Jump to content

User talk:Logos/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Little context in Pyramids of Mars (remains on Mars)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Pyramids of Mars (remains on Mars), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Pyramids of Mars (remains on Mars) is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information

standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Pyramids of Mars (remains on Mars), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Great White (pyramid)"

A page you created, Great White (pyramid), has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is a test page. Use the sandbox for testing.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Andy (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Pyramids of Mars (remains on Mars)

A tag has been placed on Pyramids of Mars (remains on Mars) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ros0709 (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pyramids of Mars (remains on Mars)

I have nominated Pyramids of Mars (remains on Mars), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyramids of Mars (remains on Mars). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. dougweller (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Don Elkins

Please stop attempting to add a link to the above article to Egyptian pyramids. Elkins was a paranormal researcher and ufologist. He has no relevance whatsoever to the subject of Egypt's pyramids. --Gene_poole (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Egyptian pyramids. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

You are the one edit-warring here. The material you're adding is irrelevant to the topics. If you continue, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you refuse to discuss the article and continue to revert after a warning I have reported you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Please stop your edit warring and discuss your edits on the talk page A new name 2008 (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Cydonia Mensae

Hi there Lyckey. Just to say that I've trimmed the images that you added to Cydonia Mensae. Several of them are repetitive of existing pictures, and all of them are not attributed properly, so may wind up being deleted. Anyway, I've kept the one of the so-called pyramid, since that illustrates a neighbouring feature to the Face. If you've any questions, just drop me a line. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 22:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I've just noticed that you've upgraded the attribution of some of the images. Good, but I'd still question the need for multiple images of essentially the same thing on the page. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 22:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there plumbago. Not the same thing. First image was taken by Viking and shows the face and pyramids together. The second image shows one small one large pyramid together (but not a clear one). THe one you left on the page, is the clear top view of the pyramid but the small pyramid is barely visible on this one. The last one was taken by mars global orbiter and was added to show that the area today looks the same as in the days Viking was wandering around. --Lyckey


You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Egyptian pyramids. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. CIreland (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Logos (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My addition to Egyption Pyramids was:

"It should also be noted that, there is no any clear, vivid, unquestionable proof in any manner whatsoever that, these pyramids or their surrounding complex were designed and/or built by human beings. The Ra Material (one of the contributors was Don Elkins) has detailed alternative explanations on why and how those pyramids were designed and built by whom."

I see no any unreferenced and/or irrelevant material above. I asked ohnoitsjamie the reason of deletion. But there was no reply.

I think the judgement of me being in a edit warring is not fair. On the other hand, this issue seems in need of the intervention of an administrator who can exempt himself/herself from his/her personal feelings on the subject, as it seems there is misuse of administrative tools. --Lyckey

Decline reason:

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's three-revert rule; it exists to prevent the repetitive editing without talk page discussion that you engaged in. Your block had nothing to do with the content. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Logos (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't revert anybody's edit, I just added below text to the article:

"It should also be noted that, there is no any clear, vivid, unquestionable proof in any manner whatsoever that, these pyramids or their surrounding complex were designed and/or built by human beings. The Ra Material (one of the contributors was Don Elkins) has detailed alternative explanations on why and how those pyramids were designed and built by whom."

I accept that I repeatedly tried to revert the edits of some users who insist on the irrelevance of inclusion links to an ufologist and the material he published. However, after being warned that I could be blocked, I stopped further trials and just added the above text into the article. So where is the edit warring?

Decline reason:

First, you were warned. Then, after that, there's this, this, then this. That's edit warring to me and that's disruptive enough to justify a block in any event, especially considering you were warned. -- Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Logos (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe we should look at some part of the definition of edit warring first: "..at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Edit warring is a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time." Again, I accept that I repeatedly tried to revert the edits of Gene_Poole who insisted on the irrelevance of inclusion of links to an ufologist and the material he published. However, after being warned that I could be blocked, I stopped further trials and just added another point of view into the article. The links provided by Daniel Case aiming to explain where edit warring is, belong to different parts of the story. The proof for this is thatohnoitsjamie edited the captions of the images I had uploaded instead of blocking me.

Decline reason:

I'm not going to unblock, because I think your editing pattern was disruptive. In future, I suggest you find reliable sources to support content you want to include, and establish consensus on the talk page before adding the content. PhilKnight (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Logos (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe we should look at some part of the definition of edit warring first: "..at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Edit warring is a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time." Again, I accept that I repeatedly tried to revert the edits of Gene_Poole who insisted on the irrelevance of inclusion of links to an ufologist and the material he published. However, after being warned that I could be blocked, I stopped further trials and just added another point of view into the article. The links provided by Daniel Case aiming to explain where edit warring is, belong to different parts of the story. The proof for this is thatohnoitsjamie edited the captions of the images I had uploaded instead of blocking me.

Decline reason:

reason — It seems clear that after your warning you then continued to revert the images by adding them back in repeatedly. Just allow your brief time to expire and come back with a better understanding. JodyB talk 11:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Citations

Please read WP:Citing sources and make your references in line with the guidelines there. Otherwise someone else has to come along and fix them. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

D&M Pyramid

Hi again. Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough - the references I removed don't point to pages that reference the D&M Pyramid, at least not by name. That's why I removed them (actually, I commented them out; they're still there). Anyway, maybe you were referring to a subpage from the links. Can you maybe point the references to there instead? Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 19:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You're right in that two of the three references do not mention D&M pyramid by name. However, first one (the one currently being number 7) does so on the picture. The other two shows the images of the Cydonia taken by different spacecraft, without mentioning D&M pyramid by name. If they have to, as per some wikipedia rule, I don't have any objection to that--Logos5557 (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ra (channeled entity)

I have nominated Ra (channeled entity), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ra (channeled entity). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. dougweller (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for your work on the Ra page! NoVomit (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
very kind of you :).. this star is deserved by hans adler and dougweller more than me though.. Logos5557 (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem. You may want to have a look at the Seth Material . . . it was under attack a short time ago for the same reasons as this article. It was revamped to add a criticism section to satisfy the skeptics and many sources were added. Good luck. NoVomit (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
well, thanks again.. I did have a look at the seth material several times and had been checking the heated discussions. However, I'm not so much into the other channellings and spiritual stuff other than the law of one series. I do not follow Carla Rueckert's other channelings also. In the past, I red plenty of stuff and after ra material, I believed there would not be any other "higher" information available for long time. I do also think that some/most spiritual stuff have negative influences. That's my point of view. In addition to that, I need to limit my time for wikipedia. Good luck to you anyway. Logos5557 (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, I just meant that following the same overall format and approach may fend off the attackers a bit . . . it seemed to work with the other article at any rate. Cheers. NoVomit (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
That's right; seth material seems as presenting good "know-how" and "how-to"s to satisfy criterias. However it seems anybody can claim anything (true or false) regarding the quality of the article from policies and guidelines perspective, without any penalty in case of false arguments. That is, the same format may not work for any other article. Logos5557 (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

_Ra_ and others.

Hi Logos5557 !

GOOD JOB. And THANKS for your determination !!  B-)

It's about time those other Wiki people get less "constipated" ! ! B-) 

Keep up the good work(s). . .

Blue skies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.9.109.18 (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

An AfD you will be interested in

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Die Glocke. AWT (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

POV in Ra

The word "band" is equally meaningless to the uninitiated and needs just as much or more explanation. Ra used the word density for a reason, because density was the most suitable word. When you change the words based on your personal opinion of what is understandable, you are inserting your own opinion and your own understanding about what the word means. This is a WP:NPOV issue. Instead of using arbitrary words that you personally selected for your own aesthetic reasons, we should use the words that are actually used by the source. Is Wikipedia a place for your own interpretation, or is it a place for neutral exposition of the cold facts? Would we change a word in some scientific field based on the personal taste of an editor? Would we refer to atoms as "slices" just because one editor thinks slices are closer to the concept that the scientists are actually trying to get to? The word "density" itself is shrouded in such mystery that for any one person to replace it with an arbitrary, unprecedented word, is the height of arrogance. If Ra meant "band" why didn't it say "band"? 70.67.115.63 (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a WP:POV issue. If you find a better word instead of band, not density of course, for the lead you can insert it. We don't have to use the actual/original words used by the source. If "slice" reflect some other aspect of the atom better, then go for it, use it together with other original words. Because you are simply trying to make it better understandable, you are not trying to alter the original definition or explanation completely but simply trying to enrich it. I'm sorry but you simply are making this Ra channeling and the communications received into a holy religion. You seem to be inclined to accept every single word said without any judgement, like a fundamentalist.
This sentence is simply your own personal point of view and can't be counted as neutral: "The word "density" itself is shrouded in such mystery that for any one person to replace it with an arbitrary, unprecendented word, is the height of arrogance." Remember that, Ra was making mistakes in some dates. What does it tell or ring to you that Ra can also make mistakes? Regarding density; as I mentioned several times before, the main body of the article does use the original word density, for the concept Ra used it for. However, for the lead, there is no need to stick to the original words, as we can use synonyms instead, if the original is problematic. If you read through the archives and previous deletion discussions, you will see that "density" was one of the most problematic words of the article. An editor took it as a pseudoscientific jargon. Will you always be around and "protect" the article against such attacks or just try to "push" your own interpretation (your own point of view) about the word "density" one time and vanish afterwards? Ask Ra why didn't it say "band"? And please stop inserting "density" in the lead instead of band. Logos5557 (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Changing the word from "Density" to "Band" is a significant interpretative leap. This is where the POV issue comes into play. Density is incomprehensible, I agree, but changing it to a comprehensible word changes the original work and misrepresents it (distorts it) in the direction of your particular interpretation. If a certain work is incomprehensible, the incomprehensibility should be documented. The work should not be altered to be comprehensible. Cover the incomprehensibility, don't interpolate. Interpolation cannot possible be a WP:NPOV. Why not put the word "density" in quotes and make a section that discusses the incomprehensibility of the word? That would be the honest approach. It seems you are reluctant to let the public edit this page, and you want to sit on it like a mother hen and protect it. This is unfortunate, since wikipedia is supposed to represent collective wisdom one man's best guess modification. You say I'm turning this into a Holy Religion, what makes Ra different from any other religion? In a wikipedia page covering the Bible one would not arbitrarily introduce new words to replace words that some people find incomprehensible. 70.67.115.63 (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
None of your arguments are valid. Wikipedia articles should be wirtten in a way as there remain no incomprehensibility or whatsoever. Aside from that, I don't agree with you on your interpretations regarding the word density and the Ra channeling. You are expecting the "whole world" to accept your interpretation without any question. On the other hand, I am trying to play with the rules of the playground, which is wikipedia. Wikipedia policies and guidelines say that, there is no need to stick to the original words and concepts and any jargon needs to be explained. For this reason, it is the most appropriate thing to leave the word "density" to the main body of the article and not use it in the lead, in order to save the necessity to explain it. Wikipedia is not democracy, wikipedia aims to represent collective notable knowledge (not collective wisdom), but not the "wisdom" of a spoilt child, who insists on without seeking for any consensus. Your very first argument that "band" was not used a single time in any of the books, so is completely unsuitable to be used in the article, conflicts with wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm indeed reluctant to let any fundamentalist, who sees Ra channeling as a kind of religion, to edit the article about Ra. If you have a better idea, better word instead of "band" (not density, of course) to use in the lead, then you're welcome. Otherwise, I will simply revert your insertions of "density", which you make without seeking any consensus. Logos5557 (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on March 17 2009 to Ra (channeled entity)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

peacock

i suggets you read wp:peacock. Your wordy display of your own knowledge is inappropriate for wiki Greglocock (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Ra (channeled entity)

I have nominated Ra (channeled entity), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ra (channeled entity) (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Irbisgreif (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Headarrangement.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.llresearch.org/library/the_law_of_one_pdf/the_law_of_one_book_1.pdf. As a copyright violation, File:Headarrangement.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Headarrangement.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Nja247 17:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Logos5557/Ra (channeled entity)

User:Logos5557/Ra (channeled entity), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Logos5557/Ra (channeled entity) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Logos5557/Ra (channeled entity) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images in userspace

Please note that it is Wikipedia policy that non-free images cannot be used outside articles - see WP:NFCC#9. Therefore, I have removed the non-free images from your user page and the article you are building in userspace. Please do not re-insert them. Black Kite 09:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


you can just remove the image, not the image box completely. you can only delete non-free images which are not associated with any mainspace article. if you are not qualified to delete an image from wikipedia, ask an admin to do it for you. Logos5557 (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I have worked mostly with images in the two years I've been an admin. You'll find you can delete any image, regardless of whether it is associated with an article, if it fails our media policies. In the case of userspace non-free images, I usually do delete the images, but in this case, since the article was at MfD, I wished only to remove their current presence. The neatest way of doing this was to remove the image box, after all it is redundant without the image. Black Kite 11:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Calling another editor a vandal

You really should know better. User:Simonm223's edits in your userspace weren't vandalism and he left edit summaries that made that clear. He didn't add profanity or insults or try to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia with his edits. Consider yourself warned. Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, but not agree with you. Logos5557 (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
THen I suggest you read WP:Vandalism. The warning is to help you avoid such mistakes in the future. Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI conflict of interest guideline

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 19:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

this is a borderline case and needs "common sense". just fyi, i am not connected with any organisation, nor I promoted any book. i just have a POV, like any other user. the article i created and edited heavily was well sourced with secondary sources. the other users disagreed and the article was deleted. i guess conflict of interest can not be decided over the use of some images & quotes. thanks anyway.. Logos5557 (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Userpage

Per WP:USER and WP:SOAP, I have removed your soaboxing/advertising comments. You are not allowed to have such comments on your userpage. Your userpage is for relaying to other users about your edits with wikipedia, is not is not some place to grandstand about the subject of your deleted article. Do not re-add them, you have been warned.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can't justify your removal by explaining how those quotes can be soapboxing or advertising, I will simply revert your edit. In addition to that, are you in a position to give me warning or something? Logos5557 (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Any user on wikipedia can warn any other user, as to the userpage, it is clearly soaboxing your POV in regards to your soon-to-be-deleted article, and this is not allowed. You can say you believe in whatever god you want, but you can't include the quasi-article you had there, the quotes and everything. The userpage is supposed to describe you as a wikipedian, and how things relate to you and wikipedia, in and of improving the encyclopedia. This is not facebook, this is not a blog, nor are you allowed to keep articles or interviews in your userpage.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I need to see that warning issue recorded somewhere, because it is also written somewhere that "be careful about your wording". Deletion of logos5557/ra (channeled entity) is fine. How can you judge that the quotes in my userpage constitute some sort of quasi-article? The headings and wikilinks can easily be removed. There is even no mention of what these quotes are; no mention of the name of the book, etc. It is quite possible that some may perceive those as fiction. I am not convinced yet. Logos5557 (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Wikipedia is not some place where you can post real or fictional interviews, be they current affairs or past.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
From WP:UP#NOT, 2, 7, 8 apply.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I had asked for the link to "Any user on wikipedia can warn any other user" statement, which you presented as fact. I am not hosting any material in my userpage. Those quotes are implicit material, which describe my POV and describe me as a wikipedian in a subtle manner. Wikipedia:User_page#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F states "You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere." Thanks for clarifying which clauses apply, but those statements are quite general as to their relations to the material in my userpage. Clause 2: Are those quotes any discussion between any users or my discussions in some subjects? No. Discussion is what we do here. Clause 7: For a material to self-promote itself, it needs to include the "full adress", that is the name of the book, organization etc. If the quotes were from, let's say, Bible, would you claim the same again? Clause 8: userpages are non-enyclopedic already. I guess what this clause describes is not what you perceive. Take agent smith quote in your userpage as an example. Logos5557 (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Clause two does not mention users, it mentions discussion, which this quite clearly is. It is extensive, and has nothing to do with wikipedia, or would you like to describe how it has anything to do with wikipedia. As to the warnings, I can't think of the place off the top of my head that says it, but ask any admin, and they shall tell you that you don't have to be an admin to warn users. If that was the case, applications like twinkle wouldn't exist.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle is not a good example here, because it's purpose and function are completely different. The one who are giving the warnings here, is you. The one who does not know the exact place where "warnings" issue is mentioned, is you. The one who tries to justify his action by simply referring to a completely irrelevant tool, is you. I think you should be the one to look for an expert opinion. Even I believe a user can warn another user in extreme cases, or in pretty clear situations which may include personal attack, I don't know where this is mentioned. Because of that, I believe a user should refrain from such actions that can not be justified clearly by the policies, guidelines and rules. The quotes are clearly not discussions. You might call those quotes "conversations" at most, which is also not so correct because those are just quotes from conversations. The quotes are not extensive and have a lot to do with wikipedia and myself; as I mentioned in my previous reply, those quotes describe my beliefs, my POV and the type of articles which I will tend to work on. You should separate "my soon-to-be-deleted article" from this case. Logos5557 (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Any appropriate warning can be given by any user. Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
would you mind giving the wikipedia policy/rule link stating this? Logos5557 (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
This is straining my credibility - don't you think as an Administrator I know who can do this? Our guidelines on civility, for instance, say "As with other Wikipedia policies, enforcement of most policies is done by community action. Most enforcement is done by pointing out issues and talking about them, sometimes by formal warnings of some sort. If further action is required, such as a block of an account for ongoing problematic behavior, Wikipedia's volunteer administrators have to take that step. Anyone is empowered to get involved. Most enforcement is done by more experienced editors or the administrators, but anyone who sees abusive uncivil conduct or personal attacks may get involved.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 14:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
why do you take link request as straining your credibility. don't you think that, my aim could very well be to learn the exact location, to refer to in future for similar cases. now I can find the link by searching with the statements you provided. Logos5557 (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Now you're evading. Please explicitly describe how a conversation with your god has anything to do with wikipedia.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
the link is here Wikipedia:Civility_warnings#Who_should_make_civility_warnings. To daedelus: And you're leaning towards sarcasm; whether they exist or not, ra entities are not my god, there is no god to worship in this philosophy. I assume you had read the conversations I'm talking about; a conversation between "questioner" and "ra" is some sort of socratic dialogue and serves the purpose of implicitly describing me as a wikipedian, my beliefs, my POV and the type of articles I would tend to work on. Logos5557 (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Please stop evading, and answer the question. Please explicitly, describe how it has anything to do with you being a wikipedian and wikipedia. As far as I can see, a conversation about types of bigfoot/creatures has nothing to do with wikipedia, and everything to do with your belief system.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
i explained already explicitly, but it is clear that you have not understood it yet. nor it seems you have any will to do so. for a neutral-civil discussion you have to choose your words carefully. you need to drop that tone and stop using some words like "evade", "answer the question" etc. Logos5557 (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
No you didn't. You made sweeping statements that did not specifically explain how each question had anything to do with wikipedia.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
yes i did. read my statements again; those are not sweeping. my statements specifically adressed what you were looking for; the relation of the quotes in my userpage, with me as a wikipedian. dialogues on history of mankind, free will, ufos, bigfoots etc. tell the reader that the user will work in such articles. instead of stating my interests in brief like many other users, i prefer stating my interests implicitly by some sort of socratic dialogues. plain simple. Logos5557 (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You have now reverted the same material on Global Consciousness Project 4 times in the last day. I understand that you feel your edits are appropriate however they run counter to the established consensus of other editors. I suggest you might want to review WP:3RR and contribute constructively on the associated talk page. Thank you and have a nice day. Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility

Please do not insinuate that another editor is sub-human or instruct them to leave an open discussion, as you did in this edit. You may be blocked for further violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

it was not as extreme as you described, but i had to reply that way to the person who were not checking the thread but just accusing me of using bad etiquette, not to mention accompanying incivil tone ("again", "take your complaints elsewhere" etc.). even if it causes me a block, i can not take myself from revealing the fact to such attackers. otherwise, they might make habit of it. Logos5557 (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand how frustrating it can be to defend your opinion especially against multiple editors who disagree but your conduct on the Global Consciousness Project especially some of your recent comments on the discussion page have been less than helpful and may violate wp:civil. I would ask that you keep in mind that we are all here to try to make the best encyclopedia we can. And I ask that you help me to maintain a civil discussion in an effort to improve the article. thank you. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


Contrary to your "observation", I do not see the situation as frustrating; because I do not need to have some bike rides, and to blow some steams off. I am not emotional on this dispute and am about to search for the definite solution. I can't give up pursuing the fact. Nobody has a right to distort the facts. I guess you're a bit new in wikipedia; you need to form a new heading while leaving your civility issues. Logos5557 (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD of Aftermarket (automotive)

I see that you've added a transclusion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 21 for Aftermarket (automotive). However, this is only part of the instructions for nominating an article for deletion. Since the nomination sub-page wasn't created, and there's not AfD notice on the article itself (Step I), I'm going to remove that link. —Al E.(talk) 13:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:D&M-Viking1.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:D&M-Viking1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


you should educate yourself before nominating lots of pictures for deletion. the file in question has do a source and creator information stated. if you make further mistakes with pictures in wikipedia, i will ask an administrator's intervention regarding with your actions. you can't act however you like in wikipedia. Logos5557 (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:D&M-Viking1.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:D&M-Viking1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Khonsu as falcon flipped.png

A tag has been placed on File:Khonsu as falcon flipped.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Logos5557 (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It's Crazy That You're Still Trying

How is it possible that so many Wikipedia deletionists can be so ignorant of wikipedia policy? The policy is quite specific and written in clear English. It lays out precisely what counts as notable, what counts as a reliable source, etc. Yet even the admins don't know these definitions! They delete stuff based on policies they absolutely don't understand and couldn't have possibly read! It's astonishing. Here's what I think: Wikipedia is a proof of concept that pop culture creations are inferior. It's a proof that just letting any amateur swing at something produces absolute irrational and hilariously absurd trash. Wikipedia proves that experts are neccessary and valuable; it proves that amateurs are useless and should be disempowered and silenced. Wikipedia provides justification for elitism. Any kind of democratic populism is debunked by the historical facticity of Wikipedia. What do you think? Yossarianpedia (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did to The Law of One (Ra material), without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Adding sources that do not comply with WP:FRIND is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. jps (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV: Look, you do not have any idea about the sources you tagged as "unreliable" and "affiliated". Institute of Noetic Sciences and Gnosis are reliable and independent sources. Please refrain from disruptive editing. Logos5557 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I actually have a lot of familiarity with both of those groups. They are credulous pseudoscience-promoters and do not rise to the standard set-forth by WP:FRIND. I will be removing them as unreliable in the next few days if they aren't removed by someone else. jps (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
@QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV: No, you do not have any familiarity with those, you just have a biased opinion (and a track record towards such topics), which you try your best to sell here as "policy" at best, or "guideline", "consensus" and "common sense" at worst. It is quite obvious from the "credulous pseudoscience-promoters" definition of yours.
I would recommend you to get yourself familiarize with, which one is superior to which here. Policies are superior to guidelines; while WP:VERIFY is a policy, all WP:NBOOK, WP:FRINGE and your favorite WP:FRIND are guidelines. These guidelines are "sets of best practices that are supported by consensus". While "editors should attempt to follow guidelines", "they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". That is, while editors "should follow" policies (like WP:VERIFY), they should at best "attempt to follow" guidelines (like WP:FRINGE). Which means WP:FRINGE can never have a power that WP:VERIFY has and can not contradict other guidelines like WP:NBOOK and WP:BIASED. Apart from that, WP:FRINGE deals with a spefic case named as "fringe theories", not "fringe books" or "paranormal books", because there is already a "guideline" for books -whether the book is fringe or not-, which is WP:NBOOK.
We can not discard a source just because it was published by IONS, but what is the relation of the source you have been trying to delete repeatedly from the article, with IONS anyway? The bibliographic info of the book reads as follows:
Title = With the tongues of men and angels: a study of channeling (Henry Rolfs book series of the Institute of Noetic Sciences)
Author = Arthur Hastings
Publisher = Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1991
Original from = the University of Michigan
Digitized = 3 Oct 2008
Length = 232 pages
I am opening a new heading in article talk page regarding all these misunderstandings/misinterpretations/misrepresentations, feel free to join the discussion. If you do not refrain from disruptive editing, for which you seem not able to present valid arguments, there may be consequences. You have quite a bit of reputation as "Science Apologist" in incivility. There are many lessons for the ones who has time to use the search feature. Logos5557 (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as User:Logos5557, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from see talk, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at User talk:Logos5557 saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO

Your user page contains large sections of The Law of One taken from the books published by L/L Research. Unless you are one of the copyright holders, or have their permission to reproduce the material, it's best you remove it. You may not be aware that userspace content is covered under the same copyright violation policies as article space. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope; completely false, on all sides.. Firstly my userpage do not contain "large sections" of the law of one; only contains selected 32 "segments" (question-answer couples) out of hundreds of segments which constitute the whole law of one (there are 106 sessions, each session contains 10 to 40 segments). This falls under "short quote" definition of copyright violation policies.
Secondly, WP:Copyvio states that "copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed (unless it's a brief quotation used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation". The law of one books/sessions are on public domain, both in http://www.lawofone.info/ (as permitted by copyright holders) and in pdf format from llresearch website (which is the link you provided already).
Nevertheless, I will add "The Law of One books are copyright ©1982, 1984, 1998 L/L Research" phrase in each short quote in my userpage. Logos5557 (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The amount of text you've copy-pasted is quite large and I don't think anyone will agree that those are short quotes. Can you provide a link from the copyright holder that clearly states the material is in the public domain? The copyright holders notice is quite explicit: "Book I: Copyright © 1984 James Allen McCarty, Don Elkins and Carla Rueckert; ISBN: 0-945007-01-9 Book II: Copyright © 1982 L/L Research; ISBN: 0-945007-02-7 Book III: Copyright © 1982 L/L Research; ISBN: 0-945007-03-5, Book IV: Copyright © 1982 L/L Research; ISBN: 0-945007-04-3, Book V: Copyright © 1998 L/L Research; ISBN: 0-924608-21-8. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means—graphic, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying or information storage and retrieval systems—without written permission from the copyright holder." - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It is your relativistic view. Anybody can judge anyway, that's why we have policy and logic. Policy WP:Copyvio and guideline copyright violation policies, do not mention any maximum word count, therefore logic comes in. Out of hundreds of segments, 32 segments do not count as "large", but count as "short quote" and "brief quotations". Now, each short quote has been properly credited to the copyright holders. Logos5557 (talk) 08:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Logos5557, User:LuckyLouie asked me to look into this as I do a lot of work with copyright on Wikipedia, and I agree with him that your use of non-free content is excessive. One of your quotes is by itself 974 words, and I would remove it as an administrator without hesitation were it included in an article as violating WP:C and WP:NFC. It isn't the only long quotation you have. I'd like to ask you to remove these yourself, retaining no more than a few sentences from the source; otherwise, I will need to blank the page for processing via WP:CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@Moonriddengirl:Doing a lot of work with copyright on wikipedia does not make you the sole copyright expert in wikipedia. Clause C of WP:C mentions a "fair use", which describes the quotations I included in my userpage from the law of one books. "Fair use" has also been explained in WP:COPYOTHERS and in here. In addition to these, you just revealed that you are not impartial/neutral/objective/fair on this matter, by asking me only to remove the content. You could have asked me to bring/present written permission of the copyright holder as per WP:COPYVIO, but instead you displayed/demonstrated your intent/desire to delete the quotations directly as if there is a rush and deleting is the only solution. In this case, since you revealed your biases, it would not be so right for you to participate in this conflict with your admin powers. Therefore, I must ask you to exclude yourself and withhold your admin powers from resolution process of this conflict. I would like to ask some other admins's and some experienced users's comments/opinions on this matter, if they would like to respond: @Dennis Brown:, @Drmies:, @RoySmith:, @Mendaliv:, @Mikaey:, @Boing! said Zebedee:. If there are other admins that you believe they would act neutrally, please feel free to suggest. Logos5557 (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The page is now listed at WP:CP. If you are able to verify permission, that will certainly resolve the issue more swiftly. The template that I am required to give you will explain the processes. In the meantime, please do not restore the content. It will be restored by an admin or copyright clerk after the listing period or perhaps sooner if proper license is provided for the content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl:This is the reply I got from llresearch (non-profit organisation formed by the copyright holders/owners):
"Hi Logos5557,
Thanks so much for the quick and thorough reply. I will fulfill your request and send the necessary documentation to the wiki admins. It will have to wait till Monday though - busy weekend here in the States.
Gary"
Logos5557 (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. As soon as this is received and processed, the content should be restored and the license release logged. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl:Is below text okay for permission? GNU Free Documentation License is not compulsory, I guess. After your approval, I am going to send it to llresearch, so that they can fill in the blanks and send back to wikipedia.

I hereby affirm that CHOOSE ONE: [I, (name here), am] OR [(copyright holder's name) is] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the excerpts from The Law of One books in https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Logos5557&oldid=614712827 (They will attach the pdf copy of the page to the e-mail, as well).

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported".

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

[SENDER'S NAME AND DETAILS (to allow future verification of authenticity)]

[SENDER'S AUTHORITY (Are you the copyright-holder, director, appointed representative of, etc.)]

[DATE]

Logos5557 (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that works well. As long as the sole copyright owner is not the one placing the content on Wikipedia, single license works. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
@Moonriddengirl:Well, it seems that the wording of copyright permission request and the copyrights to be granted are a bit frightening. It is new to me that, wikipedia has been being sold in print or in digital forms in stores. llresearch's comment towards those copyrights was:
"I read the remainder of your email, including the copied portions that explain Wikipedia’s policy regarding why they frame the permission in these terms. It seems that anyone can use the content published to Wikipedia, even for commercial means, so therefore to give someone permission to publish content to Wikipedia means you also have to grant permission to whomever may take the content from Wikipedia."
It seems that for llresearch to grant such copyrights/authorization, could, potentially, lead to trouble with the company who owns the publishing rights to the Law of One.
I guess the wording of the copyright permission can not be amended? If this is the case, what should be the maximum word count in order not to exceed "fair use" limit? I mean, is there a percentage or something similar to gauge? Logos5557 (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry that this alarmed him. :( There's not, I'm afraid, any way we can modify the permission - our terms of use require compatibility with this license. There is not a percentage, unfortunately, although proportion does factor in - it's just a more complex determination than that. In terms of local policy, it's a question of using brief excerpts transformatively (that is, for purposes of criticism or other enlargement to justify fair use). On user pages, we traditionally do allow people to use brief excerpts just for personalization (which is more liberal than fair use images, which aren't permitted on user pages at all), but these are generally a few sentences from any single source. Your Einstein, Sagan and Young quotes are perfectly fine, for instance. Tesla is a bit lengthy, but if somebody listed that at WP:CP, I wouldn't fuss over it myself. (I can't speak for others who volunteer there). The quotes from this particular source are all long enough individually to make me uncomfortable, lacking transformative purpose, as regards WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@Moonriddengirl:I guess they misunderstood; they might have thought that by granting copyrights for the excerpts in my userpage, wikipedia might/would have the right to use other parts of the law of one books commercially. Anyway, I tried to explain but did not insist on. Tesla? Don't you think that those have already been on the public domain? What do you think about Greg L's userpage? If there is no gauge or percentage, what's the use of counting the words then? In your above message you stated that one of the excerpts is by itself 974 words. I checked both fair use and transformative purpose. It seems that, there has been no any argument until now that the excerpts from the law of one books in my userpage can not be regarded as transformative and fair use. You just mentioned the lengthiness and asked me to remove the content. I wonder what will be your action about Greg L userpage.
I downloaded all the law of one books from here, converted & combined into one word document. All of the law of one books are 950 pages and 353.000 words in total.
The excerpt from session 37 that I titled as "free will" is 293 words.
The excerpt from session 97 and session 76 that I titled as "archetypical mind" is 953 words.
The excerpt from session 24 and session 10 that I titled as "mu & atlantis" is 757 words.
The excerpt from session 8 that I titled as "ufo" is 974 words.
The excerpt from session 9 that I titled as "mars" is 590 words.
The excerpt from session 10 that I titled as "maldek" is 917 words.
Which makes 4.484 words in total. 4.484 is just 1,27% of 353.000. In addition to that, all of these can be regarded as "transformative" use, because these excerpts are not complete sessions but only parts of them, and transformed into something different by presenting under a title. Could you please explain how these excerpts lack any "transformative purpose" and "fair use". What about reducing the amount of the excerpts? Thank you. Logos5557 (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
You asked about the length of quotes, Logos5557. My response was related to your question about maximum word count. There is not a maximum word count. There is not a specific percentage. Off the top of my head, I know of one copyright case where quotes from a 500 page book totaling about 1.5% were determined to be a copyvio - but it wasn't because of the percentage, it was because of the importance of the content within the original. Substantiality is one of the factors of fair use, but it is a subjective call based on the centrality and importance of the content, not the size. My notes about your other quotes was specifically related to your question about length. It had nothing to do with whether that specific quote is in copyright or not - simply explaining what our standard practice is on Wikipdia. Hopefully that's clear now.
Our policy (which is what you need to conform to - we don't test the limits of fair use, but deliberately stay well within them) permits articles and other pages to use brief verbatim textual excerpts in accordance with the guideline; the guideline prohibits extensive quotation and makes clear that quotations are used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. These are transformative usages. Using excerpts is not in itself transformative - you can see Transformation (law) for a little more on what is usually regarded as transformative. As a rule of thumb, you can use more text if you are, say, critiquing it than you can because you just happen to like it and want to share it. You may not need licensing permission, for instance, to quote a passage from a book in a critical essay about said book. You do need licensing permission to quote two lines of a song on a coffee cup. You might be able to quote more in an article about the source if it that quote is supported by critical commentary than simply excerpting on your user page. As Wikipedia:User pages notes, "Text must either be freely licensed or out of copyright; otherwise only a short quote can be used."
Reducing the amount of the excerpts to a few sentences, a short quote, would certainly resolve the issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: The problem is, you do not seem to have the expertise/experience -about the law of one books- to determine/evaluate the relative importance of the content I excerpted in my userpage, compared to the rest in the law of one books. There are many many important parts -some even more important than these- in the law of one books. As a remedy, you just prefer to act over cautious like a deletionist. I'm afraid, guidelines are not strong references to conform to, because, as stated here, guidelines "should be attempted to follow", not "compulsory rules to be followed" as policies. It is quite obvious from the wording as well; "short quote" stated in Wikipedia:User pages is a vague definition.

Anyway. I had carefully studied Transformation (law) already. In order to transform these excerpts more, I will add an explanatory comment before each; that is the dialogues will be clarified more, what does ra mean by saying this & that etc., according to my interpretation. And in order to relieve some fuss (because you and I both know that nobody will sue wikipedia over these excerpts), I am going to remove "mars", "maldek", and first parts of "archetypical mind" and "mu & atlantis" excerpts. So, there will be only "ufo" excerpt left which might be seen as "long", but again it also will have an explanatory intro. As the main restructuring, I am going to separate quotes and excerpts from the law of one books, into two main sections titled as "words of wisdom" and "channeled wisdom". I will also add some links and comments about channeling. In future, I might include some additional very short (shorther than the shortest one of these excerpts) excerpts from the law of one books about bodies, again with a commentary and a title. What say you? Logos5557 (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Logos5557, WP:NFCC is not a guideline, but a policy with legal considerations, and it says "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method." The WP:NFC guideline is incorporated into policy explicitly by reference, and it forbids extensive quotation. Beyond that, guidelines are not overridden unless there is a reason that aids in the creation of the encyclopedia, our purpose for being here It's unfortunate that there's not a word count or a percentage that can help people assess where that line is, but I believe that the amount of quotation you would leave with your proposal exceeds it. In my assessment as an adminstrator, the "free will" section is potentially too long in itself, although supporting material might make a difference in that assessment in an article. The second section of "archetypal mind" by itself is excessive as is the second section of "mu & atlantis". I'm afraid that the UFO section is beyond what I believe we can support. However, based on your initial request, I will leave the listing at WP:CP for another administrator to close. If you want to demonstrate what you have in mind, I would recommend making use of the temporary space linked from the template for that administrator to assess. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
@Moonriddengirl:Well, according to my interpretation "brief" provides more latitude than "short". All excerpts in my userpage have been properly attributed or cited to their original source/author, and specificially indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks. Your comment about the lengths is restrictive in that, it basically means that "if the point you would like to illustrate, needs seemingly long excerpts, then you better not do it". How can I shorten a dialogue on a subject, without removing some of the words or sentences from questions and answers? If I remove, then it becomes a distorted excerpt, which also means to violate the copyright law. Ok, I will leave a note on WP:CP listing to the closing admin that, I have been working on it on temporary space. Logos5557 (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of reported UFO sightings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chihuahua. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Your attention needed at WP:CHU

Hello. A bureaucrat or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 19:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI

I hope you were able to fix the board as I am done with my statement. Sorry for the inconvenience, it was unintentional. Thank you. Jebenoyon (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem; 2 more users were trying, one of them succeeded. Logos (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

I have removed copyright material from your subpage at User talk:Logos/Temp. Further additions of copyright material to any page of the encyclopedia will result in you being blocked from editing. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you think it is copyright material? Logos (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, it seems that it is from a copyrighted thinkingallowed series, but just a question and answer does not qualify for a copyright breach. Logos (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
You copied it from http://www.intuition.org/txt/hastings.htm. It is copyright, because copyright protection is automatic under the Berne Convention, and does not require the author to register or post a copyright notice on the document. Here is the portion that appears to have been written by yourself, that I removed in error (sorry):

Among all the channelled texts that I came across with, The Law of One books were the most sophisticated, wise and “all-in-one” pieces; excerpts from which I will use here as normative elements to satisfy above mentioned temptation.

Beware of in-universe speaking, hereafter..

I don't see any point in re-adding it, since you will not be posting further excerpts from copyright works, but you are free to do so yourself if you wish. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Logos/Archive_1&oldid=1143138719"