text:
Talk:Neo-Tech (philosophy)

Untitled
This article was listed on votes for deletion; see Votes for deletion/Neo-Tech. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 02:13, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Well after a successful vote against deletion I think I'm almost through writing the article. I've written all approximately 1200 words of it at this point, other than one line from an anonymous user ("the dishonesty disease that creates problems where none exist"), a "minor grammar, phrasing, attribution" edit by User:Antaeus Feldspar,, the neutralization of the word "seminal" to "controversial" (Jayne's book) by another user, and a single spelling correction by User:Sam Hocevar and another by User:Rhobite. I appreciate their input. (I've also edited a few times anonymously by forgetting to log in). A few things need to be done, possibly a word about "Zon." Now I'm just waiting for all my hard work to be trashed beyond recognition. Happy New Year. RJII 22:43, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, you've done a pretty good job so far, so I doubt there's a whole lot of "trashing beyond recognition" on the horizon. Just remember a simple rule that will probably avoid most of the trouble:  phrase it so that even someone biased against Neo-Tech would agree that what you've written is true.  (i.e., Neo-Tech defines mysticism as ... rather than Mysticism is...)  -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Of course the vote for deletion was defeated....what do you expect? Neo-Tech is unstoppable.

 * You mean Neo-TeX.

Is "NeoTech " trademarked? How much does it cost? 67.118.117.48 22:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The word isn't trademarked. I just added that to the article. Thanks. RJII 22:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * What about "Novus-Tek", "Nova-Tech", "Nuova-Tech", and "Nouveau-Tech"? Have any of these been trademarked? Bi 17:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

pen names
What's the source for the claim that Dr. Wallace writes under "Dr. Higgs Field, John Flint, and others." (That his legal name is "Wallace Ward" is pretty well documented). ..also the source for the Eric Savage claim? (JoeMystical)

llanny here, The more and most important document that matter to me from the great Neo Tech Writers is the so beautiful straight talk that they have compose for us the people who more need it, the knowledge that they altogether provide is superior useful and it's an imcomparable style, I have been impressed by Mr, Frank Wallace and Mr. Eric Savage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LLanny (talk • contribs) 20:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Is Neo-Tech a Scam?
It seems pretty widely known that Neo-Tech (or Nouveau Tech or whatever they're calling it now) is a scam. Why is there no mention of this in the article?

 * That would be a separate issue. Neo-Tech is a philosophy. If anyone selling books is scamming anyone, that would be an issue concerning that particular business. Books about Neo-Tech are available from a number of retail outlets. If Neo-Tech Publishing Company, Nouveau Tech, or Amazon.com, for example, are shown to have scammed people, then it should be written in those articles (JoeMystical)

 * Did you get scammed? Who scammed you? (JoeMystical)

 * Because we're too lazy to write it up... well, maybe you aren't. :-) I'd say that both Neo-Tech the philosophy and Neo-Tech the publishing company are pretty borked, but the problem's to write it in such a way that it's factual yet NPOV. (On a side note, I think when people try to separate Neo-Tech the philosophy from Neo-Tech the company when something bad comes up, but link the two together when something good comes up, such people obviously suck. But that's not NPOV either...) --bi

Having bought and read one large Neo-Tech book, I can't say that it's an outright scam, but I do think the "advertizing" might be a little optimistic as to the intensity and reliability of the benefits obtained by reading the material. It's a bit too "fringe" even for me, but I am quite thankful that it has turned me on to Ayn Rand, who has since become one of my very favorite fiction writers. Scam? Ehh... again, not an outright scam. It's more a question of whether or not it's legit for mail advertising to be motivational and theoretical, as opposed to solely fact-based. They do send you a product for your money and the product isn't too horribly out of line with what one might expect based on the advertising. Fulvius (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I've a bought a few books from Neo-Tech Publishing. I wasn't scammed. And, I don't see any way possible you could say Neo-Tech itself is a "scam" ..it's just a philosophy. And, Neo-Tech Publishing is indeed separate from Neo-Tech. Neo-Tech is just the name of the philosophy. The publisher used to be called I&O Publishing but they still entitled the philosophy "Neo-Tech." And, they're not the only publisher of Neo-Tech philosophy. (JoeMystical)

 * Well, since you're so intent on differentiating Neo-Tech the philosophy from Neo-Tech the company, I've turned the Neo-Tech wiki page into a disambiguation page. I suppose most people will be looking for information about the company than about the philosophy, so it doesn't make much sense to have a page about the philosophy as the main page in any case. Bi 11:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

How is it a scam? You order a book and it comes to you. That is basic business practice. I is also not a scam that as one experiments with the various organizing techniques described in the books that ones income inreases. There are very good methods in there for increasings ones numbers, as business is a numbers oriented field.

The other thing I do not inderstand is why Jaynes book cannot be described as seminal, it seems like a minor issue, but I'm still curious. I think it's in the realm of seminal. Check out John Searle if you don't believe that. I think in some ways Searle picks up where Jaynes left off. Deacon Struchten 13:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)  — Possible single purpose account''': Deacon Struchten (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. '''

Is there a secondary source which describes the book as "seminal"? Addhoc 13:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The impression I get is that John Searle is also full of bull. And the "scam or non-scam" discussion is probably best left for Talk:Integrated Management Associates, but in sum, I'll describe it as a bait and switch. Bi 15:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
JoeMystical, I'm tired of you constantly trying to peddle your own views as objective truth, even while I'm doing my best to describe the existing views on Neo-Tech in a detached manner. Sorry, but your "Neo-Tech is objective truth, and Neo-Tech says mysticism is such and such, and Neo-Tech says that this is the ordinary definition of mysticism in epistemology, and Neo-Tech says that Neo-Tech's epistemology is the epistemology, and Neo-Tech says Neo-Tech doesn't 'see' things, and Neo-Tech says that all criticisms of Neo-Tech are based on mysticism because Neo-Tech says Neo-Tech is not mysticism, therefore Neo-Tech is objective truth" is simply not NPOV, and NPOV is how Wikipedia works.

And I've not even touched on the fact that all your statements about Neo-Tech being objective are nothing but circular logic, and I'm not writing that in the main article only out of respect of NPOV, so don't force me. Bi 06:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * What are you talking about? I never said that Neo-Tech is objective truth or anything else you just stated. Look, this is how Wikipedia works. You can't just make things up in articles. They have to be sourceable. That's Wikipedia rules. If there is a criticism of Neo-Tech then you should be able to point to that criticism in a source. If not, then you're violating the Wikipedia rule against original research. Now, you claim that some critics question the definition of mysticism. Where are these critics? If the critic is just you personally, it's not relevant. (JoeMystical)
 * The Criticisms section gives the sources that criticize Neo-Tech. You are the one who removed the link to that section so that you can accuse others of not citing their sources. Is that honesty or what? Bi 09:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

 * A criticism from "Neocheater Nenslo"? You've got to be kidding. What credibility does Neocheater Nenslo have? That's just a post to a forum from an apparent nobody. That's not a proper source. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to find objections to neo-tech in published papers. But, don't resort to plucking out an email from a forum. That's not a reputable source by Wikipedia standards. (JoeMystical)

 * Strange that Neo-Tech is supposedly against authority, yet we have a Neo-Tech supporter who makes a great deal about citing only authoritative sources! Sorry, but I've read Wikipedia's guidelines on citing sources, and nowhere -- nowhere -- does it say that only "reputable sources" from "published papers" can be cited. All that's needed is that whatever claim that's made is verifiable. And in this case my statement was indeed verifiable: I claimed that such and such a person has said such and such a thing, and the link clearly shows that this is true. Bi 08:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. It has to be a credible source. Citing some guy's message on a forum is definitely not encyclopedic. If you keep this up I'll take you to arbitration. This will be a close and shut case. Look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources "Bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them." So, obviously "Neocheater Nenslo" is not a reliable source. We don't know who he is or what qualifications he has to comment. (JoeMystical)

It seems to me that what this article needs is a well-constructed criticism section composed by a student of more conventional academic philosophy. I'm not the biggest wiki enthusiast, and I don't know how citation operates, but it seems to me that as such material doesn't exist in the literature, it would have to be primary to wiki.
 * Yes, that's a problem, because "original research" is against the rules. It would have to be arguments from credible sources rehashed here. 15:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the rules also say that "self-published books" are unacceptable as sources. Well, I think I'm going to throw out lots of stuff that come only from Neo-Tech's self-publications. Bi 10:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not the policy. Self-published things cannot be used as secondary, but only as primary sources --meaning they can only be used when you're writing about the source itself in an article about the source. To use Frank Wallace as a secondary source would be to use his self-published work as a source about something other than his philosophy in another article (unless it has been cited elsewhere by a scholarly source). That's what the policy is against. RJII 17:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

 * False. WP:OR says, "it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library". And WP:V says, "For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source of information on itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources." (emphasis mine)

 * Not only is Neo-Tech material self-published, it's also extremely self-aggrandizing. Either way you look, the Neo-Tech material simply does not fit the bill, and the rules are crystal-clear on this. Bi 18:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The information being referenced is not "self-aggrandizing." It's just a desciption of the philosophy. You are completely unjustified. I'm reverting back. There is no other way to write about the material than to get the information from the material, because there are no third party published sources that discuss Neo-tech (that I know of, at aleast). You don't understand our sourcing policy. And, by the way, you cannot source "criticisms" from forum postings, web pages, etc --those are not credible sources according to policy. Keep it up and we'll have to take this to dispute resolution. RJII 02:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, take it to dispute resolution. If you don't, I'll do it. Bi 02:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. RJII 02:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

''This is the funniest article i have come across for quite some time..business is the highest stage of evolution! and a big dose of bi-cameralism - how yawningly Hegelian. thanks for a good giggle!''

 * How dare you mock the great wisdom of Neo-Tech, you irrational worm! :-) Bi 11:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Personally, I find it difficult to yawn and giggle at the same time. But, hey, whatever floats the boat of the anonymice is fine with me. --Christofurio 17:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Best collection of mixed metaphors I've seen in a long time. Bi 11:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh my
This reads like a tract. I've done a bit of cleanup, but it needs a hell of a lot more. - FrancisTyers · 18:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Phew... so it seems that the people behind the User:RJII account are now out of the way, hopefully for a long long time. Anyway, I've sourced some of the statements.

 * Also, I don't see why the Mysticism: Good or Evil link was retained while the spoof Pax Neo-TeX link was taken out -- since unlike Pax Neo-TeX, the Mysticism essay doesn't really tackle the main problem with Neo-Tech, which is that it's not based on any "evidence" or "proof" as it claims to be, and is just a big fat crock of bull. Besides, Pax Neo-TeX is by me. :-B Bi 11:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Hey, I've removed your link, see "What not to link to" number 6, "Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising." at External links. - FrancisTyers · 11:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Weird... my page certainly doesn't have an "objectionable amount of advertising", unless you're referring to those ads due to the .tk redirection service. If that's the case, then how about the direct URL ? Only problem is that the URL isn't that permanent. Bi 11:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

 * How about you get some decent hosting, then we can link you ;) - FrancisTyers · 11:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

 * It's the redirection service, not the host. This shouldn't throw up any obnoxious ads (I think): http://fzort.org/bi/neo-tech/. Bi 11:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Shoot, add it back in. - FrancisTyers · 12:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Bi 16:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OK... I decided to go ahead and add some information about criticisms to Neo-Tech, to bring Balance to the Force. Unfortunately, many of the (valid) criticisms tend to be either scattered across Usenet groups or mailing lists, or they're more about Neo-Tech the company rather than Neo-Tech the philosophy, so I'm not sure what's the best way to deal with those.

Especially Mike Doughney's post, which I think is right on. Then there's Jol Silversmith's allegation of paedophilia, which is somewhat flimsy, but may be good to include for completeness. Bi 08:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Those links critical of Neo-tech should be removed. They are just stuff people posted on the net. They aren't scholarly at all. That "FAQ" is just junk. It's just something some anonymous person made up and posted on a forum. That joke site called NeoTex doesn't belong either. If you put in a criticism then it needs to be from a "credible source". JoeMystical 21:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

 * It's OK to reference self-published and even self-aggrandizing material from Neo-Tech Publishing, but not OK to reference self-published material that's critical of Neo-Tech? I call that bull. In any case, the Wikipedia administrators don't seem to be agreeing with your interpretation of the rules. Bi 10:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Besides, if you argue that Wallace's writings are the only source of the Neo-Tech philosophy, then I can also argue that the critical pages scattered all over the web are the only source for Neo-Tech criticisms, and in view of the NPOV policy, both kinds of sources are admissible. Bi 10:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there sufficient reliable sources to make an NPOV article? - FrancisTyers · 11:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 * From what I see, just primary sources on both sides -- which are of course quite tricky to use. Bi 17:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? There couldn't be a primary source on both sides. The neotech books are primary sources. Criticisms of neotech would be secondary sources. None of the criticisms in the article are from credible sources though. They are just anonymous web junk. By the way, that was some good information you found about Zon. I don't understand your edit summary tho "the juicy bits that Neo-Tech doesn't want you to know". If they didn't want you to know that then they wouldn't have said it. Their point is that is just speculation. They are not saying Zons actually exist. If they were saying that they actually existed then of course that would make them mystics, because they would be saying something exists without evidence. JoeMystical 04:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if they're secondary sources, then the recommendation of Reliable sources is to "cross-check", not "throw out". Clearly you're just trying to look for an excuse to stamp out all criticisms of Neo-Tech.

 * As for the Zons part, well, it seems they said it and then they regretted saying it. I'm certain that the part about business minds creating the universe (hey, so who's the CEO of the Universe?) was there in a previous edit, but someone zapped it and replaced it with some fluffy talk about individualism. Bi 08:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course the article can be NPOV. You just present the philosophy as the neotech books describe it, which means using a lot of quotes and not too much interpretation. Anything that is not quoted should be referenceable by quotes in the texts. Like if someone says, "where does it say that?" someone should be able to point to a quote in the texts. JoeMystical 04:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You may as well say that an article that looks like
 * Marxism is the philosophy by Marx, which says that "...insert entire propaganda essay by Marx here..."
 * or
 * Fidel Castro is the leader of Cuba who claims that "...insert propaganda piece by Castro here..."
 * is NPOV, which of course it is not. Also, if you copy too much, you run the risk of copyright infringement, and that's bad. In any case, if the Wikipedia rules indeed say that only material sympathetic to Neo-Tech is admissible, then I say scrap the rules. Bi 08:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course that would be NPOV. If you say that Castro says something, then it's NPOV. Like if Castro said capitalism is evil then it would be POV to for an article to say "capitalism is evil" but NPOV to say "Castro says capitalism is evil." JoeMystical 17:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if the entire article is nothing but "Castro says, ... Castro says, ..."? Bi 20:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that a lot of material has been deleted lately, apparently because of lack of references. I am going to look for references to see if any of it can be sourced. I have a few books. I found some at a bookstore not too long ago and recently bought a few from ebay. JoeMystical 04:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Are these books available from public libraries? If not, then it's a bad idea to source from them. Bi 09:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete information without asking for sources first
I'm restoring all the mass deletions that happened lately. Please do not delete information without asking for sources. If someone can't provide sources then delete but not before. Chopping the article down from this to this  without asking for sources is ridiculous. This stuff is easily searchable in the Neo-Tech search engine. So do a search on there if you think something may not be in the sources. JoeMystical 17:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I didn't delete those stuff because they were unsourced. I deleted them because I don't think it's the business of an encyclopedia entry to treat people like idiots by gratuitously dumping entire sections of Neo-Tech material. I've simply summarized the material you insisted on quoting in their original extreme long-windedness -- if you don't like that, you can always take it up to arbitration. Bi 20:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of the stuff that was deleted was not quotes. I'm not just talking about your latest deletions but the deletions that have been made by you and one or two other people over the last few weeks. The article was turned from informative to uninformative for no apparent reason. JoeMystical 01:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 * And if you still insist on doing this sort of thing, I have half a mind to dump boatloads of quotes from Pax Neo-TeX onto the page until you can't take it. There's plenty of stuff in there that stands up to cross-checking -- the "Outlaw Neo-TeX" part itself will be quite a whole lot -- and it's all CC-licensed. Bi 20:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you dump that nonsense in the article there will be some problems. JoeMystical 01:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're really cocky indeed -- I saw you told FrancisTyers to "explain" himself. Why should he need to explain himself to your satisfaction, when you refuse to explain yourself to my (or his) satisfaction? Especially when FrancisTyers is also a moderator?

 * And since you've provably tried (above) to make thinly veiled attempts to stifle all criticism of Neo-Tech on Wikipedia, I'm actually extending you a courtesy just by explaining my position.
 * First, as I told you already, it wasn't "informative", it was just a lot of fluff, and if most of the stuff "was not quotes", it just means that the no quote stuff is even fluffier than the quotes. And what's so "informative" about obscuring the fact that Neo-Tech is a Neo-Objectivist philosophy in the very first sentence? What's so "informative" about not saying that Neo-Tech differs from Objectivism in the Zon speculation?
 * Second, I don't care if you call my stuff "nonsense", because I don't answer to you.
 * Third, everybody except you agrees that the page needs a clean-up.

 * OK, look, I've really tried to assume good faith here, but when you act like you own Wikipedia, and go against majority decisions, and try to stifle criticism, you are clearly showing that you have no intention of acting in good faith. Bi 16:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

 * You can't put any criticism in the article that is not from a reliable published source. If you do, you are violating policy. And stop deleting information. The information you are deleting is cited and/or easily citable with a search on the Neo-Tech search engine. JoeMystical 02:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Let me tell you this: Don't try to use the word "policy" as a rhetorical device on me. Because it won't work. I know what the policy says, thank you very much, and I still stand by what I said earlier:
 * ... if they're secondary sources, then the recommendation of Reliable sources is to "cross-check", not "throw out". Clearly you're just trying to look for an excuse to stamp out all criticisms of Neo-Tech.
 * And stop acting like you're some authority. I don't care if you're Eric Savage or some other company's boss; down here, you're just another wiki editor. Bi 19:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You need to read the policy. Reliable sources under Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet says: "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. "This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment. For exceptions, see the section on self-published sources." Under Self-published sources it says: "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym." So there you go. None of the sources you are presenting are reliable sources. You are violating policy by repeatedly putting them there after being warned. JoeMystical 21:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I told you already, don't "policy" this, "policy" that on me. I know what the policy says, and I can quote more policy at you than you can manage. First, here's from Reliable_sources again:
 * Because conscious and unconscious biases are not always self-evident, you shouldn't necessarily be satisfied with a single source. Find another one and cross-check. If multiple independent sources agree and they have either no strong reason to be biased, or their biases are at cross purposes, then you may have a reliable account.
 * Notice it says "cross-check", not "throw out everything". Second, you clearly haven't read Wikilawyering, because wikilawyering is precisely what you're doing:
 * Wikilawyering refers to the frowned upon practices of:
 * Using formal legal terms inappropriately regarding Wikipedia policy.
 * Asserting that technical interpretation of Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express.
 * Hiding behind misinterpretations of policy to justify inappropriate edits.
 * (emphasis mine)
 * Still want to quote any more "policy" on me? At any rate, I've sent this case to the Mediation Cabal. Bi 04:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

 * You should read the whole Reliable_sources, because you're just picking things out of context. Cross-checking a source only applies if the source is reliable in the first place. What are you going to use to cross-check a posting on a forum? A posting on another forum? I'm sorry but those those are not reliable sources. You can't go send a message to a criticizing Neo-Tech and then come back here and cite it. And you can't go create your own web page criticizing Neo-Tech and them come back here and cite it. To cite a criticism in this article it has to be from a published source, published by someone other than the author. The only exception to allowing a self-published source is "if a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym. JoeMystical 15:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Ah, the typical Neo-Tech "you're just picking things out of context" excuse. It's you who are picking things out of context, JoeMystical. It's you who are wikilawyering. It's you who are arguing -- and misinterpreting -- technical fine points in the Wikipedia policies in order to subvert the original goals of these policies. And I'm not going to argue any more fine points with you, because A Wikilawyer Is What I Am Not.

 * And as I said, I've referred the case to the Mediation Cabal. If you don't like that, then say so now. Bi 17:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

 * First of all, I am not a Neo-Tech'er. Second of all, please review our policy. Do not insert bad sources into the article. We would like all information to be verifiable as coming from reliable sources. Get someone to mediate if you want. I prefer it actually. This bad sourcing of forum postings and web pages of anonymous people needs to be put to a stop. JoeMystical 20:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Neo-Tech'er or not, your tactic of attacking people with "you're just picking things out of context" is no different from what Neo-Tech likes to do. Bi 04:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, after the page is unprotected, would it be ok to mark all the material that isn't supported by appropriate citations with Fact, then wait 24 hours, then move all of this material to this page, except where citations have been introduced? Addhoc 17:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How about 48 hours? I've been busy lately. But, that still wouldn't solve the problem. Bi, here is deleting things with sources too. It's destructive and disruptive. If something is sourced, it should stay in the article. Besides that he's adding "criticism" sources from anonymous people on forums, Usenet, web pages, etc. They aren't reliable sources at all. WP:Reliable_sources says that kind of thing is not allowed. I don't think he realizes this is supposed to be a a real encyclopedia with verifiable information. JoeMystical 03:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Yup, 48 hours is fine. Addhoc 09:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

 * JoeMystical: WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy. Anything else? Bi 10:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, but would unprotecting the page, marking any unsupported material with tags, then waiting 48 hours to remove, unless citations are introduced, be acceptable? Addhoc 10:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

 * It's not just about lack of sources. Please read my first two paragraphs of replies in this talk page section. Bi 15:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, I've read those. I'm suggesting the first step to resolving this situation would be unprotecting the page, marking any unsupported material with tags, then waiting 48 hours to remove, unless citations are introduced. Would this be ok? Addhoc 15:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Probably not, because a lot of other things will remain unresolved. Better to leave the page protected, cool down, and with the help of the Mediation Cabal (hopefully) properly resolve all the issues in one fell swoop, rather than unprotect the page now and fix this one little issue but fight over other issues. If you get my drift.

 * But if you have any other suggestions for resolving the rest of the dispute, I'd like to hear them. Bi 15:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at the moment. Let me know if you change your mind. Addhoc 16:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As I understand the dispute here, the main problem is that there is practically no criticism of Neo-Tech in the article, and that as such it looks like a tract (on which I agree). I looked a little while for criticism around the web, but it seems like too minor a cult (I'm sorry, but anything that leads me to becoming -or doing whatever with, for instance- GOD is a cult to me) to get much www attention. So it's a bit hard to get something to counter it. However, if there was a small and underfurnished criticism section, I'd probably go "Hm! they've got detractors! They must be saying something!" Whereas the page as it is doesn't look serious at all, and harms its own cause. This being said, I think the key to balancing the article is to bring A LOT more non-in-world data (eg bio of founders, impact in the real world, reception, approx. number of followers/however you call them, sales in terms of books, well, FACTS), and MUCH less citations that sound like propaganda. Whoever it is, you can't make a whole article on anything with only citations from a single person (or group).--SidiLemine 17:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're indicating there are too many primary and not enough secondary sources, then I agree. Addhoc 17:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Pardon my newbieness, but could you please succintly define primary and secondary sources? Are secondary sources third party? If so, we agree :-) --SidiLemine 17:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, I meant in terms of Reliable sources,
 * "A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event."
 * "A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. Secondary sources produced by scholars and published by scholarly presses are carefully vetted for quality control and can be considered authoritative."
 * "A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Encyclopedias, for instance, are tertiary sources."
 * Addhoc 17:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Now we're talking. Yes, I meant that. The only primary source on a philosophy being its author, you need secondary to balance it. And as it's a philosophy, they can only comment on the wordly aspects of the movement. --SidiLemine 18:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is what I've been saying. Actually it's also in WP:NPOV, which is not just a guideline, but actually a policy. Maybe I should start a RfC? Bi 11:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

 * WP:NPOV says that "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source." Forum postings, blogs, and web pages made by anonymous people who are not published authors are not reliable sources. You made a silly web page named NeoTeX which makes jokes about Neo-Tech. Do you think you can cite your web page here as a reliable source? If so, then you don't have any idea of what Wikipedia is about. JoeMystical 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Look carefully. "Reliable sources" here refers to WP:V, not WP:RS. Bi 15:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you look carefully at WP:V: "This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia." JoeMystical 15:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Well I'm not sure if someone like Carl Watner would be a primary source. He didn't come up with Neo-Tech but he talks about it. It's not critical of Neo-Tech though. But there is no necessity to have criticisms of something for an article to be NPOV. For example, there is an article on the blue jay bird but there is no criticism of the blue jay. This article is simply a description of the philosophy. It is worded NPOV too. It says things like "It is held that," "Wallace defines it as," "According to Kimura," etc. It doesn't use the sources as secondary sources but only as primary sources which is what you're supposed to do. And yes the sourcing rules are a "guideline." Guidelines are in place because they make sense. It does not make sense to include critical material critical of Neo-Tech from anonymous sources you find posted on forums and web pages. There is absolutely no reliability from those sources. If you could source like that then an editor here could simply go post a message on a forum saying "Neo-Tech is illogical" and then come back here and cite it. The guidelines are there for a reason. The user named "Bi" has also been posting from sources like that as well as deleting cited information, which doesn't make sense at all. He doesn't appear to have the same goals as the rest of us of providing an informative encyclopedia with reliable information. JoeMystical 15:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I can just as easily use the same argument on you: Any bloke can just as easily set up a web site promoting this new philosophy called Neo-Wonkism, and then get a bunch of Neo-Wonkism sock puppets proponents to praise it, and then write a Wikipedia article about Neo-Wonkism. So why's this suddenly right and proper? Where do you get off claiming that Neo-Tech's material, which is just as self-published as any other web page, is suddenly a source of "reliable information"?

 * There's a reason why guidelines are WP:RS exist, and there's also a reason why they are guidelines, not policies. Because it may be necessary on occasion to break the guidelines -- as, when a guideline conflicts with a policy. Remember, WP:NPOV is a policy, and if an article is "worded NPOV" but presents only one side of an issue, it still violates WP:NPOV.

 * And if you can't stop launching personal attacks about how wilfully ignorant I am about Wikipedia policy, I'll have no choice but to have you up for violating WP:NPA. Bi 15:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

 * It's hardly a new philosophy. Wallace came up with the Neo-Tech philosophy in the late 1960's and was putting out books since then. It didn't even start on the internet, as you claim. Yes Wallace is self-published, but that doesn't mean his self-published books can't be used as a source. They means they can't be used as a secondary source. But they can be used as a primary source, meaning as a source to show what Wallace believes. Wallace published books from other authors as well that write about Neo-Tech. They can be used as well. JoeMystical 15:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

 * What kind of argument is that? Being "hardly a new philosophy" has zilch to do with whether it's informative, reliable, or has gone through fact-checking. And besides, I don't see any independent support for the claim that Neo-Tech appeared in the 1960's. So there's absolutely no basis for claiming that Neo-Tech's self-published, self-aggrandizing sources are in any way of a higher quality than any other web site out there. You're just using the Chewbacca defense, throwing up nonsensical arguments. Bi 15:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If someone writes a book, that book is a reliable source to show what the book says. Don't you get it? JoeMystical 15:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC) On your other point, I have a Neo-Tech book from 1983. How do you explain Neo-Tech originating on the internet? The web site was not put up until the late 1990's. JoeMystical 16:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So that means one's perfectly justified to start a Wikipedia article titled "Pax Neo-TeX" which talks about Pax Neo-TeX, since after all the Pax Neo-TeX web site is a perfectly reliable source to show what the Pax Neo-TeX web site says? Bi 15:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, because Pax-NeoTex is not notable. Neo-Tech is. You can try to start on article on Pax-NeoTex but I guarantee it will be deleted. JoeMystical 16:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Bi 16:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess it's news to you, but that's the long-standing criterion for having a Wikipedia article. It has to be notable. An article on Pax-Neotex would be deleted. Try to start an article on it and see. JoeMystical 16:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, on both sides, neither threats or personnal attacks are doing much good. So far it's been about 20 posts since the last original idea. Correct me if I'm wrong: Bi (and others have tried to introduce criticism of Neo-Tech, but failed to find notorious sources (reliable is a bit tacky to me). Is that right? Now, I see no obligation for criticism if there hasn't been any (remember guys, it doesn't mean it's right, only that it's deemed unimportant by the general public). But I insist that an article based on citations from a single group of people lacks credibility.--SidiLemine 16:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would it lack credibility? They're not being used as sources on anything but Neo-Tech. How can you be more credible about what a book says than citing the book itself? That's all this article is. It says "they define Neo-Tech like this..." It's perfectly legitimate to use one of Ayn Rand's books as a source describing her own philsophy. Or, a book by Kant to describe his philosophy. So why wouldn't it be legitimate to cite a book by Wallace to describe Wallace's philosophy? JoeMystical 16:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Notice that the articles on Rand and Kant include criticisms thereof. Stop this nonsense. Bi 16:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Notice that any criticism is sourced from non-self-published sources. Self-published sources can only be used in articles about the authors of the sources themselves. You can't use them as a source in another article. JoeMystical 16:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring SidiLemine's initial point, which is that the page on Neo-Tech lacks credibility because it only presents Neo-Tech's side of the story. Get past that, then we talk. Bi 16:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's supposed to be Neo-Tech's side of the story. That's the only side of the story that there is. If there is an article about Kantianism, then where do you look as a source to explain his philosophy? In his own books. That's exactly the side of the story that you want. You want Kant's side of the story because it's HIS philosophy. There is nothing wrong with that at all. If you think Kant is too difficult to understand and you want someone to try to simplify Kant, then you could look for secondary sources. Unfortunately, there are no secondary sources on Neo-Tech that are not published by Wallace himself. But fortunately, Neo-Tech isn't that difficult to understand. So there is no problem just citing Wallace's books or other authors who Wallace has published which describe Neo-Tech. JoeMystical 16:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, I didn't mean that it's content is questionnable. The content, as you said, is NPOVely phrased, no doubt. I just meant that the article is a bit boring as it is. You could make it a bit more interesting to someone that likes encyclopedias by including something else than citations. Furthermore, the article doesn't say it's about books, but about a philosophy. How about different articles for the books, with lengthy citations and all the technical references, etc, including the quantities sold (that would resolve the notability problem for them), and a shorter, or at least more balanced, article on the philosophy, that would use some comparison to other thought systems (other than Rand's objecivism if possible)? Also, could you please stop using the word "nonsense" all the time, as it's loosing its capacity even as an insult? BTW, it's not HIS. It's not anyone's. Just as articles.--SidiLemine 16:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A comparison against other philosophies will probably go against WP:OR, alas. The fact that it's NPOV-"phrased" doesn't mean it's NPOV; it's painfully obvious that the article assigns undue weight to one viewpoint, and that's Neo-Tech's viewpoint. Bi 18:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It SHOULD give weight to the viewpoint of those who define the Neo-Tech philosophy, because they're the authors of the philosophy. Only they can tell you what it says. I don't know why you can't understand that. JoeMystical 18:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then the whole discussion on secondary sources is moot, so why were you even making such a big deal about it in the first place? Bi 19:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Criticisms from anonymous postings from forums and web pages (such as your NeoTex) are not legitimate secondary sources, because they're self-published (and even worse, anonymous). JoeMystical 19:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm asking why you even bother harping on this in the first place. By your above argument, whether there are reliable secondary sources won't even matter anyway. Bi 19:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Because you've been objecting to using Wallace and others published by Wallace as sources for this article and you have been putting non-reliable sources in this article as criticims. JoeMystical 19:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No. What I object to is certain people continually refusing to directly address people's arguments, continually throwing out bogus rationale that aren't, continually splitting non-existent hairs, and continually citing `precedents' which aren't precedents at all. Bi 19:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is, doing delete sourced information out of this article and don't add unreliable sources from anonymous forum postings and web pages. JoeMystical 19:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is that your point doesn't hold water. Bi 19:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is where the dissension is. I don't fully agree with this. part of the problem here is that it is a very new philosophy (more than objectivism, say), and not a very mainstream one at that (eg less than neo-conservatism). And most of the time, we see critic of philosophies coming from successors, generaly appretices or students of the philosophers in question. These have a right to say because they participated in the ellaboration and practice of the doctrine. This is observed with Descartes, Kant, and indeed most philosophers I know. This is what happened with objectivism. One critic I could make is that we didn't see the richest men and companies on earth advocate Neo Tech these years. Actually I never heard of it before. So it is not exremely convincing as a way to get successful. But then again, you might find I'm not reliable. --SidiLemine 19:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy
WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy. Just wanted to emphasize this point for the benefit of JoeMystical. Bi 15:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

3rd AfD
Yes, yes, I really hate to do this, but here's an AfD for this article. The 3rd AfD. Bi 16:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

 * (removed afd tag from here)

 * Good luck with that. JoeMystical 17:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand... Though it lacks a great deal of criticism, the article is NPOV and informative. The subject matter may seem "silly" to some, but I'm actually very interested in this stuff - not necessarily Neo-Tech, but philosophy in general. If there is nothing harmful or inaccurate in this article, there is nothing to merit deletion. If JoeMystical and Bi would take their social awkwardness elsewhere, it would be greatly appreciated by those of us who actually have lives. ;-)
 * I'm not the one trying to get it deleted. You should be thanking me for contributing to the writing of the article. The attempt to get the article deleted is all Bi's doing. JoeMystical 19:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But see, you're still a ho, and therefore I am not on your side either. Try talking to a girl or something.  ;-)
 * Hmm, so why are you here on Wikipedia instead of talking to your own girl? ;-B Bi 19:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Because I can't get in touch with yo momma! (I'm just trying to provide comic relief, by the way.  I hope you guys aren't taking this seriously.)  ;-)
 * Ha! Good one. But did you read any of the above? Of course they're taking it too seriously? They've got your IP, and by now one of them already Googleearthed you. DO NOT open your mail tomorrow just dont. --SidiLemine 20:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm being raped and murdered by the two of them as we speak. It hurts!  But at least I got them to agree on something!  ;-)

Request for vague rantage
The question: what to do if there are only self-published sources on both sides of the issue (pro-Neo-Tech and anti-Neo-Tech)? Please propose a concrete course of action, instead of making motherhood statements like "read WP:V" -- we've been through those, thank you very much. Bi 03:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I thought we've been through this. If Frank Wallace published his own books about Neo-Tech then they are legitimate sources to describe what Neo-Tech is. He also published writings by others which were about Neo-Tech. Those are legitimate too. Self-published sources are permissible. They're just not permissible in other articles. For example, you couldn't use Wallace as a source on some subject other than Neo-Tech in another article. Self-published sources criticizing Neo-Tech are definitely not permissible, because they are not in their own articles but in THIS article.  So, to write this article, you use books written by Wallace and others he published explaining Neo-Tech. That's what has been done. JoeMystical 03:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, we've been through all your arguments. Bi 03:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no other choice. There is nothing about Neo-Tech that is not published by Frank Wallace (that I've been able to find). JoeMystical 04:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We've been through that too. Bi 04:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Then what are you asking for? JoeMystical 04:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm asking for opinions from third parties. Bi 04:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

 * We can definitely not allow someone from here to go post something on a forum or make their own anti-neo-tech web page and them come back here and cite it. Those are considered "self-published." The rule against a self-published source being in article that is not about the source itself exists for good reason. Any criticism of Neo-Tech has to be published by an independent publisher. JoeMystical 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This section is an WP:RFC. It's for seeking "broader input" from third parties. Are you a third party? Please stop trying to dominate the discussion. Bi 04:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me what to do. I can speak whenever I want to speak. JoeMystical 04:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

To reiterate: what to do if there are only self-published sources on both sides of the issue (pro-Neo-Tech and anti-Neo-Tech)? Please propose a concrete course of action, instead of making motherhood statements like "read WP:V" -- we've been through those, thank you very much. Bi 04:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

 * If there are no reliable secondary sources why should this article be any more than a stub until they become available? - FrancisTyers · 10:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not opposed to marking it as a stub ( ?), but I don't know about other people, especially JoeMystical. Bi 10:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Let's make it a stub. I hate wasting material already written, but sometimes you need to. If someone really wants more info on what's inside the books, well, there's the books. And I happen to think that most, if not all this stuff is already available online at their site (already linked: yay!). Or we could even merge it with Wallace's article (as it's HIS philosophy), as per German Wiki. That would allow us to enlarge the latter a bit, as it'is a bit small right now.--SidiLemine 11:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not true that there are no reliable sources. There are lots of reliable source. The books themselves. The article is fine. Making it a stub makes no sense at all because you can't stop people from adding to the article and it won't be a stub anymore. JoeMystical 16:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You claim "the article is fine", so can I take this to mean that you're refusing to accept any offers of compromise other than your own? Bi 17:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Compromise what? What is the problem with the article? It's pretty well sourced, NPOV, and informative. You're not allowed to put your unreliable sources in the article so you tried to get it deleted. JoeMystical 17:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Merging would be fine by me. What do other people think? If there is a general consensus to merge I'll go ahead and do it. - FrancisTyers · 12:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Good idea. Addhoc 12:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I have no problem with that either. In fact I proposed in the previous AfD to merge it with Neo-Objectivism, but merging with Wallace Ward is just as well. Bi 13:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've registered my support for a merge in the current AfD. Maybe User:Addhoc and others would like to do likewise? Bi 17:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I oppose merging. Wallace is not the only developer of Neo-Tech. It is the result of a contributions from many writers, and still goes on after his death. Wallace just came up with the original idea. You can't get a full picture of the philosophy by only citing Wallace. The philosophy stands alone because it's a combination of ideas from different people. His son, Mark Hamilton, probably writes about half of it. JoeMystical 16:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

 * You think it would be better in Neo-Objectivism? Thats fine too. - FrancisTyers · 17:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, I (User:Bi) have no problem with merging with Neo-Objectivism either. Bi 17:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that would probably be an original research problem. I haven't seen any sources call it neo-objectivism. That claim should probably be taken out of the article. JoeMystical 17:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Then how about merging with Objectivism? Neo-Tech does bill itself as a sort of Objectivism, after all. Bi 17:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? Do honestly think this would be allowed in that article? Again, that would be original research. No reliable source says Neo-Tech is a form of Objectivism. Stop trying to get rid of the article. The article has no major problems. Just work on the article by sourcing more information and deleting the small amounts of original research, like calling it "neo-objectivism." JoeMystical 17:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, since JoeMystical is opposing any and all attempts to merge the Neo-Tech article with another article, I'd just like to say that in the event of a merge, my preference is to merge it with Wallace Ward. Bi 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? There is no legitimate explanation for this. The article has no major problems, other than a few items of original research. It is pretty well sourced and written in an NPOV manner. There are PLENTY of sources available. The books themselves are the sources. There is no reason to try to delete or merge this article with something else. Again, Wallace Ward is not the only author of Neo-Tech, so it doesn't make sense to merge it. JoeMystical 17:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Neo-Tech is the Business/Application mode of objectivism" Wallace, Frank R. Liberating Objectivism: The Liberation Manifest. Is that an unreliable source? My preference finally goes to neo objectivism.--SidiLemine 17:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You cannot use their own writings as a secondary source. They can only be used as a primary source, which means books about Neo-Tech can only be used as sources about Neo-TEch in articles about Neo-Tech. And even then, it can't be claimed that it is a form of Objectivism in the article, but only stated that they CLAIM that it is the "business/application" mode of objectivism. The books cannot be used as a source for us to claim that what they say is TRUE. They can only be used a source to show what THEY SAY or what THEY BELIEVE. This article is written pretty well. It clearly make it a point to avoid asserting that anything they say is true. This is a good article. JoeMystical 17:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, JoeMystical, are you ... praising your own edits? Bi 08:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm praising the article as a whole. I haven't written much of this article at all. I've made a few edits in the body and just recently re-wrote a small intro because the previous one wasn't very good. JoeMystical 02:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I'm confused. "they're the authors of the philosophy. Only they can tell you what it says. I don't know why you can't understand that3.JoeMystical 18:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC) How is it we're now allowed to doubt what they say about their own philosophy, and deny them the right to be neo-objectivists if they feel like it?--SidiLemine 10:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We can say: "Wallace says that Neo-Tech is a form of objectivism." But we can't say: "Neo-Tech is a form of objectivism" because their are no secondary sources saying so. Whether "they say" it's a form of objectivism is indisputable because it's right there in the books. Whether is actually IS a form of objectivism is a different issue. We can assert what Wallace and the other writers say about Neo-Tech but we can't assert that what they say about Neo-Tech is true. That would require independent sources writing about Neo-Tech. JoeMystical 02:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Article Problems
There are some concerns that need to be ironed out in this article.

 * Reliable Publisher: From WP:V, "… that have already been published by reputable publishers." Inside the article currently are claims about use of name changes and psedonym writing. Vanity_press sources usually are unreliable.

 * Primary Sourcing: This article is suffering from complete reliance on primary sourcing. There are currently no secondary sources in the article.

 * Without a Reliable Publisher and an singular reliance on that source, this brings up WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NPOV (Is this a tiny minority view? Should we devote an article to it, and not a section in objectivism?) and many other balance and POV issues.

Possible Solutions

 * WP:V allows for dubious reliability and self published sourcing in articles about themselves. neo-tech.com seems to fit under that umbrella.

 * Secondary sources? . These were found by using google for neotech and rand. Other suggestions include neotech and objectivism, neotech and criticism or critic, etc.

 * Library/Academic Journal hunt. If this subject is notable, someone in some academic journal will have written something about it.

Without secondary sources, the notability of this article is in question. Further, the primary source has been questioned as unreliable, and consensus at WP:RS is that burden of proof on the editors who want to keep that source to prove why it should remain.

Find those secondary sources! Electrawn 22:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Third-party Sources
Here are some third-party sources for this article"Most of the explanations of Neo Tech and the NovaTech Society (and attacks on them) could best be described as gibberish" says the Miami Herald on August 23, 2004. "An eight-page letter from the Nuova Tech Society received by Linda Muller promises membership will allow her to command respect and admiration and make her the centre of attention. ... [Mrs Muller] is convinced it is a 'manipulative scam'" reports the August 16, 2005 Aberdeen Press and Journal. The October 9, 2005 South Bend Tribune reports that "The Noveau Tech Society solicits consumers by mail to buy books published by the Neo Tech Publishing Co., which is based in Henderson, Nev., according to the Better Business Bureau. ... There are lots and lots of letters posted on www.Scam.com and www.BadBusinessBureau.com from people who bought books and found them worthless." From the Australian Associated Press on May 3, 2005, "Queensland consumers are being warned of a 'mystical' letter scam which promises them prosperity, love, happiness and peace of mind ... She said the scammers were sending the letters under various aliases including Novatech, Nouva Tech, Novus Tek Society and Neo-Tech Las Vegas." -- Dragonfiend 06:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit request
Replace content with:
 * 1) redirect Frank R. Wallace

and consider replacing the category with pp-protected - Christian75 (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The appropriate template for a redirect is, not . -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Neo-Tech (philosophy)


text: User talk:65.110.153.75

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:65.110.153.75


text:
Sue Nicholls

Susan Frances Harmar Nicholls (born 23 November 1943) is an English actress, known for her roles on British television in Crossroads (1964–1968), The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin (1976–1979) and, Rentaghost (1981–1984) and especially for her long-running part as Audrey Roberts in the soap opera Coronation Street (1979–1982, 1984–present). She also appeared on Broadway in the 1974 revival of the comedy London Assurance.

Nicholls first appeared as Audrey in Coronation Street in 1979 and played the role intermittently for six years, before joining the cast permanently in 1985. She won the 2000 British Soap Award for Best Comedy Performance and the 2003 British Soap Award for Best Dramatic Performance, and received the Outstanding Achievement Award in 2019.

Early life and education
Susan Frances Harmar Nicholls was born in Darlaston, Wednesbury. Her father was Sir Harmar Nicholls, later Lord Harmar-Nicholls, the former Conservative MP for Peterborough (1950–1974) and MEP for Greater Manchester South (1979–1984), and subsequently a life peer; she is thus entitled to be addressed as "The Honourable Susan Nicholls". She had a sister, Judith. She was educated at the School of St Mary and St Anne (now known as Abbots Bromley School for Girls), and is a graduate of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art.

Career
Nicholls first became known as Marilyn Gates on Crossroads, a role she played from 1964 to 1968. A song she first sang on the programme, "Where Will You Be?", charted on 3 July 1968, eventually reaching number 17 in the UK Singles Chart.

Nicholls's second single was less successful and she embarked on a career in a cabaret, performing her solo act all over the country. She returned to the stage in a variety of popular plays and pantomimes. During the 1970s, she had two very different stints abroad. In Vienna she sang between strip acts at a nightclub while in 1974 she toured America and Canada with the Royal Shakespeare Company in London Assurance, finishing with a six-week run on Broadway.

She played the role of the secretary, Joan Greengross (later Webster and Millbeck) in the sitcom The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin (1976–1979) and its sequel The Legacy of Reginald Perrin (1996), as well as Nadia Popov in Rentaghost and Mrs Muddle in Pipkins (1973) and appeared as Derinda Forbes in the hard-hitting police drama The Professionals; episode "The Acorn Syndrome" (1980).

She has played Audrey in Coronation Street as an occasional visitor since April 1979, and a full-time permanent character since 1985.

Personal life
Nicholls was married to Mark Eden from 1993 until his death in 2021; Eden appeared as Alan Bradley on Coronation Street from 1986 until 1989.

In 2011, while watching an episode of Coronation Street, Sister Anna Bianconi-Moore, a Senior nurse at the dermatology department at Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge, noticed a mole on Nicholls' shoulder. The nurse contacted the show immediately via email to express her concerns. Nicholls was seen by Zeena Islam – Coronation Street's in-house doctor, who referred her to a skin cancer specialist, where she was diagnosed with malignant melanoma. After the mole was surgically removed, ITV contacted Bianconi-Moore to inform her of the situation and she was invited to the Coronation Street set to meet Nicholls.

title: Sue Nicholls


text:
Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss

Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss is a first-person role-playing video game developed by Blue Sky Productions (later Looking Glass Studios) and published by Origin Systems. Released in March 1992, the game is set in the fantasy world of the Ultima series. It takes place inside the Great Stygian Abyss: a large cave system that contains the remnants of a failed utopian civilization. The player assumes the role of the Avatar—the Ultima series's protagonist—and attempts to find and rescue a baron's kidnapped daughter.

Ultima Underworld has been cited as the first role-playing game to feature first-person action in a 2.5D environment. Its design combines simulation elements with concepts from earlier role-playing video games, including Wizardry and Dungeon Master, which led the game's designers to call it a "dungeon simulation". As such, the game is non-linear and allows for emergent gameplay.

Ultima Underworld sold nearly 500,000 units, and was placed on numerous hall of fame lists. It influenced game developers such as Bethesda Softworks and Valve, and it was an inspiration behind the games Deus Ex and BioShock. The game had a sequel, Ultima Underworld II: Labyrinth of Worlds (1993), and a new game in the series, Underworld Ascendant, was released in late 2018.

Gameplay
Ultima Underworld is a role-playing video game (RPG) that takes place from a first-person perspective in a three-dimensional environment. The player's goal is to adventure through a large, multi-level dungeon, in which the entire game is set. The player uses a freely movable mouse cursor to interact with the game's world, and with the icon-based interface on the heads-up display (HUD). Each icon has a specific effect; for example, the player uses the Look icon to examine objects closely, while the Fight icon causes the player character to ready their weapon. The player's progression through the game is non-linear: areas may be explored, and puzzles and quests finished, in any order. An automatically filling map, to which the player may add notes, records what the player has seen above a minimum level of brightness. The player character may carry light sources to extend the line of sight in varying amounts. Exploratory actions include looking up and down, jumping, and swimming.

The player begins the game by creating a character, for whom traits such as gender, class and skills may be selected. Skills range from fighting with an axe, to bartering, to picking locks. By participating in combat, quests and exploration, the character gains experience points. When certain amounts of experience points are accumulated, the character levels up, gaining additional hit points and mana. Experience is required to recite mantras at shrines in the game. Each mantra is a statement—such as "Om Cah"—that increases proficiency in a specific skill when typed. Simple mantras are provided in the game's manual, while more complex ones are hidden throughout the game. An inventory on the HUD lists the items and weapons carried by the player character; capacity is limited by weight. Players equip items via a paper doll system, wherein items are clicked-and-dragged onto a representation of the player character.

Combat occurs in real-time, and the player character may use both melee and ranged weapons. The player attacks by holding the cursor over the game screen and clicking, depressing the button longer to inflict greater damage. Some weapons allow for different types of attacks depending on where the cursor is held; for example, clicking near the bottom of the screen may result in a jab, while clicking in the middle produces a slash. Simulated dice rolls occur behind the scenes to determine weapon accuracy. Enemies sometimes try to escape when near death, and the game's stealth mechanics may occasionally be used to avoid combat altogether. The player may cast spells by selecting an appropriate combination of runestones. Like mantras, runestones must be found in the game world before use. There are over forty spells, some undocumented; their effects range from causing earthquakes to flight.

The developers intended Ultima Underworld to be a realistic and interactive "dungeon simulation", rather than a straightforward role-playing video game. For example, many objects in the game have no actual use, while a lit torch may be used on corn to create popcorn. Weapons deteriorate with use, and the player character must eat and rest; light sources burn out unless extinguished before sleeping. A physics system allows, among other things, for items to bounce when thrown against surfaces. The game contains non-player characters (NPCs) with whom the player may interact by selecting dialogue choices from a menu. Most NPCs have possessions, and are willing to trade them. The game was designed to give players "a palette of strategies" with which to approach situations, and its simulation systems allow for emergent gameplay.

Setting
Ultima Underworld is set in Britannia, the fantasy world of the Ultima series. Specifically, the game takes place inside a large, underground dungeon called the Great Stygian Abyss. The dungeon's entrance lies on the Isle of the Avatar, an island ruled by Baron Almric. The Abyss first appeared in Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar, in which it contains the player's final goal, the Codex of Ultimate Wisdom.

Ultima Underworld is set after the events of Ultima VI: The False Prophet; in the time between the two games, a man named Cabirus attempted to create a utopian colony inside the Abyss. The eight settlements of the Ultima series each embody one of eight virtues, and Cabirus wished to create a ninth that embodied all virtues. To achieve this, he united diverse cultures and races in peaceful co-existence and planned to promote harmony by giving each group one of eight virtue-imbued magical artifacts. However, he died before distributing the artifacts, and left no instructions for doing so. As a result, the colony collapsed into anarchy and war, and the artifacts were lost. At the time of Ultima Underworld, the Abyss contains the remnants of Cabirus's colony, inhabited by fractious groups of humans, goblins, trolls and others.

Story
Before the beginning of the game, the Abyss-dwelling wizard brothers Garamon and Tyball accidentally summon a demon, the Slasher of Veils, while experimenting with inter-dimensional travel. Garamon is used as bait to lure the demon into a room imbued with virtue. However, the demon offers Tyball great power if he betrays Garamon. Tyball agrees, but the betrayal fails; Garamon is killed, but seals the demon inside the room. Because he lacks virtue, Tyball cannot re-enter by himself, and plans to sacrifice Baron Almric's daughter, Arial, at the doorway to gain entrance.

In the game's introduction, the ghost of Garamon haunts the Avatar's dreams with warnings of a great danger in Britannia. The Avatar allows Garamon to take him there, where he watches Tyball kidnap Arial. Tyball escapes, leaving the Avatar to be caught by the Baron's guards. The guards take him to the Baron, who banishes him to the Great Stygian Abyss to rescue Arial. After the introduction, the Avatar explores the dungeon and finds remnants of Cabirus's colony. A few possible scenarios include deciding the fate of two warring goblin tribes, learning a language, and playing an instrument to complete a quest. The Avatar eventually defeats Tyball and frees Arial.

However, as he dies, Tyball reveals that he had decided to contain the Slasher of Veils, whose prison he had been weakening, within Arial as a way to prevent it from destroying the world. Arial asks the Avatar to prevent the Slasher of Veils from being unleashed, and magically teleports back to the surface to evacuate its inhabitants. With help from Garamon's ghost, the Avatar gathers the eight talismans of Cabirus and throws them in the volcano at the base of the Abyss; Garamon uses the energy they release to open a portal and send the Slasher of Veils into another dimension. The Avatar is sucked through the portal into a chaotic alternate dimension, but escapes back to the Isle of the Avatar and makes it on board the Baron's ship as the volcano erupts. As the game ends, Garamon's spirit reveals that he teleported the inhabitants of the Abyss to another cave.

Development
Ultima Underworld was conceived in 1989 by Origin Systems employee Paul Neurath. He had just completed work on Space Rogue, a hybrid title that features sequences both of 2D tile-based role-playing and of 3D space flight simulation. According to Neurath, Space Rogue "took the first, tentative steps in exploring a blend of RPG and simulation elements, and this seemed to me a promising direction." He felt that the way it combined the elements was jarring, however, and believed that he could create a more immersive experience.

Neurath had enjoyed role-playing video games like Wizardry, but found that their simple, abstract visuals were an obstacle to the suspension of disbelief. He believed that Dungeon Master's detailed first-person presentation was a "glimpse into the future", and he sought to create a fantasy role-playing game that built on its example. In early 1990, Neurath wrote a design document for a game titled Underworld, which described such elements as "goblins on the prows of rowboats tossed in the waves, shooting arrows at the player above on a rope bridge swinging in the wind." He contracted former Origin employee Doug Wike to create concept art. Wike created a brief, hand-drawn animation with Deluxe Paint Animation, which depicted the game's interface and a creature moving toward the player. The animation defined the game's direction, and it was used as a reference point for the game's tone and features throughout development. That spring, Neurath founded the company Blue Sky Productions in Salem, New Hampshire, with the intention to create Underworld. Among the company's first employees was Doug Church, who was studying at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The team was thus composed of Doug Church as programmer, Doug Wike as lead artist and Paul Neurath as lead designer. Development began in May 1990.

An early difficulty was the implementation of texture mapping. Neurath had experimented unsuccessfully with the concept on an Apple II computer in the late 1980s, but he believed that the more powerful IBM PCs of the time might be able to process it. He contacted Lerner Research programmer Chris Green—an acquaintance from his past work with Ned Lerner—who created a working algorithm. Using the Space Rogue engine, Green's algorithm, assembly code from Lerner Research's Car and Driver and original programming, the Blue Sky team completed a prototype of Underworld after roughly a month of work. Neurath described the prototype as "fast, smooth, and [featuring] true texture mapped walls, though the ceiling and floor were flat shaded and the corridors and rooms were all 10' [3.0 m] high—it looked a lot like Wolfenstein-3D in fact." The team demonstrated it at the June 1990 Consumer Electronics Show (CES) and impressed Origin Systems. Origin producer Warren Spector later said, "I remember Paul showing me that demo ... at CES and being totally floored by it. None of us had ever seen anything like it." The two companies reached a publishing agreement that summer, and Origin suggested that the game be reworked to fit into the Ultima universe. The team agreed, and the game was renamed Ultima Underworld. While Spector had hoped to produce the game, he was not assigned to the role; and he later said that he "sort of watched [the other producer] jealously from the sidelines."

After the game was renamed, Doug Church recruited Dan Schmidt, a college friend who had just graduated from MIT, as a programmer. The team abandoned the Space Rogue engine and created a new one that could display a believable 3D world—one with varying heights and texture-mapped floors and ceilings. Church estimated that the first year of production was dedicated to creating the game's technological base. However, Neurath stated that the team spent "comparatively little" time on the game's technology, and that "most was spent working on game features, mechanics, and world building". Their ultimate goal was to create the "finest dungeon game, a game that was tangibly better than any of the long line of dungeon games that came before it." Each member of the small team assumed multiple roles; for example, the game's first two levels were designed by Paul Neurath, while the rest were built by artists, designers and programmers. According to Schmidt, Neurath contracted a writer to create the game's story and dialogue, but the relationship was a "mismatch"; and so the team decided to write the plot themselves. Alongside his programming work, Church co-wrote the game's story with Dan Schmidt, and he gradually took on project leader responsibilities. Writing duties for each level were given to the person who created that level; Schmidt's role was to edit the dialogue of each level to fit with that of the others. Schmidt also created the game's sound effects, which were synthesized—no recorded sounds were used—in a graphical sound editor. Neurath, who Church said was "very day to day at the beginning of the project", became more involved with the company's business and finances.

Church explained that the core of the project was its "dynamic creation". He noted that the team had "no set of rules ... or pre-written plan", but rather worked organically toward the general idea of creating a "dungeon simulation". Church believed that the game's Ultima series heritage was extremely helpful, as it gave the team an anchor for their experiments. According to Church, because the team was young and inexperienced, they were "improvising almost the whole time". He said that they would "just write something" that seemed interesting, but would then "get it half done, and we'd say, 'Eh? That's not working.'" He believed that this iterative method was useful overall, but that it entailed an abnormally large workload: it resulted in the creation of "four movement systems before we were done, several combat systems, and so forth". Certain failed experiments meant that the team created "[AI] code for many ideas which turned out to be largely irrelevant to the actual gameplay".

During the first year of the game's development, Church believed that Origin had little faith in the team's ability to complete the game. He later said, "They didn't pay any attention at all, frankly." While Origin CEO Richard Garriott helped the team in fitting the game into the Ultima franchise, Warren Spector later said that the company seemed "blasé" about Ultima Underworld "for the first several months after ORIGIN and Blue Sky signed the deal", despite his own belief that it was a "change-the-world project". Neurath opined that this was due to the team's status as outsiders, whose company was "some 1,500 miles distant" from their publisher. The team was advanced $30,000 to create the game, but its final cost was $400,000. The game was funded partly by Ned Lerner, and by Neurath's royalties from Space Rogue. Throughout the game's production, the studio was run on a tight budget.

Roughly a year into development, the team discovered that their second producer—the first having quit Origin near the beginning of development—had left the project. Neurath later said that "neither [producer] had much involvement" in the game, and that, following the second's departure, the team spent time without any producer at all. Rumors circulated that Origin planned to cancel the project. Following a proposal by the team around this time, Spector, who had previously worked with Neurath on Space Rogue, assumed the role of producer. Church later described this event as "a big win for everyone". Spector began to interact regularly with the team by phone and to visit the studio in person. Neurath later said, "Warren understood immediately what we were trying to accomplish with the game, and became our biggest champion within Origin. Had not Warren stepped in this role at that stage, I'm not sure Ultima Underworld would have ever seen the light of day." Church said that Spector helped the team polish the game and "make it real", and that Spector's past experience in the industry enabled him to keep the team focused on completing the game. He explained that Spector "had that ability to help me and the rest of the guys reset, from the big-picture view of someone who has done it before."

The final four months of the game's development constituted "crunch time". During this period, Neurath rented an extremely small basement office space in a Somerville, Massachusetts social services building: he sought to circumvent the long commute that several team members had been making from Massachusetts. Furniture consisted of inexpensive folding tables and "uncomfortable red deck chairs". Development took place during the winter, but the room was drafty and poorly heated. The team hired college friends such as Marc LeBlanc to bug test the game, and Spector stayed at the studio for roughly a month and a half, according to Church. Spector later said that "in that little office, that team created some serious magic. I mean, the sense of doing something incredible was palpable". Neurath summarized, "Despite the austere working environment, the game came together amazingly well in the final stretch, and we delivered the Gold Master just about two years after we had started." The game was released in March 1992.

Technology
Ultima Underworld's game engine was written by a small team. Chris Green provided the game's texture mapping algorithm, which was applied to walls, floors and ceilings. The engine allowed for transparencies, walls at 45 degree angles, multiple tile heights and inclined surfaces, doors that swung open and closed, and other aspects. Ultima Underworld was the first video game to implement many of these effects. The game was also the first indoor, real-time, 3D first-person game to not only allow the player to look up and down, but also tilt the view side to side (for example, while swimming), as well as the ability to jump.

Ultima Underworld uses two-dimensional sprites for characters, but also features 3D objects, as the team believed that it "had to do 3D objects in order to have reasonable visuals". The game uses physics to calculate the motion of thrown objects. During the game's alpha testing phase, part of the programming team worked to create a smooth lighting model. The game's advanced technology caused the engine to run slowly, and its system requirements were extremely high. Doug Church later downplayed the importance of the game's technology, stating that technological advancement "is somewhat inevitable in our field ... [and] sadly, as an industry we seem to know much less about design, and how to continue to extend and grow design capabilities". Instead, he claimed that Ultima Underworld's most important achievement was its incorporation of simulation elements into a role-playing game.

Reception
Ultima Underworld was not an immediate commercial success, which caused Origin to decrease its marketing support. However, its popularity increased via word of mouth in the years following its release. Sales eventually reached nearly 500,000 copies, with praise for its 3D presentation and automapping feature. In 1993 the game won the Origins Award for Best Fantasy or Science Fiction Computer Game of 1992, and was nominated for an award at the Game Developers Conference.

ACE called Ultima Underworld "the next true evolutionary step in the RPG genre", and noted that its simulation-style dungeon was "frighteningly realistic". The magazine thought that the game's sprite character models "detract from the dense atmosphere a bit", but ended the review by stating, "If you've got a PC, then you've got to have Ultima Underworld." Dragon Magazine opined that "to say this is the best dungeon game we've ever played is quite an understatement," and it "will leave you wondering how other game entertainments can ever stack up against the new standards Abyss sets."

Computer Gaming World's Allen Greenberg in 1992 described it as "an ambitious project" but "not without its share of problems." He praised the game's "enjoyable story and well-crafted puzzles", but disliked its "robotic" controls and "confusing" perspectives, and stated that "far more impressive sounds and pictures have been produced for other dungeon games". He summarized the game as "an enjoyable challenge with a unique game-playing engine to back it up." Scorpia was also positive, stating that despite flaws "Ultima Underworld is an impressive first product. The meticulous construction of a real-world dungeon environment is outstanding. [It] may be a dungeon trek, but it is certainly the dungeon trek of the future". In 1993 she praised the "superb graphics" of "a definite must for game players". The magazine later awarded the game "Role-Playing Game of the Year". Computer Shopper enjoyed its storyline and characters, and believed that the game "makes you feel as if you've entered a virtual reality". Despite describing its interface as "not truly intuitive", the reviewer finished by calling the game "addictive" and "a fine value". The Chicago Tribune awarded it Best Game of the Year, and called it "an amazing triumph of the imagination" and "the creme de la creme of dungeon epics".

The game was also well received by non-English publications. The Swedish Datormagazin considered the game to be "in a class by itself". In Germany, Power Play praised its "technical perfection" and "excellent" story, while Play Time lauded its graphical and aural presentation, and awarded it Game of the Month. Finland's Pelit stated, "Ultima Underworld is something totally new in the CRPG field. The Virtual Fantasy of the Abyss left reviewers speechless."

Ultima Underworld was inducted into many hall of fame lists, including those compiled by GameSpy, IGN and Computer Gaming World. PC Gamer US ranked the game and its sequel 20th on their 1997 The 50 Best Games Ever list, citing "strong character interaction, thoughtful puzzles, unprecedented control, and genuine roleplaying in ways that have yet to be duplicated". In 2004, readers of Retro Gamer voted Ultima Underworld as the 62nd top retro game: the staff called it "easily one of the best entries in the long-running Ultima series."

In 1998, PC Gamer declared it the 18th-best computer game ever released, and the editors called it "Light-years ahead of their time, and still regarded as some of the best roleplaying games ever created". A poll conducted in May 2023 by GQ among a team of video game journalists listed it as the 95th-best video game of all time.

Legacy
Ultima Underworld is considered the first example of an immersive sim, a genre that combines elements from other genres to create a game with strong player agency and emergent gameplay, and has influenced many games since its release. The game's influence has been found in BioShock (2007), and that game's designer, Ken Levine, has stated that "all the things that I wanted to do and all the games that I ended up working on came out of the inspiration I took from [Ultima Underworld]." Gears of War designer Cliff Bleszinski also cited it as an early influence, stating that it had "far more impact on me than Doom". Other games influenced by Ultima Underworld include The Elder Scrolls: Arena, Deus Ex, Deus Ex: Invisible War, Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines, and Half-Life 2. Toby Gard stated that, when designing Tomb Raider, he "was a big fan of ... Ultima Underworld and I wanted to mix that type of game with the sort of polygon characters that were just being showcased in Virtua Fighter." Ultima Underworld was also the basis for Looking Glass Technologies' later System Shock.

Id Software's use of texture mapping in Catacomb 3-D, a precursor to Wolfenstein 3D, was influenced by Ultima Underworld. Conflicting accounts exist regarding the extent of this influence, however. In the book Masters of Doom, author David Kushner asserts that the concept was discussed only briefly during a 1991 telephone conversation between Paul Neurath and John Romero. However, Doug Church has said that John Carmack saw the game's summer 1990 software convention demo, and recalled a comment from Carmack that he could write a faster texture mapper. Paul Neurath has recounted the incident similarly, with both Carmack and Romero present.

Despite the technology developed for Ultima Underworld, Origin opted to continue using traditional top-down, 2D graphics for future mainline Ultima games. The engine was re-used and enhanced for Ultima Underworld's 1993 sequel, Ultima Underworld II: Labyrinth of Worlds. Looking Glass Studios planned to create a third Ultima Underworld, but Origin rejected their pitches. After Electronic Arts (EA) rejected Arkane Studios' pitch for Ultima Underworld III, the studio instead created a spiritual successor: Arx Fatalis.

On the 14th March 1997 a complete 3D remake of the game was released for the Playstaton 1 by Infinity Entertainment and published by Electronic Arts Victor. This version was only released in Japan. All of the creatures and NPCs were recreated using polygon models, whilst the items and environments use their original textures. The HUD and inventory were reworked allowing the game to be displayed using the full screen. The character portraits were redraw in an anime style to make them more appealing to the Japanese market. Sound effects were added and a new sound track was recorded for the game. New ending and introduction videos were also added.

In the early 2000s, Paul Neurath approached EA to discuss a port of Ultima Underworld to the Pocket PC. EA rejected the suggestion, but allowed him to look for possible developers; Neurath found that ZIO Interactive enthusiastically supported the idea, and EA eventually licensed the rights to the company. Doug Church and Floodgate Entertainment assisted with portions of its Pocket PC development, and the port was released in 2002.

GOG.com released an emulated version in June 2011 for Windows and in October 2012 for Mac OS X.

In 2015, Otherside Entertainment, a new developer founded by Paul Neurath and other Looking Glass and Irrational veterans, announced a new entry in the series, entitled Underworld Ascendant. The new title is an officially licensed part of the series set in the Stygian Abyss, but this licensing agreement does not extend to the Ultima name or greater IP, effectively orphaning Underworld from the Ultima series.

title: Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss


text:
Talk:Stepping

Untitled
from VfD:

A bit of techie trivia that probably belongs (if this level of detail is appropriate) in some article about Intel processors. It's basically Intel's own name for a hardware/microcode release number. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep and expand. --Randy 02:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I tried to edit this page to add a serious, alternative definition of stepping. Mind you, we may need a disambiguation page. —ExplorerCDT 02:35, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Probably a disambig--stepping is also a form of dance (or at least we had a stepping team at my high school). [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:26, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep it. —[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 08:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep ExplorerCDT version. Remove, or better, move other stuff into Intel article. Indeed probably a disambiguation page will rise. --Gtabary 12:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That version was only tongue-in-cheek, and I got flak for it...some schmuck tried to have me banned. Even the line that was taken out: "Monopedal organisms often experience difficulty in stepping."  But thank you anyway. —ExplorerCDT 15:31, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I removed that line, and I found it very funny. Actually, I appreciated the whole article, which is why I reposted that version on BJAODN before cleaning it up.  --L33tminion | (talk) 21:13, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Where'd you put that on BJAODN? That was one of the reasons I edited the article as I did.  Though adding the how-to-walk approach was more than half-serious, all the time I was working on it I was thinking..."this will be on BJAODN eventually." —ExplorerCDT 05:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * "Tongue-in-cheek" entries are considered vandalism. Referring to someone as a "schmuck" violates our "No personal attacks" policy. A sense of humour is admirable, as is boldness; please channel it a bit more appropriately. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Now you're just becoming harassive, jpgordon. That gripes me even more —ExplorerCDT 18:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and disambiguate. This rule of avoiding personal attacks should also include petty attacks and nitpicking.  [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 20:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

title: Talk:Stepping


text:
Rhadinovirus

Rhadinovirus (synonyms: Rhadinoviridae and gamma-2 herpesviruses) is a genus of viruses in the order Herpesvirales, in the family Herpesviridae, in the subfamily Gammaherpesvirinae. Humans and other mammals serve as natural hosts. There are 12 species in this genus. Diseases associated with this genus include: Kaposi's sarcoma, primary effusion lymphoma and multicentric Castleman's disease, caused by Human gammaherpesvirus 8 (HHV-8), also known as Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV). The term rhadino comes from the Latin fragile, referring to the tendency of the viral genome to break apart when it is isolated.

Species
The genus consists of the following 12 species:

 * Ateline gammaherpesvirus 2
 * Ateline gammaherpesvirus 3
 * Bovine gammaherpesvirus 4
 * Cricetid gammaherpesvirus 2
 * Human gammaherpesvirus 8
 * Macacine gammaherpesvirus 5
 * Macacine gammaherpesvirus 8
 * Macacine gammaherpesvirus 11
 * Macacine gammaherpesvirus 12
 * Murid gammaherpesvirus 4
 * Murid gammaherpesvirus 7
 * Saimiriine gammaherpesvirus 2

Hosts
In general, rhadinoviruses infect lymphocytes and adherent cells, such as fibroblasts, epithelial cells, and endothelial cells and once infection occurs, it is, in general, lifelong. Rhadinoviruses infect a wide range of mammals, include humans. Rhadinoviruses have been found in New World monkeys such as the squirrel monkeys (herpesvirus saimiri) and in mice (Murid gammaherpesvirus 68). More recently, both KSHV-like viruses and a new form of rhadinovirus called rhesus rhadinovirus have been discovered in Old World monkeys. These findings suggest that an additional human tumor virus related to KSHV may be found in humans.

Structure
Viruses in Rhadinovirus are enveloped, with icosahedral, spherical to pleomorphic, and round geometries, and T=16 symmetry. The diameter is around 150-200 nm. Genomes are linear and non-segmented, around 180kb in length. They are large double-stranded viruses that possess up to 100 genes in a single long chromosome, which is flanked by repetitive DNA sequences called terminal repeats.

Life cycle
Viral replication is nuclear, and is lysogenic. Entry into the host cell is achieved by attachment of the viral glycoproteins to host receptors, which mediates endocytosis. Replication follows the dsDNA bidirectional replication model. DNA-templated transcription, with some alternative splicing mechanism is the method of transcription. Translation takes place by leaky scanning. The virus exits the host cell by nuclear egress, and budding. Humans and other mammals serve as natural hosts. Transmission routes are sexual, contact, and through saliva.

title: Rhadinovirus


text: User talk:83.214.52.113

title: User talk:83.214.52.113


text:
Basketball at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Women's team rosters

This is a list of the players who were on the rosters of the teams who participated in the 2004 Summer Olympics for women's basketball.

The following is the Australia roster in the women's basketball tournament of the 2004 Summer Olympics.

The following is the Brazil roster in the women's basketball tournament of the 2004 Summer Olympics.

The following is the Greece roster in the women's basketball tournament of the 2004 Summer Olympics.

The following is the Japan roster in the women's basketball tournament of the 2004 Summer Olympics.

The following is the Nigeria roster in the women's basketball tournament of the 2004 Summer Olympics.

The following is the Russia roster in the women's basketball tournament of the 2004 Summer Olympics.

The following is the China roster in the women's basketball tournament of the 2004 Summer Olympics.

The following is the Czech Republic roster in the women's basketball tournament of the 2004 Summer Olympics.

The following is the New Zealand roster in the women's basketball tournament of the 2004 Summer Olympics.

The following is the South Korea roster in the women's basketball tournament of the 2004 Summer Olympics.

The following is the Spain roster in the women's basketball tournament of the 2004 Summer Olympics.

The following is the United States roster in the women's basketball tournament of the 2004 Summer Olympics.


text:
Sue C. Nichols

Susan Carol Maciorowski (née Nichols; June 10, 1965 – September 1, 2020) was an American artist best known for her work with Walt Disney Animation Studios predominantly during the Disney Renaissance and Post-Renaissance.

Early life and education
Susan Carol Nichols was born to parents Brian and Julie. She graduated from East Longmeadow High School in 1983 before going on to study visual animation at the California Institute of the Arts where she later lectured, graduating in 1987.

Personal life
She married Chester "JR" Maciorowski and had two children, Stephanie and Jonathan.

Death
In 2015, she was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. She received treatment at D'Amour Center for Cancer Care in Springfield, Massachusetts. She died on September 1, 2020, and was buried in Massachusetts Veterans Memorial Cemetery in Agawam, Massachusetts.

Disney released a statement announcing her death in the same month with a long thread celebrating her work. Eric Goldberg said, "She will be sadly missed by those of us who had the good fortune to work with her, but her influence on those films will be there forever." On the first anniversary of her death, her husband published one final entry on her personal website on a page she used to document her life living with cancer, detailing what happened between her last post on the page on January 16, 2020, and her death.

title: Sue C. Nichols


text:
User:Ent

An Ent ?

To save you from checking, no, I did not contribute to the Ent page.

title: User:Ent


text:
Talk:List of Indian independence activists

Chronology
This article's list should rearrange in alphabetical order. People are getting confused and adding duplicate names. Dhina35554865 (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

June 2021
Where is Hazrat Madani rh.? - Owais Talk 18:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "As the maintenance template says, this is an incomplete list", please add missing names. Thank you. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  18:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)