time to reverting your awful editing and explaining why I revert it. If I don't do a write up about why I reverted you in Every article, it is for expediency sake. Another reason that I sometimes do not even bother to write an edit summary is that I am reverting Exactly the same material that was discussed and rejected many months previously, but which you didn't seem to get the message about and simply put back in.
- If you want to discuss the specific example, of the Technate article, I reverted it for several reasons: Firstly the text you put in added nothing to the article and was full of weasel words (as usual), as for the links, yes they were from official Technocracy sources, but the problem is (as I told you before) they were not relevant to that article. You added an article about Energy Accounting, which is not related to the Technate (that link is already in it's appropriate article). You added two articles about Howard Scott explaining the history of the Technocracy organisation, again not related to the article which is specifically about the idea of a Technate (These links also are already linked in the appropriate articles). And that's about it, that's why I reverted you. And if you put in the same edits again, I'll just have to revert them again, plain and simple. I'm sure we'll be back to these issues again over the next few days and I can only hope that it will result in a permanent end of this farce. --Hibernian (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
