Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/THINKSTARSHIP

THINKSTARSHIP
and the issue is not resolved. as been answered with a "no, too busy right now." to get past writers block. a pack psychology driven anarchy, and only a dim mockery of consensus process, ever being answered, and whilst being abused charges generated by a rogue admin operating with a pov agenda and assorted psychology warfare tactics
 * Whereas this book has been listed as possibly in contravention to WB:NOT
 * Whereas The author has asked for comment at the staff lounge and hasn't even as much
 * Whereas The Author is finding the rule structure to be too prohibitive and too strained
 * Whereas the authors exploration of Wikipedia has demonstrated that wikimedia is actually
 * And Whereas the lead author promised himself never to get involved with pack psychology internet operations ever again...
 * AND whereas the lead author has attempted to adress this problem at wikipedia, without
 * And whereas the lead author has now been blocked from wikipedia on trumped up and fallacious
 * And whereas all previous efforts to deal with abusive behavior on wikipedia have had ZERO effect
 * And whereas Wikipedia ETC is comically constructed of pov warriors using ad hominem arguments

AND, Whereas the lead author has now made personal copies of the largest amount of info from the wikibook project

Due to the above, the Lead author unforunately must quit this project, and look for a more suitable home. The project in its current state infers its own process, and could be used as a stub to generate an interdisciplinary program for wikibooks...

However, that is up to wikibooks.

THUS, I Prometheuspan 20:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Hereby nominate this book for deletion, based upon my understanding of the rules. Should Wikibooks or wikipedia care to resolve any of these issues or to discuss them, my email is prometheuspan@hotmail.com. -

Prometheuspan 20:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral


 * Delete. Sorry, but I'm at a loss to define this book as anything other than the dreaded original research. It also falls outside the "textbook" category, since as you yourself say when future technology is considered it is looked at in a more fantastical/pseudoscientific light. Perhaps this could be moved to Wikisource? No edits are as such allowed there but it would mean your fascinating work would be saved. Moving to a non-Wikimedia host to continue the editing work is also a possibility (e.g. WikiKnowledge, BluWiki, editthis.info). GarrettTalk 20:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Yeah, it's not a wikibooks book. Kellen T 22:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. A few points: First off, wikibooks is significantly smaller then wikipedia, so if you are expecting immediate and numerous replies to a statement at staff-lounge, then you are in for a rude awakening. Many posts on staff lounge go un-replied to. If you want a specific reply, you are encouraged to leave a message to a particular active user or administrator on their talk pages. For instance, you are welcome to leave me messages on my talk page if you would like. Second, your business at wikipedia, while it seems unfortunate, is neither our problem nor our responsibility. Many of the contributers here on wikibooks are barely (if at all) associated with wikipedia, wikipedia users, or the wikipedia method of doing business. Third, don't be so dramatic. If you want this book deleted, you don't need to insult the people here at wikibooks who--to my knowledge--have done you no wrong. If it violates policy, then I will review it, and speedily delete it as is warranted by policy. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. After reviewing the material, I feel that this is in violation of NPOV and the Original Research clause. In addition, since this whole project was started as an expression of a particular person's beliefs and ideas, it is unlikely that this book (if cleaned up) would attract any future contributers. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete It is not a textbook. I have left a message on Prometheuspan's talk page asking him whether he has taken a copy of the text, prior to deleting the book (subject to any additional comments that may be added here in the interim), Jguk 07:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment It isn't a textbook; its a presentation methodology on how to generate an interdisciplinary program on thematic units which would in turn become textbooks. "Third, don't be so dramatic. If you want this book deleted, you don't need to insult the people here at wikibooks who--to my knowledge--have done you no wrong. " I fail to see how or where i insulted anybody on wikibooks. I did insult wikipedia and wikimedia. Obviously logic and cogency aren't a primary interest around There. Half of the things said at this particular deletion vote again demonstrate that the people voting aren't really looking at what they are voting over. The PROCESS here is inherantly flawed. Theres no way in heck that wikibooks or wikipedia will ever get over the problem of actually being disgusting to any true expert so long as they run the place on pack psychology and such loose "rules." The ONLY relevant issue, in my opinion, is whether or not wikimedia etc is interested in putting some of its own energy into an interdisciplinary program, and whether or not they are capable of supporting such an effort given that the place runs on pack psychology and thus intentional ignorance, not cogency, truth, logic, or knowledge. ALL sciences at depth levels have political implications. To play at "neutrality" in the name of information purity and to then create a process which allows anything to be deleted or overwritten really only because the FACTS are in contravertion to political expediency is to build another instituitional edifice to herd psychology and mediocrity. What do you think the real reason is that we don't have cars getting 400 miles to the gallon? What do you think the real reasons are that we haven't solved the assorted depth ecological problems required to generate a full cycle eco habitat? Why are we still faking that gun neutron bullets are the only way to create a nuclear event, when soft nuclear is as easy as masers tuned to the frequentia of the strong force? The answer to each of these questions and more is that politics is denying the progress of science. The FACTS are incontrovertible. But they don't MATTER in a pov warrior pack psychology driven environment. Wikibooks and Wikipedia will both be failed experiments unless they adopt logic as an integral aspect in complement to the other tools being used. Nobody with depth knowledge is going to expose themselves to a mob witch hunt based on intentional ignorance and doublethink. What you have here is not a cooperative effort, its a set-up for a virtual mob riot against truth or knowledge and information. All I can do is open the door, wikimedia is the one that has to walk through it. Hanging out on wikpedia demonstrated that indeed, that is next to impossible. Wikimedia has only def ears and busy ears and POV warrior ears. It isn't capable of listening to truth; it has a systematic bias towards "neutrality" which means that TRUTH and FACT and KNOWLEDGE are each layed on the altar and sacrificed to the very same POV gods that the NPOV rule was _supposed_ to cover. More questions? Why were my adresses to Jimbo on his talk page at wikpedia apparently deleted from the archive version? Why did i just go through no less than 3 vfds which were patently based on pov warrior partisanship, and in which the standard vote to delete consisted entirely of ad hominems? Why did i spend an entire week trying to get wikipedia to adress abusiveness by a member, to have absolutely nothing done about it? Who is accountable for abusive behavior and problems? Why does a rogue admin pov warrior get to block me by trumping up "attack charges" when the truth is that i am not making an attack, but a factual evaluation? What does that say about the fairness of wikmedias process? Wikipedia is a grossly abusive environment of psychological warfare. Its articles are in general at best the kind of thing you would expect as a high schoolers SA. And any EXPERT who shows up and tries to deliver the higher level facts will quickly learn that there is no protection against abusiveness, and no recourse for the abused. They will learn very quickly that truth and fact and knowlede have no place on wikipedia, because "neutrality" demands that anything which some pov warrior finds to be "non-neutral" be deleted. (or, that an MPOV echo of ignorance and noise be generated by the ignorant.) There is nothing to guarantee that isn't what wikibooks is going to become, and with votes like those, its obvious that people simply aren't paying attention.

I took a week off, hoping that i would come back and things would be different. What i find is less than encouraging. ThinkStarhip has an introduction and a stated methodology. Those methodologies would work if applied. No, that isn't as is a "textbook". Its a hyperlinking set of contexts to link together a batch of textbooks. Its a methodology to generate textbooks for an interdisciplinary program. It is the solution to many and several of wikibooks primary problems. I have 3 types of intelligence out of eight at the 170-180 level. Wikibooks should be happy to have me scribble here as my blackboard, and wikimedia should have thought through the implications of its "rules" a little better. "Original research". Not true. I have simply compiled the known facts in every case, with the possible exceptions being those where i compiled esoteric facts which might be at odds with the popular version. YOU FOLKS DON'T KNOW ENOUGH TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. And theres no rules in place for me to point that out. LOGIC is drowned out in opinion based in ignorance.

I started this VFD as a final reality test. Thanks for prooving the obvious. I would accept here just as i would accept elsewhere votes that are based in reason and cogency. I would accept votes that demonstrate actual familiarity with what is being voted on. My fourth VFD prooves the points made more drastically at wikipedia. People vote in a state of ignorant opinion, and theres no set method to counter or demonstrate the fallacious logic. The worst part of it is that this means that all it takes is one pov warrior willing to game the system, and the door is wide open for absolute abuse. Wikimedia has systemic and process problems. It can delete and delete away, but it will never solve those problems by deleting things, and it will certainly never have quality material by making experts beholden to pov warrior con artists and their pet rogue admins.

I'll probably take another week off. My email (AGAIN) is prometheuspan@hotmail.com If anybody is interested in actually fixing the problems stated, then please let me know. Otherwise, I am glad i forced the issue and found out sooner rather than later what a diseased set of rules i was operating under. Prometheuspan 21:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Prometheuspan, Wikibooks is different from Wikipedia. Whilst many of the rules are similar, don't let that confuse you - we do approach things differently here, don't tar us with the same brush. The main issue with your book here is that Wikibooks is for textbooks, and as you yourself say, your Thinkstarship book is not a textbook. That is the real reason why it does not belong. I do fully accept that, although Wikibooks has always set out in writing that its scope is textbooks, in practice a lot of other content has been written on Wikibooks and that it is only now (in some cases months and months after the content was first added to Wikibooks) that we looking to remove it so that Wikibooks can properly focus on what it was set up to do. I would like to add that I wish you well in finding a suitable venue for your project, Jguk 07:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted As this is not a textbook, it did need to go - although I do recognise that Prometheuspan has put a lot of work into it. He has, however, kept personal copies of the main text, and I wish him well in finding a new home for it, Jguk 18:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)