Deego

Leave any messages for me here.

Wolfram Research

What is your issue or connection with Wolfram Research? You seem to have made a number of Wolfram-related edits in a short period of time. --Pleasantville (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I just see that all Wolfram-related articles seem to be written like advertisements, so I flagged them. I think it is sad when/if companies or their employees edit their own encyclopaedia pages disregarding COI, and trying to make them advertisements. Now, I am curious - do *you* have any connection with Wolfram research, seeing as you reverted my changes. - deego.

You need to familiarize yourself with the general conventions of such things before throwing around so many tags. On further inspection, I see you have spread them rather widely over the mathematical software entries. I see that you have only around 120 WP edits total under your belt. In general, you need to be more specific about your reasons for adding tags. "This sounds like it was written by the PR dept" is not sufficient except in extreme cases. I've looked at the articles you are flagging, and these do not fall into that class.

One reason why you may react the way you do to mathematical software-related pages is that Wikipedia standards require that information come from what's called a "reliable source" which in most cases means a media source. In the case of software, that usually means software reviews. Software reviewing in the media tends to be upbeat. Complaints about software tend not to make it into published reviews.

I'm not sure what you are using for notability criteria. You have too small of a track record for me to get a sense from that. --Pleasantville (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Pleasantville, why are you avoiding the question? Why don't you disclose your relationship with Wolfram Research? -- deego

Deego, as I mentioned recently at the math proj page, I've just commented at Pleasantville's talk. I'll Watch there so we don't have to copy to each other's Talk pages as much (wishful thinking maybe). Pete St.John (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.

Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.

Due to your past contribution to Technological utopianism, you may currently want to help editing the Technological utopianism article because currently only one editor is contributing to the article. The Singularitarianism Article could also benefit from your help.

I feel Loremaster is editing Singularitarianism and Technological utopianism in a biased manner in accordance with his Save The Earth propaganda. Loremasters's ideology seems to verge towards Neo-Luddism. Here are the damming facts Loremaster has stated in discussion:

Loremaster says he is:

"...critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms."

Loremaster wants people to:

"...stop indulging in techno-utopian fantasies... ...so that we can all focus on energies on saving the planet."

Loremaster sees his editing as a 'fight' and he states:

"Although I am convinced that the world is in fact heading toward an ecological catastrophe, I think it can be averted and my optimism makes me want to fight to do do just that."

81.151.135.248 (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)JB

1. LOL
2. Despite the fact that I openly admit to being a technorealist who is critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms, I have let never this point of view influence any of my edits or reverts of the Technological utopianism or Singularitarianism articles. On the contrary, I am the person most responsible for expanding the former article with content some would argue is “pro-techno-utopian” (i.e. passages from James Hughes' book Citizen Cyborg).
3. I find it disgusting that 81.151.135.248 would take comments I made out of context to falsely make it seem I see my editing of any article as part of my fight for the environment.
4. In light of this outrageous act of bad faith, I will do everything in my power to get this jerk banned from Wikipedia.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)