| Revision as of 01:51, 2 November 2009 editSkipsievert (talk | contribs)13,044 edits →Removed irrelevance: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:52, 2 November 2009 edit undoXavexgoem (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers9,849 edits →Removed irrelevance: to skipNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| :That is not a good argument for removing information which is sourced and notable. What is your argument? It sounds like an original research statement on your part. It is well known that the basis of energy accounting came from this group and Scott. They coined the original term. It is also noted that you are going from article to article on this subject, making Afd's... and deleting notable material. This is probably connected to your valuation of weight being discussed here , with another editor that you edit with. Scott headed the group that is considered the first think tank in America at Columbia University. ] (]) 01:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC) | :That is not a good argument for removing information which is sourced and notable. What is your argument? It sounds like an original research statement on your part. It is well known that the basis of energy accounting came from this group and Scott. They coined the original term. It is also noted that you are going from article to article on this subject, making Afd's... and deleting notable material. This is probably connected to your valuation of weight being discussed here , with another editor that you edit with. Scott headed the group that is considered the first think tank in America at Columbia University. ] (]) 01:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::Please keep comments focused on ''content''... and assume good faith, please. Even when you're not. Thanks, ] (]) 09:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:52, 2 November 2009
 | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Energy Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
William Sheridan who knew Scott well gives information proving that Scott held engineering degree. The information that he did not was circulated to discredit the org. in the 1930's.
Hibernian read the article ' A true American radical' in the links here. I have Sheridan's email address if you care to ask him about Howard Scott's degree. skip sievert (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- That may well be true, but you have to provide some evidence, before you can go deleting sections of text. --Hibernian (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It is well known that Howard Scott was smeared in the press. You are republishing old information. Did you read the link I directed you to? I gave you a link that provided evidence. Why are you wholesale reverting everything ?
Why be a continuing part of a smear effort? Why try and assassinate this persons character. It is unseemly and really uncalled for. skip sievert (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
User Johnphos... Scott was smeared in the press, and you are dredging up that material now again, please do not use the Times link in this article on Scott. It is not sourced in the article. The article is a known designed attack on Howard Scott and includes things like this How this transformation from dollar economy to energy economy is to come about, Howard Scott never explains. Says he at times: "Technocracy proposes no solution." At other times he silences questions with a pontifical belch That is the level of this unsourced anon article. Along with the Hearst corporation there was a concerted effort to make a fool and chide Scott in the press. skip sievert (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Early career
This article reads like a glowing tribute to Scott, and I am adding some material from a very reliable source (Time magazine) about his early career, which helps to balance the article and make it more neutral. Johnfos (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously the article is meant to be a satire and not a serious piece. It has no author and came out after the Hearst corporation and others put out a directive to discredit the group. His early career is not notable at least the way you have measured or portrayed it. Obvious to see where the piece is aimed. Please do not add this again. Johnfos I have asked you previously not to disruptive edit or trail my edits. skip sievert (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Removed irrelevance
The fact that Gibbs was eminent doesn't mean Scott was, or that his application of Gibbs ideas was valid. JQ (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- That is not a good argument for removing information which is sourced and notable. What is your argument? It sounds like an original research statement on your part. It is well known that the basis of energy accounting came from this group and Scott. They coined the original term. It is also noted that you are going from article to article on this subject, making Afd's... and deleting notable material. This is probably connected to your valuation of weight being discussed here in a proposed topic ban, with another editor that you edit with. Scott headed the group that is considered the first think tank in America at Columbia University. skip sievert (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please keep comments focused on content... and assume good faith, please. Even when you're not. Thanks, Xavexgoem (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)