User talk:Biophily/archive1

AN/I
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The Venus Project / Resource Based Economy
Hi! You said that there exists "acceptable criticism" of resource based economy. Could you provide references to this criticism so it can be added to the page? All we need is links or names of books. You don't have to update the page yourself. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I counted my chickens before they hatched. There isn't any for the purposes in the article. --Biophily (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Dammit. But I'm not surprised. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I missed this one: http://mises.org/daily/4636 --Biophily (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Awesomeness! --OpenFuture (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oxford University Research Project on The Zeitgeist Movement
Dear Biophily,

My name is James Beard and I am currently conducting research on The Zeitgeist Movement for my masters dissertation on the course Nature, Society & Environmental Policy at Oxford University.

I am particularly interested in how The Zeitgeist Movement represents itself and is represented by others on the internet, and how these representations match up to or run counter to its real world activities. My main interest is in the role of the internet and environmentalism/sustainability discourses in generating the globalist mindset of the movement's members.

As the leading editor of the Jacque Fresco page, I was wondering if you might be willing to talk to me a bit about why you feel it is important that the Jacque Fresco page contains the information that it does.

If you are willing to talk to me, please send me an email at james.beard [at] ouce.ox.ac.uk

Kind regards,

James Beard

J Beard 88 (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Jacque Fresco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Art Baker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Jacque Fresco on Larry King.png
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jacque Fresco on Larry King.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with the Fresco material
Ok, it appears from a little research I have done that you are directly involved with Fresco as a media representative []. In other words you promote Fresco and Venus Project on your own time outside of here. That would not be a problem if you were neutral editing but you are not I see from the last attempt I made to edit the Jacques Fresco page here. I will attempt to re-edit some things there, but I see you have returned the non neutral and more party line to the information itself bias. I understand you have a You-tube station devoted to Fresco and present yourself there as a media representative for him. The thing I am noticing is the non neutral slant to your editing. As an advocate a lot of restraint could be shown otherwise the article becomes a spin doctor for Fresco devotee's. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your research revealed what? Fresco is a research subject of mine. I am not a "promoter" and am not pushing a party line. In fact I have provided very LITTLE of his ideology. All I have been adding his historical information about him and his efforts. You will have to be specific and give examples of the accusations you have given in order for them to be justified. Don't just swoop in and throw a bunch of claims, and then scurry away. You are going to have to provide an argument. --Biophily (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Just look at the edit I did at the Jacque Fresco page . Its there in black and white. Your edits are glowing and praising and sound over the top non neutral, you removed my neutral edits and returned the biased information. Because you are involved with Fresco's work, what you call 'researching' it, it seems apparent that you are an advocate researcher then because you upload the official viewpoint concerning him on your Youtube station. The amount of over the top praise in the citations is tellin, and because it is so overwhelmingly biased, it is not really neutral. Also you say you have spent time with the subject in a personal interview on your Youtube station and seem deeply involved as a promo person with your editing on en.Wikipedia concerning the article Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your exaggerations are glaring and I suspect it is because you yourself have an axe to grind. I have interviewed those that I am researching. That does not mean that I am "involved" with them. And it is surely convenient that you accuse me of being a "promoter." Your anti-Fresco/Venus Project/Zeitgeist attitude is beyond obvious and your rash edits do nothing to better an article or Wikipedia in general, considering that your edits are sloppy and leave citations a mess. I reversed your previous edit because I believed you eliminated significant information and believed you did not do it in the name of neutrality. However, I have since edited the Fresco article and removed or changed that which I imagine might be suspect of bias.--Biophily (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Jacques Fresco article is pretty bad with its fanzine approach of giving information. It needs a total rewrite for neutrality issues. More information on the talk page of that article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I know what you mean by fanzine approach.--Biophily (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Jacque Fresco - 3D Projector.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Jacque Fresco - 3D Projector.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Diannaa (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Jacque Fresco - 3D Projector.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jacque Fresco - 3D Projector.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Fresco Organization
Look, you are harming the article connected with Jacque Fresco by non neutral editing. You removed critical information. You made it sound like Fresco demonstrated flying a flying saucer. You contrived information about aluminum houses that have nothing to do with Fresco or his Trend house which was a failure commercially. Its pretty obvious you are part of the story in that interview about the young researcher. I have the link. It is not even outing you to make it clear. You are way to involved and your edits reflect a white washing and grooming, prettifying that is bad for the article. Your name is mentioned in the article also. In effect you are working for Fresco. I am not revealing that but I think you better step back or edit neutrally because you are an active volunteer member of the Fresco community or were and while the article was a complete disaster a year ago, it is a little better now that it has been helped along neutrality wise. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that you attribute a connection between myself and Fresco leads you to way over estimate my non-neutrality. Any edit I make you'll perceive as non-neutral. That is ridiculous. What you are trying to tell me is to stop editing the article period so that you can be free to shit all over it. I won't let that happen. You are obviously opposed to Fresco and have an agenda for disparaging him. I think it is time you reevaluate your perspective and cease your obsessive irrational cynicism and paranoid attacks of my edits. Sorry to be so harsh, but its about time your personal problems be addressed. It's not proper to be concerned with the personal characteristics of people, but those characteristics are an inherent part of the problem in this case.


 * By the way, the recent edits I made were to fix the PLAGIARISM of your recent edits to the article. My edits basically say the same thing through paraphrase, so what the HELL IS YOUR PROBLEM? You are out of control in your deluded and paranoid perceptions of edits...Furthermore, it is unlikely you have read the source that I included that shows further development of the Trend Home, because the source is not online for your little amateurish google search, so how the hell can you make claims about its relevance? It has become evident to me that you do not consult sources and delete them on whim and without basis because you assume they have no relevance, despite the fact you don't even know what they say. That is not an approach that leads to improvement. Competence PLEASE! I'm utterly sick and tired of your sloppy and reckless approach to editing the article. I have never met an editor that violates policy so blatantly and recklessly. Either you don't care or you really don't remember general policy or policy for BOPs and comprehend it all as a framework. All you ever refer to is neutrality issues (which are half the time not even existent!) meanwhile neglecting every other policy principle. If I have violated neutrality, you have violated many other policy principles several times over, and you don't even care!. Your recent plagiarism is evidence of how lazy and reckless you are with the article. Again, sorry to be so harsh, but this nonsense has gone on too long and needs to stop! You are way over bearing in your negative intent approach. You obviously despise the subject, and if I am to stop editing, then you should stop editing, due to the fact that your neutrality is jeopardized by your disdain for the subject. Your disdain for Fresco is as evident as you claim my admiration is, even though on numerous numerous numerous accounts, I included criticism for balance and neutrality, meanwhile ALSO including information that may be perceived as positive information about Fresco, but that judgment is up to the reader. Meanwhile, in almost ever case, 9 out of 10, you only make edits in the negative direction. Why is that? THE REALITY IS I HAVE INCLUDED VIEWS FOR BOTH SIDES. But your twisted mad paranoia rejects every edit made, based on a preconceived notion that I edit in an attempt to only polish the subject.


 * Furthermore, it is evident you don't actually know anything about the subject nor do your homework. Numerous factual errors and deletions and alterations based upon what YOU think really happened, instead of respecting the sources cited. Unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable how un-collaborative, bitter, disruptive, and disrespectful you are to me and the article and Wikipedia by ignoring policy standards and always commenting some sour ass remarks in your edit descriptions. You couldn't be more BAD FAITH in this whole matter.


 * The only argument you ever give against my edits refers to a "connection" that I have to the subject (RED HERRING) or some vague, ambiguous, twilight zone, naive teenager reasoning pulling straight from your own arbitrary preferences (indiscriminately throwing around "non-neutral" nonstop all the time for everything), instead of justifying your disagreement with Policy principles and specific examples. You therefore make it obvious that you desperately cling to this idea that I have a "connection" to the subject because that is the only blanket you can desperately thrown over my contributions to suffocate my participation, and then parade around bloated exaggerations in hopes that other editors will notice as you trumpet it from rooftops, thereby clearing the path for you to continue your disparagement of Fresco, because that is the only way you can do it. Before you construed this "connection" between myself an the subject, you seldom edited the article at all, THEN once you could construe a "connection" between the subject and myself, the article suddenly became your doormat, because as I said, you recognized a lucrative avenue to execute your agenda now that you could highlight a "connection" between the subject and another (me) competent editor that happens to bust his ass to provide information about the subject that you don't like. Perhaps, for the first time ever here on Wikipedia, I have been as brash in this comment as you always are 99% of the time. I know others would advise it unwise to have responded to you in this way, but I don't know what else will get through to you. Perhaps you need insult; it is certainly all you have ever given!--Biophily (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Not really. You are a volunteer collector of research for Fresco and Venus Project. You have a personal relationship with them. That apparently has inhibited your making neutral edits. Just one look at the article from a year ago is startling concerning just how bad it was. Over groomed. Misleading in regard to the language of explaining issues of Fresco related things. As a person, even a volunteer person that has dedicated a big hunk of your life to finding information for Wikipedia and being a single purpose editor bent on displaying that information here you have to be aware of neutrality issues. There is no doubt that Fresco is notable. He did some interesting things. I have added new information in regard to that to the article. I do not despise him or admire him. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Forgive the wall of text. But I believe your understanding will benefit if you read.


 * Not despising or admiring him, I hope that is true. And I appreciate you responding well to my outburst. However, what is most offensive to me is accusing me of being a researcher FOR the Venus Project. This is not true. Second, this started as research for myself, to clarify uncertainties I had about Fresco's work arising from reading common criticisms. Third, this has become 100% University backed academic research. Accusing me to be a researcher is an attack on the integrity of what I really do. The relationship with Fresco is virtual at best. As stated before, years ago I went to a tour and recorded audio and pictures. I have also contacted his staff to collect names of people who knew him in his past and I have interviewed these people thereby coming into possession of many items and sources, I also contacted Fresco's staff to collect titles of books in his library. I also contacted them to receive more elaboration on his resume to obtain more research leads. I attended another tour very recently to get footage for a film. That is about the extent of it. However, you present it as if I live there, work for them, and research for them. That isn't true. If you have any experience with real research you will know that it involves thoroughly investigating every lead that is relevant, and this often includes intersecting with the subject itself in order to break through certain research barriers.
 * (Side Rant if so choose to read): What is ironic about Wikipedia is that they hope to have authoritative expert level information, yet they often expel such experts because someone eventually claims the expert editor is not neutral and has a conflict of interest. Too often this comes from another editor that has no expertise on the subject to really even know the full parameter of the sources and the info, and all of the subtleties, complications, inconsistencies, and uncertainties that exists within those sources and the info they contain, in addition to not knowing the reliability and accessibility of such sources. Therefore such non expert editors can't determine due weight, balance in criticism, exactly what info is and isn't original research, the notability of the subject and specific issues related to it, and so on...because they haven't reviewed all of the materials, and because they often just flat out don't give a shit. They have no investment in the subject precisely because the investment is study and hard work. Therefore, it really doesn't matter to them if ignorant decisions degrade the article. In other words, they lack equipoise and aren't careful in their considerations. It is completely ironic that it is believed non expert level editors can construct an article that is at all reliable and competent. They can't because the lack a vision of the whole. It is utterly preposterous to think that some article surfing editor can simply do a lousy google search and then comprehend the magnitude of the subject and be able to make wise decisions for the article regarding its content and sources. Academically respectable articles will only emerge if all or most of the editors are experts on the subject, period. If none of the editors are experts, they will not recognize the subtle complications and problematic nuances inherent to the article's subject, in its sources and the relationships of the sources to each other (the likes of which the non expert can't even imagine). Wikipedia tries to make it easy for people to participate but it lacks standards and stipulations that bear upon the editors knowledge for the subject. Therefore, too many editors make edits on the sole basis of ignorance rather than informed decision, which is an ass backwards way to operate. Sure they may know policy, but their deficient knowledge of the subject renders them incapable of seeing how to apply many Policy Principles to the article.


 * However, one thing that can be determined to some degree by non expert editors is neutrality. And I appreciate you trying to address that. However, that is the only area you have improved; other areas have been degraded as a result of your edits (citations mostly), and that bothers me. It also bothers me the harsh and bad faith approach you had taken from the very beginning. Instead of simply pointing out that certain phrases, or certain constructions of sentences appeared misleading or generally non-neutral due to their connotations, you instead immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was the product of an editor's attempt to glorify the subject. Did it occur to you that perhaps certain parts of the article were written in a more naive time, and the editor didn't realize the non-neutral connotations of his language? or that not all of the language and phrases were written by THIS editor? or that the editor was simply trying to write in a highly respectful manner (which is very common academic writing) or that the editor wanted to also make the article respectable and high quality respecting a high standard, and that is why it is loaded with so many carefully "groomed" meticulous formal citations (which is also very common in academic work)? or that the editor was simply being bold and presenting a collection of information, perhaps even overloading it with info, with expectation and hope that other editors would arrive and RESPECTFULLY argue for change and reduction in a collaborative non-antagonistic manner? or that this was simply an editor seizing an opportunity to provide info in a new article for which he was just then beginning to gain expertise, establishing a new article right after there was a lot of dispute over the previous Fresco article that became deleted due to its history of vandalism and extremely poor construction - so the thinking at the time was that at least this new article was better than the old one (but can certainly be improved). These things you should now consider. I read Wikipedia's policies carefully and took much care in trying to integrate all of its principles into the article, respecting especially the principles of Biographies for Living Persons, which has few separate (often overlooked) standards. I tried to balance all of such principles, NOT JUST NEUTRALITY, which is the only thing you seem to focus on. Meanwhile you ignore the other principles that are, as a side effect, inadvertently violated in your attempts to improve neutrality (such side-effects are perhaps unbeknownst to you). I can understand that you may have simply been disgusted by non-neutrality when you perceived it, however, what appears as non-neutrality may not have been another editor's intent. This is precisely why Wikipedia advises that editors have good faith toward one another. The key to reduce conflict is to specifically refer to the instances where mistakes or violations have occurred. Such clear communication with other editors is key. Failing to do this suggests a lack of care and responsibility. Discussion for articles is based upon the expectation that editors will have cogent arguments that are specific and clarifying.


 * Lastly, I ask that you stop construing a false (at least exaggerated) caricature of me. Think about it, what do you really know about what I do? What do you really know about the extent of my Fresco related activities? What can you honestly actually specify? I fear you are letting your imagination run wild, letting your suspicion turn certain, allowing a hunch to become a verdict. You may have a few tid bits and clues here and there, but that is it. None of it is enough to justify you construing me in the manner you have. You simply don't have a preponderance of evidence, and all of your conclusion is a jump from A to Z without supplying the premises (or evidence) in between. You are completely leaping to a conclusion. This is offensive, as stated before, because it indirectly assaults my integrity as an INDEPENDENT researcher, which has an ad hominem effect. It's only because of this cult following of Fresco and his activism that makes things difficult for me. It leads people to assume that any interest in Fresco is due to this supporter/promoter/activist bullshit.


 * Now what are we going to do about your Plagiarism in your recent edits pertaining to the Trend Home and text taken form the Orlando Weekly? You can't just copy text from the source unless it is a quote. I tried to fix it but you reverted it because you thought my paraphrase what not neutral. Saying that the Trend Home "Failed" is severe non-neutral language. There's not even a published source that says that. In fact, there is a published source that says the trend home was developed further a decade later by one of its original executives. The critical aspect of the matter is expressed in the very fact that the Trend Home did not acquire funding to proceed (which I stated in paraphrase), NOT that it FAILED. To use terms like "Failed" is non-neutral. Thus I am concerned here with disparagement and falsehoods that you are presenting, perhaps without realizing it. --Biophily (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It is completely ironic that it is believed non expert level editors can construct an article that is at all reliable and competent. They can't because the lack a vision of the whole end quote Biophily.


 * Really you are too close to your research and have lost perspective as you are biased or on a mission. As said, have anyone look at the article a year ago and see just how really bad it was compared to now. You did not do the subject any favors by slanting it crudely in the direction of making Fresco out to be some undiscovered brilliant guy that can even design and fly his own flying saucer!


 * As far as plagiarism that is not so. I changed the language if you look closer. As far as the Trend home that was not Fresco that was involved in later aluminum homes and to make it appear that way is dishonest. The way it was rewritten was much more sympathetic toward Fresco being denied the money to get it off the ground. Please leave that otherwise confusing it with some other project is going to mislead people about what Fresco did.


 * Leave the critical information by the film maker where it belongs also. Most of the stuff that is there in that section is boringly praising Fresco or almost meaningless academic jargon. The article still relies mostly on a couple of over used sources from his friends books.


 * By over grooming and keeping Fresco abstractly in a filtered sparkly light mixed with awe, it is a disservice to those that want to actually understand the actual person and in a lot of ways he is interesting. Sorry to have to upbraid you, but, neutrality is key. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, neutrality is not KEY. Neutrality is one of THREE major principles, not the only one. Of course it is important, but not the only important thing.


 * Again, you assume my intention was to make Fresco seem brilliant (flying saucers, etc.). Look, several sources reported on his work of so called flying saucers. All I did was mention what several sources stated. It appeared to have due weight. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. First of all you might be over-imagining what his work consisted of. Second, if you had read all of the sources that wrote about it you would see that they clearly mentioned his work on flying saucer experiments and then demonstration of one design. According to Fresco he demonstrated an air compressed flying saucer a few feet in diameter in Griffith Park in Los Ageles. Personally, I think it is ridiculous that he tried to develop flying saucers and his prototype most surely didn't work, nor did other Air Force and privately developed prototypes in that period. But your effort to squash that information out of existence cannot be backed by Wikipedia policy principles. When are you going to start backing your arguments with at least reference to specific Wikipedia policy? The reality is you simply don't like the flying saucer info, judge it to be unrealistic, and allow those opinions to dictate your deletions.


 * "Boringly praising Fresco or almost meaningless academic jargon." There goes that twilight zone teenager reasoning again. Jesus christ, am I arguing with a bigot? Who are you to say it's jargon? There are people out there interested in an academic aspect. I'm curious now. Have you been to school? Do you have academic experience? You seem to want to simply the article down to your own level and disregard the universal appeal it is supposed to have to anyone potentially interested, that includes academic people. Furthermore, the criticism section is quite balanced with both praise and critique, as is proper according to WP:BLP. Please tell me you have read that... Furthermore, the fact you think the praise is boring again spotlights your interest in only critique and disparagement, instead of balanced presentation.


 * Who he really is? How can you know this unless you consult all of the source, which I can guarantee without a shadow of a doubt that you haven't? Sure you have a general idea who he is from a lost collection of videos and readings you may have encountered. However, instead of letting the sources speak about Fresco, you let your presuppositions about him determine what goes into the article instead of what has DUE WEIGHT as determined by the emphasis and frequency of information presented by the sources, and the prominence of the sources reporting.WP:WEIGHT.


 * I have lost my perspective? I'm afraid you have too. And I suspect this is because we are the only two editing this article. Therefore we are interpreting motives against each other. Furthermore, you have pushed me into this position and defense mode by your assumptions and bad faith approach from the beginning. This functioned to only convince you further of your own assumptions.


 * "have anyone look at the article a year ago and see just how really bad it was compared to now." - Of course because you have run a survey of readers and editors you can say that huh? May I see the results of that survey? Bullshit. This is your solipsistic opinion asserted as a fact. The feedback tool at the bottom of the page (I don't think you were around back then) always reflected at least a 4 out of 5 stars for each of the quality scales. (I don't know why the hell Wikipedia did away with that tool.) And there were a couple hundred who rated the article. How do you account for that? It appears completely contrary to your claim, DOES IT NOT? As you can see, I have evidence. You don't.


 * I'd prefer this dispute be over. You may have corrected some neutrality issue in some cases, and I willfully stand corrected in not seeing the non-neutral nature. However, you have to actually let me stand corrected, and not knee jerk revert every single edit I make. But I'm worried, I don't think you really have a grasp on what neutrality really is after seeing you violate it on numerous counts, the most recent being the "failed" Trend Home. You are completely non-neutral in that case. "Failed" is not impassionate and not impartial. Proper impartial language is to simply specifically describe what didn't work with the Trend Home. The factual description is that it didn't receive sufficient funding. That is ALL, AS AN EDITOR, you can say about it.


 * The quote from Gazecki is in an awkward place. It flows better when placed right after Fresco's own comment about his difficulty actualizing his ideas. There is a connection between the two quotes. Therefore, logical continuity. If you gave a shit about the article's quality you would respect this. I'm describing to you competent writing. Are you familiar with it? Incompetent writing is to arbitrarily insert a bunch of unconnected disjointed points that jump all over the place. Furthermore, quotes about Fresco's personal character are in the direction of violating policies for BIOGRAPHIES OF LIVING PERSONS. Who gives a shit about his personal character? Is this a tabloid? Unless you simply want to disparage him??? What people care about are his ideas and his projects. And indeed that is the majority of what all the sources have documented. Yet you always want to return to this ad hominem bullshit concerning his character. Wake up. Further evidence of this occurred when you attempted to construe Fresco as a liar about his KKK claims by including an PBS source that said the KKK in Florida continued to exist. That problem has been addressed and appropriately overturned, but I use it as an example of your intent to disparage him, even going to the extreme to insert original research to advance a conclusion that he is a liar. This highlights your intent and obliviousness to the most basic Wikipedia policy standards. All you seem to think you understand is neutrality, and your understanding of that is still confused. I have noticed that editors with your mentality tend to latch onto one policy principle and justify everything on that basis. Before you and your Neutrality obsession, there was another editor constantly obsessed with Notability. He would say this or that wasn't notable. What is needed is the comprehension power to see how the policy principles affect each other and how all of the policies together should affect a decision, thus making decisions with each principle in consideration, not just one. Perhaps you should totally review all the major Wikipedia policy standards? Here are the links that most concern you: generally - WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, WP:CITE, WP:ETIQ specifically - WP:BLP, WP:CITEVAR, WP:GF.


 * The Plagiarism is still there. There are entire sentences that are word for word the same. Perhaps you are trying to not deviate from the source material, but the wording is way too similar, in fact it is the same for the majority of it.


 * "The article still relies mostly on a couple of over used sources from his friends books." What determines too much? Can you please refer to a policy that justifies your claim?


 * "As far as the Trend home that was not Fresco that was involved in later aluminum homes and to make it appear that way is dishonest." - It was his Trend Home that was used in a development. I ask you right now: Have you read the article about it? Don't be chicken. Answer the question.

Fresco things
He had nothing to do with any later incarnations of a Trend like home. ''The quote from Gazecki is in an awkward place. It flows better when placed right after Fresco's own comment about his difficulty actualizing his ideas. There is a connection between the two quotes. Therefore, logical continuity. If you gave a shit about the article's quality you would respect this.'' That does not really make sense. It should not be connected to Fresco's opinions on himself. It is in the critical section for a reason. As far as neutrality being paramount that is a given and because of your close personal relationship with the crew at Venus Project you seem to have lost perspective on presentation as I said originally. As far as people pushing a button on the article that is some kind of democratic opinion, probably it was dropped because people could vote over and over. It might not be such a bad idea for you to experience editing on Wikipedia on a broader scale, different articles, because of ownership issues you have with the article in question. No one should edit here without knowing that Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions. In other words if you want to control an article editorially that is not really going to happen.

Just a suggestion, if you are serious about preserving your own perspective and really believe that you are better at this than others, if there is a need for a book on Fresco and if you can find a publisher maybe that is the route you could take. Trying to dictate Fresco presentation on Wikipedia is a non starter though. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "He had nothing to do with any later incarnations of a Trend like home." - It doesn't matter. It was the home he designed. Have you read the article?


 * "It should not be connected to Fresco's opinions on himself. It is in the critical section for a reason." - Check where I am referring to. Fresco's comment about his inability to actualize his ideas IS in the criticism section, and logically leads to or follows from Gazecki's quote, whichever.


 * "In other words if you want to control an article editorially" - If I'm not controlling it, then you are. We are therefore no further from the same problem if I stopped editing. The fact is, there needs to be more editors editing to balance it out. And editing other articles has been on the agenda. But being ensnared in this Fresco article and all the bickering pertaining to it takes up that time.--Biophily (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)