User talk:O8TY

Re ; Doric Order

(Removed for copyright violation)O8TY (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Not gift and not mushroom" says Wetman.

"Is gift and is mushroom" says o8TY (who backs up what he says at FungiTecture.com). O8TY (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wetman continues to remove the above text, but has yet to provide any sound reason for doing so. O8TY (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed for copyright violation)O8TY (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC) (see www.fungitecture.com)O8TY (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: "fungitecture™"

I have some guidelines and policy pages for you to read that indicate that the site and text you keep adding is inappropriate: see WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:QS, and WP:SPS. The addition of this website and the text about "fungitecture™" has been removed a number of times, which is a good indication that you shouldn't add it again. dvdrw 02:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Fungitecture" is a trademark and must be recognised as such. O8TY (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doric order

O8TY,

I protected the page since you and your ips were constantly editing against consensus. dvdrw 05:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are warned here, finally, not to add that link because it is not a reliable source according to our rules. Any further additions of it will be considered vandalism and will result in blocks of your account and ips. dvdrw 05:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal of consent to use FungiTecture™ and o8TY material

As a result of numerous undoings, objections and offensive remarks by various Wikipedians (namely Wetman, DVD R W, Someguy1221, The Cat and the Owl, El Greco, Mdebets, and anonymous others) regarding material input to the Wikipedia website directly by myself (o8TY and anonymously), of which material a considerable portion was extracted from the Fungitecture™ websites or its pending publications, I have endeavoured to remove this material from the Wikipedia website.

As much of this material is copyright to myself and to Fungitecture™, I hereby advise Wikipedia and its current and future users that I no longer consent to Wikipedia or its successors publicly displaying any material that is copyright to myself or Fungitecture™.

As Fungitecture™, its website and pending publications contain intellectual property of considerable commercial value, Wikipedia and its successor(s), together with the offending poster(s), may become subject to legal action should Wikipedia or its successors henceforward publicly display any material that is copyright to myself or Fungitecture™.

However, an exception will be made for the material that has already been expunged from the Doric, Ionic, Corinthian, Aeolic, Mycenae, Form Follows Function and other pages, that may still survive in the history section of those or other pages, but only for as long as the expunged material is never restored to the main content of those pages and is not inserted into any other page.210.50.200.27 (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Fungitecture" is a trademark and must be recognised as such. O8TY (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:No legal threats. Warofdreams talk 00:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see www.fungitecture.com/legal.html O8TY (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that Wikipedia is published under a free licence that explicitly permits alterations and re-use? You can't contribute material to Wikipedia, and then complain that someone has altered it. When you contribute, you grant a perpetual licence to edit and re-use. So you can't withdraw your licence, nor do you have the right to complain when someone edits your contribution. If you don't want your material to be edited or copied by others, don't contribute it to Wikipedia. Clear? 81.2.68.136 (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Form follows function

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Form follows function, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please also refrain from including personal attacks in your edit summaries. Comment on content, not contributors. Thank you. Michael Slone (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of everyone, please indicate precisely which legitimate comments you are claiming to have been deleted or edited at Form follows function, and where personal attacks have been made in the edit summaries . O8TY (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit to Talk:Form follows function you modified a comment by Wetman and appended a personal attack. In this edit you edited a comment by the same user and included a personal attack in the edit summary. Other personal attacks have been made here, here, here, and here. I mistakenly typed Form follows function above where I meant Talk:Form follows function. Michael Slone (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From your actions of September 17 2008 in the "discussion" page of the "Form Follows Function" article and possibly elsewhere, whereby you edited out Fungitecture.com's right to defend its intellectual property, thus contravening Wikipedia's policy regarding intellectual property, and also edited out Fungitecture.com's separate correction of Wetman for having deliberately (if not incompetently) posted false and misleading information concerning Fungitecture.com as well as illegitimately posting extraneous material from Fungitecture.com without its consent and in an underhand and derogatory fashion, and futhermore by your reluctance to reprimand Wetman for having posted numerous other derisory and uncivil comments regarding Fungitecture.com at various locations around Wikipdia, including on pages that Fungitecture.com had shown no prior or only minimal involvement, and certainly by your own failure to offer objective criticism of any of the small amount of educational material that Fungitecture.com only ever inserted into a few selective Wikipedia articles, it appears that you are merely acting in collusion with Wetman in some vain attempt to denigrate Fungitecture.com, rather than in the best interests of Wikipedia. O8TY (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, you are claiming that

I have violated Wikipedia's copyright policy (note correct link);
I have failed to offer criticism of content contributed regarding Fungitecture.com;
Wetman has posted incorrect and/or misleading information about Fungitecture.com;
I have failed to reprimand Wetman for the same; and in fact,
I am colluding with Wetman to denigrate Fungitecture.com.

Claim 1, if correct, is serious, so I would appreciate more detail on what aspect of Wikipedia's copyright policy you believe I have violated.

Claim 2, if I understand it correctly, is true. I have made no attempt to criticize (either positively or negatively) Fungitecture.com, because I don't know anything about it. If you examine my contributions, you will notice that the majority of my recent edits are either minor tweaks in writing style or reverts of vandalism. I don't have enough knowledge or training in architecture to be able to contribute to these articles beyond that level; my expertise lies in a different field of study.

I don't have sufficient evidence regarding Claim 3. I looked at Wetman's contributions just a moment ago, but the user appears to be prolific enough that I'd have to do better searching. I'm guessing that Form follows function and its talk page would be good places to start. However, it would help if you could single out some instances where Wetman has posted incorrect and/or misleading information about Fungitecture.com.

Claim 4 is true—I don't reprimand people without evidence.

Claim 5 is false, however little my denial may mean. My involvement with you, with Wetman, and with Fungitecture.com is based entirely on the fact that many pages on architecture (such as Form follows function) are on my watchlist, and I noticed edits by your account which modified comments by Wetman's account. If you would like for me to step away from Form follows function, let me know, and I can remove it from my watchlist. Michael Slone (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, your actions of removing my posts from the Form Follows Function Discussion page are also in contradiction of your opening statement above, whereby you consider deleting or editing legitimate comments as unacceptable|bad practice. O8TY (talk) 07:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check again. I reverted an edit by your account which (1) edited another user's comment and (2) simultaneously added a personal attack against that user. The edit by your account was vandalism and was reverted accordingly. Michael Slone (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SUMMARY OF MISDEALINGS RE:FUNGITECTURE.COM (Copied from Reliable Sources Noticeboard) The following is in response to the above complainants of fungitecture.com and is provided for the benefit of those readers who have stumbled across this page and are wondering what it is about.

This response should be read in conjunction with the "History" and "Discussion" pages of the following Wikipedia articles, which provide a record of this dispute:

Doric Order - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doric_order Ionic Order - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_order Corinthian Order - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corinthian_order Form follows function - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_follows_function Mycenae - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenae Aeolic Order - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolic_order

The dispute begins with the insertion of select material from fungitecture.com into the Wikipedia "Doric Order" article, and the subsequent removal of same by the above complainants, amongst others. Although fungitecture.com has since expunged most of its material from these Wikipedia articles, traces of the inserted material still exist in the "History" and "Discussion" pages of the Wikipedia articles dating from May 1 2008 through to the end of July 2008. The inserted material can also be viewed in its original context in corresponding articles at fungitecture.com.

It needs to be recognised that fungitecture.com only ever added material to the Wikipedia articles, and that no pre-existing material in the Wikipedia articles, except for spaces and punctuation marks, was ever overwritten or deleted by fungitecture.com. As the inserted material was also referenced back to fungitecture.com, Wikipedia readers were never denied access to the arguments supporting the inserted material at fungitecture.com, unlike the vast majority of other material pre-existing on Wikipedia. However, as none of the above complainants has published any objective criticism of the inserted material in the relevent sections of Wikipedia, but rather have schemed variously to denigrate fungitecture.com, such as posting to this Reliable Sources noticeboard, the complainants give the impression of themselves being insufficiently versed in the subject matters concerned and incapable of rational or reasoned argument.

Further support for this view may be gathered from the personal Wikipedia pages of the following complainants:

Wetman - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wetman DVDRW - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DVD_R_W and archives Someguy1221 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Someguy1221 Cluebot - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ClueBot Mdebets - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mdebets The_Cat_and_the_Owl - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_The_Cat_and_the_Owl El_Greco - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:El_Greco Michael Slone - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael_Slone

While most of the above complainants have chosen to conceal their true identities through the use of faceless nicknames, their personal Wikipedia pages generally do not yield sufficient information to determine their level of education, experience or other competence in the relevent subjects, that includes but is not limited to ancient Greek culture, including its architecture, and mycology. Although one complainant claims to have attended a school of architecture, this is not the same as having graduated as an architect, and it is left to our imagination to determine the capacity and duration of the attendance, and indeed the reason for premature departure. But as none of the above complainants is prepared to let themselves be scrutinised as a reliable source, none of the above complainants can themselves be regarded as a reliable source, let alone a reliable or qualified critic of fungitecture.com.

The first objection to the material, as evidenced in the "History" section of the Doric Order article, was raised by Wetman, who ventured to remove the initial entry made by o8TY of fungitecture.com on May 1, 2008. As Wetman provided no objective reason for this removal, the material was promptly reinstated by o8TY. What followed was a series of alternating removals by Wetman and the other complainants, many of whom have been active in editing various Wikipedia pages for many years, and then reinstatements mostly made by o8TY. However, even at this early stage of proceedings, many of the removals were accompanied by a variety of subjective comments, some of which could be classed as uncivil according to the Wikipedia's policy on Civility. After a few rounds of removal/reinstatement, Wetman then extracted the disputed text to the Doric Order "Discussion" page and appended a comment to this action. In this comment, Wetman admits "Dorus is an invented eponym" (ie an invented name), which contradicts the widely espoused view that the Doric style of architecture was attributed to the Dorian peoples, but which in no way refutes the interpretation of the name "Doric" offered by fungitecture.com. Having thus placed the entire Wikipedian, and possibly Western, understanding of the Doric style in jeopardy, Wetman then attempts to undermine the rationalisation of the Doric temple provided by fungitecture.com as "...a private dream". Upon exposing Wetman for his contradiction and ad hominem, Wetman then childishly blurts: "Adult supervision of this article is urgently requested. The account O8TY was opened for the purpose of inserting this intentionally disruptive nonsense". As if Wetman could presume as much.

Wetman then proceeded to post excerpts from fungitecture.com together with disparaging remarks upon various Wikipedia pages, including upon pages that fungitecture.com had not previously inserted any of its material or had otherwise shown any involvement (eg Aeolic). By this action, Wetman has not only violated the fungitecture.com Terms of Use, but shown disrespect for the intellectual property of others. Furthermore, by posting false and misleading information concerning fungitecture.com, Wetman has demonstrated incompetence or a deliberate intention to mislead. However, as none of the above or other complainants of fungitecture.com, some of whom may also be administrators of Wikipedia, has notified fungitecture.com or o8TY, whether privately or through Wikipedia, of any attempt to censure Wetman for these actions, fungitecture.com can only regard these other complainants as acting in league with Wetman and not without prejudice.

Further indications of collusion and bias may be gathered from the above sequence of posts by the complainants. The first post by Dvdrw occured at 04:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC), which was followed five minutes later by that of Someguy1221 at 04:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC) and then fourteen minutes later again by Dvdrw at 05:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC). Thus, within five minutes of Dvdrw having posted the initial complaint, Someguy1221 purports to have independently discovered and read the initial post by Dvdrw, to have opened and thoroughly "checked" the thirty-odd pages then comprising fungitecture.com, and to have composed and posted a reply in support of Dvdrw. Strangely, however, site activity logs at fungitecture.com do not show any extensive visitation to its website in the hours immediately preceeding these times. Notwithstanding superfast internet connections and superhuman reading and typing abilities, the rapid sequence of posts suggests a collusion between Dvdrw and Someguy1221 in their attempt to denigrate fungitecture.com. However, as the complainants have only ever posted subjective opinions of fungitecture.com and have altogether failed to objectively address any of the scholarly material at fungitecture.com, the complainants can only be viewed as acting from personal bias rather than in the academic interests of an encyclopedia ("all-round-education"). Indeed, the lack of objective criticism from any of the complainants, together with their collective failure to identify and address any of the ancient sources from which fungitecture.com compiled its material, suggests the complainants are not well versed in the subject matters concerned.

An inspection of the Wikipedia "Doric Order" article, as it existed before the insertion of any fungitecture.com material on May 1, 2008, is also instructive for what it reveals about the calibre of the complainants of fungitecture.com, many of whom had been editing or contributing to this and associated Wikipedia articles for many years. Besides being poorly written and containing numerous syntactical, terminological and other delinquencies of fact, the article fails to adequately address the origins, essence and intent of the style. Instead, the article devotes considerable space to a supposed design flaw, yet fails to convey the triviality of this issue, nor the context that fostered this issue. To make matters worse, the article draws heavily upon the writings of the Roman architectural historian Marcus Vitruvius Pollio who, besides admitting to having never practised as an architect himself, has long been regarded as an unreliable source due to the overwhelming number of errors, ommissions, inconsistencies, biases and other failings in his treatise. With the "Doric Order" article thus already grossly polluted with erroneous, misinformed and unreliable source material, the complainants of fungitecture.com do not present as capable correspondents, let alone strict adherents of Wikipedia policy.

Having thus exposed the complainants of fungitecture.com for numerous and diverse deficiencies, a picture emerges of a perverse class of self-appointed Wikipedia editors unable to comprehend nor objectively deal with scholarly material beyond their own misguided beliefs and limited understandings, yet willing to gang together in some vain attempt to denigrate the learned. For this and other reasons, fungitecture.com has sought to remove its material from the Wikipedia website and has withdrawn its consent to Wikipedia and its successors from further using any fungitecture.com material.

But with Wikipedia itself widely regarded as an unreliable source, not least because of its ever changing content, this Reliable Sources noticeboard can only be viewed as a case of the pot calling the kettle black. O8TY (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the Hyksos‎

Did you really mean to add this to the article? It doesn't even belong on the discussion page. Would you please read WP:VERIFY - our articles reflect what reliable sources say about a subject. Please don't do this again, it's a serious misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is - would you expect to see that in an encyclopedia in a library? Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mycenae

You know that we don't consider fungitecture.com a reliable source and that you have a conflict of interest in adding it, please don't do this again. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]