Talk:Technical Alliance

Untitled
An added copy of the Study Course. That is very important so people can see where this information came from, and how this information was originally put together in the precedent document of the Technocracy movement. (skip sievert 02:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

More info
This article was pretty empty as to some the details of who, what, and why.. etc so added some body to it... also a notes/refs section... and an external link section... - Broadened the material on some of the individual members of this group also. skip sievert (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio?
Much of this material is a straight copy of http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/Technical%20Alliance%20Profiles-r.htm I would guess this is a copyright violation. Johnfos (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that you are getting a little carried away with your assumptions... This is quoted material... and the link to the material is given. You appear to be ax grinding the series of technocracy related articles now with criteria that does not really apply or if there is a problem... it can be changed instead of going from page to page with negative commentary. skip sievert (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This was listed at the copyright problems board, Copyright problems/2009 February 17. Investigation verifies that an extensive range of this article has been pasted from this external source. This is inconsistent with our copyright policy. Please see, specifically, C, FAQ/Copyright and Non-free content. While small quantities of copyrighted text may be quoted on Wikipedia under certain circumstances, we cannot extensively use copyrighted text without permission. The template I will place on your page will give you detailed instructions for verifying permission for this, but I'll also link here for other interested parties: Requesting copyright permission. To use the extensive content currently utilized from this source, we will need verification of permission. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably the easiest thing to do is rephrase some of the current information... and quotes can also be put around some info. skip sievert (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you'd like to work on that in the temporary space currently linked in the template on the article, please go ahead. Rephrasing can be a bit of a pain; there are some possibly useful tips at the essay Close paraphrasing. Once the material has been appropriate rewritten, we can address the copyright concern in the current article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It would have been a lot simpler just to notify me to make some changes instead of going through all the rigamarole. I could have easily changed the article in 10 min. Suggestion... just take the template/tag off the article and I can make changes where appropriate later today. It seems a little much to go through these bureaucratic measures. Deleting an article seems way overboard when simple changes can be made. Please remove the template/tag... and the article will be spiffed up later today, or another suggestion... just remove and note the offending material, as you did in another article... so that it can be gone through... without complicating things. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the process for handling copyright violation. We cannot publish such material on Wikipedia for legal reasons, and when it is found it is immediately blanked or removed. It should have been blanked by the contributor who discovered it, but evidently s/he is unfamiliar with the procedure. This material is more extensive than in the other article; the procedure is to permit you an opportunity to salvage the material through the permission process or through rewriting, but if you would prefer I will delete the copyright infringement without waiting the standard 7 days. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you got carried away with the blanking things out. There are areas there that I wrote from material that was sourced that you also ditched. Let me make another page in the area you suggest to do this. I would just say 'remove what is at issue'... but as said, you removed whole areas that I know are not under dispute. How is it not a lot harder to do all this now?

Ok... I rewrote and rejiggered the page a bit. It seems a little over the top to cite each little thing with a page as a quote but I have have. Also you removed information when you tagged the article which did not have to be removed... I think you started too soon and included stuff that did not have to be included... such as the second section... To limit blanking of the text, as for a copyright violation in a single section, place at the end of the suspected copyvio area.... but so be it. Check the article now... and if it passes your inspection please just flip the two... and I would be more than happy to follow your suggestions at this point to make the article free of the previous problem if that is an issue... the new copy = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Technical_Alliance/Temp I still have difficulty seeing the point of all this. The Technical Alliance as a group has not existed since the late 1920's or early thirties, and copywritten info... is long long past copyright. TechInc may have published some of their information.. but they sure do not own their old articles either. skip sievert (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The point of this is to comply with United States copyright law, which is policy on Wikipedia and non-negotiable. Please note at the bottom of every edit screen the words "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted" and "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." I did limit blanking, otherwise you wouldn't see anything below the copyright template. The copyright infringement begins with the words "The following are excerpts from a definitive Technical Alliance pamphlet", which is copied verbatim from that page. Then there is a run of original text before the massive infringement begins. But your temporary page was also a copyright infringement. You cannot paste text onto Wikipedia unless it is compatibly licensed or public domain. There is no evidence that the profiles in the section "MEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL ALLIANCE:" are public domain or licensed compatibly with GFDL. Contrarily, it asserts they were published in 1991, which is when copyright protect would begin. If you want to rewrite this text, you have to rewrite it completely. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems ridiculous criteria. They do not own the material, hence they can not copyright it. It is a different organization. They quoted it. It did not belong to them. It is material from the 1920's. I put quotes on the material. The information was italicized to show some came from somewhere else in the article and state it was paraphrased. I put the link to the information in multiple places even.


 * This material is more extensive than in the other article; the procedure is to permit you an opportunity to salvage the material through the permission process or through rewriting, but if you would prefer I will delete the copyright infringement without waiting the standard 7 days. end quote Moonriddengirl... yeah.. why don't you. Good idea. skip sievert (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * All right, I will do that. But I wonder from the above if you read this material. It's difficult to imagine that a group in the 1920s wrote "...that had responsibility for planning and coordinating the wiring and lighting for the 1939 New York World's Fair." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's done. Rather than simply deleting back to the last clean, I have incorporated the full paragraph of original text you subsequently added, crediting you in edit summary in compliance with GFDL. I did not add the material on Willard Gibbs. You put Scott's quote about Gibbs in italics (you should use quotation marks), but more than the quote was copied--the entire sentence was. The rest of the material, which seems to have been clear, was "Gibb's 'Theory of Energy Determinants' according to Scott, formed the basis of determining the operational dynamic of functional social design on a continental scale of magnitude for North America. Gibbs thermodynamic approach led to the concepts of Energy Accounting. " I place it here for your convenience, so that you can restore it to the article with a revised introductory sentence or work it in wherever seems appropriate to you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Moonriddengirl, and do appreciate your careful approach and explanations. I learned a few things. Keep an eye on the article if you would... and encourage any other editors to do so also. My aim is neutrality and just presentation of facts... and wiki guidelines are meant to a purpose... and generally the purpose is to promote a good presentation, free of baggage, and that is what gives wikipedia its 'value'. I appreciate the running dialogue. That was helpful... and all this will improve the article. skip sievert (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/Technical%20Alliance%20Profiles-r.htm. Infringing material has been deleted (stored at Technical Alliance/deleted revisions 2009-02-26) and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

New area
Added this information to the article. Interested parties please examine carefully and give opinions. Thanks.

Willard Gibbs developed a 'Theory of Energy Determinants' also referred to as vector analysis which according to Howard Scott, formed the basis of determining the operational dynamic of functional social design on a continental scale of magnitude for North America. Gibbs thermodynamic approach led to the concepts of Energy Accounting as envisioned by the Technical Alliance. Scott referred to Gibbs as the person that made possible the concept of energy economics using energy accounting. -- skip sievert (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Technology Aliances has been transferred from an "orphan" article which is being drafted largely by Ipsofacto (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC) me as time and occasion allows.