User talk:Thymefromti

Hello, Thymefromti, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help How to write a great article Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there.

Hi Kim, thanks for your welcoming message and notifying me of the problem.

Has it been the subject of independent reviews? Magazine or newspaper articles?

Seamless3d is not well known by many, it is non commercial software and has only been reviewed to my understanding on a few small websites.

I am not aware of anything I would consider negative written about seamless3d but If written by anyone well informed the articles I am aware of have only been written by friends.

The article I have written is to inform of the existence of this software and does not try to promote it as popular software.

I can understand the concern of there being conflict of interest since I am both the developer of seamless3d and the writer of this article however one can only really reference my site for any of the facts I have stated. Though I did not do an exhaustive search I could not find anywhere what wikipedia's policy is on non commercial open source software which seamless3d is. All of my statements can be independently verified except perhaps some of the early dates I have stated may rely on my email accounts if others have not kept them. The program Seamless3d itself can verify most of what I have stated by it's built in software robot demos and some examples posted on forums such as in this announcement:

http://www.seamless3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18&sid=67f6db8d1ac88ea6f0a83600ec19dc01

regarding Seamless3d's built in script compiler.

I have tried to only inform the facts and have tried to not sound like I am reviewing it since this is something only others can really do. I even point out in the article that "Seamless3d has many underdeveloped features"

However I am happy to delete or modify any sentences you believe to be inappropriate for myself to have written here.

best wishes

Thymefromti (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

re; baghdad airstrike
Hello, Please stop reverting the content Re. Assange and Colbert. If you have an issue with the way the information is presented please take it to the articles talk page and we will sort it out. Also re Seamless3d, have a look at WP:SPIP & WP:COI, Thanks. V7-sport (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Not everyone is going to know Steve Colbert mocks journalists so it must be presented in the right context. Its not the purpose of an Encyclopaedia to keep track of what Harnden, Bill O'reilly, Glenn Beck or any other blatantly biased journalist has to to say on the matter. The seamless3d page has been on Wikipedia since the beginning of 2008 and so has been open to scrutiny by the 3d community for a number of years. It is the only non commercial NURBS based 3d modelling and chat software on Wikipedia but if you feel it has no place here delete it. I will not be silenced by threats on a completely different and unrelated issue. Thymefromti (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That's awesome that you think that Steve Colbert belongs in the same league with Bill O'reilly and Glenn Beck. It's also awesome how much good faith you employed when interacting with me, much appreciated. In terms of blatantly biased journalists, the quotes are backed by a Huffpo/Salon author. I also can't help but notice that you didn't have any problem with "world socialist website" or Glenn Greanwald. Regardless, what you are objecting to is sourced and Salon/Huffpo and Stephen Colbert are certainly not biased toward the right. There's nothing biased about the truth. Assange said what was attributed to him.
 * And no, i didn't threaten you, It's an obvious the links I gave you apply though. V7-sport (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

where did I suggest above Steve Colbert is in the league of Bill O'reilly and Glenn Beck or is biased towards the right? Please read what I wrote. I am well aware that he mocks right wing journalists, that is what makes this absurd ! Thymefromti (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, Lets go back to why you first started reverting then, you stated that "Harnden did not quote that Assange “admitted”, he was expressing an opinion!" then "Harnden is adding spin on words derived from a comedy show"
 * The quote from Harnden; "Assange admitted that he was seeking to manipulate and create maximum political impact."
 * accurately reflects what is on the transcript.


 * Assange: “The promise we make to our sources is that… we will attempt to get the maximum political impact for the materials they give to us.”
 * Colbert: “So ‘Collateral Murder’ is to get it political impact?”
 * Assange: “Absolutely. Our promise to the public is that we will release the full source material… it’s there for them to analyze and assess.”
 * Colbert: “Actually I admire that, I admire someone who is willing to put ‘Collateral Murder’ on the first thing people see knowing that they probably won’t look at the rest of it. That way you have manipulated the audience into the emotional state you want before something goes on the air. That is an emotional manipulation. [...]
 * Assange: “That’s true...”


 * The fact that it is allegedly a comedy show is presented in the previous paragraph. So what's the problem?V7-sport (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to make up lies to create spin, spin can easily be created from words someone has said taken out of context and mixed in with words someone else has said on the matter. If the sentences are composed for the purpose of misrepresenting, its spin. Assange never said himself he was trying to “manipulate” and even if he did (which he did not), words like “manipulation” are open to interpretation. You really have to watch the video to understand the context of those words. To mix in Harnden’s take on the matter you would also have to add some other things Harnden wrote in that article (an article about a comedy) to show how blatantly biased Harnden was. Try adding entries of this nature to high profile people in Wikipedia such as Hillary Clinton and Obama and see how long they last. Thymefromti (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The wording is reliably sourced, it is what he said and the context in which he said it is clearly spelled out for the reader. Again, It's not biased to include the mans words, nor is it biased to express an opinion on the subject. Had Clinton or Obama gone on the Colbert report and admitted that they were seeking to manipulate I'm sure it would be included on their bio page. V7-sport (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Spin is derived from what people actually say and so using your logic spin is fine to put on Wikipedia. If Julian Assange really does make no qualms about “manipulating” the public the way Harnden and you are trying to pin on him (which were never Assange's words), then why not reference him actually saying this from one of Assange’s many interviews where he is not being interviewed by a comedian and where it is not required for another journalist to interpret what he said? Thymefromti (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, assange DID admit that he was seeking to manipulate. Harden observed this. If you have a problem with the text we can take it to the mediation cabal, otherwise it would appear that you are just trying to whitewash the page. V7-sport (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You can argue informing people of the truth is a form of “manipulation” because it alters the public’s thinking. You can argue that advertising news is also a form of “manipulation” but using an emotive word like this that is open to interpretation simply because you don't like them is character assignation, something the Wikipedia guidelines warn against doing. Thymefromti (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I answered on the articles talk page. Thought you might appreciate this as well (as good humor). V7-sport (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiLeaks
See WP:NOR - your definition covers "conspiracy theory", but not "Infiltrated by Russian agents". Materialscientist (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

How is using words by their definition original research?--Thymefromti (talk) 10:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on WikiLeaks. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Materialscientist (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Please stop edit warring on this page. The text your are trying to insert is related to US politics and therefore under 1RR restriction. My very best wishes (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiLeaks & bullying
Interesting policy interpretations - supposedly wikileaks itself is not RS but anonymous sources connecting it to russia meet RS, but the sources documenting "Allegations of smear campaign against WikiLeaks" aren't RS. Not sure what to do about it, but policy is not being respected.-- Elvey (t•c) 21:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

January 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:WikiLeaks, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)