Jump to content

User talk:Logos

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Logos (talk | contribs) at 18:14, 19 November 2015 (Undid revision 691410309 by Location (talk) take your complaint elsewhere for your unwarranted business). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@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://en.wikipedia.org/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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Do you think it is copyright material? Logos (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Research assistance

I have been given access to a number of sources via WP:The Wikipedia Library and also have a decent set of research resources. If you would like assistance in accessing a particular source you can leave me a message on my talk page and I will do my best. I offer this assistance for both verification and research. I may not have access to any particular source but will give it a shot. I am open to requests on all sides of issues, being strongly committed to NPOV and desiring above all to improve the encyclopedia. Providing some material will require email correspondence. I would make clear that my privacy should be maintained (non disclosure of my email, personal information etc.) and that if I provide you with copyrighted material it is as fair use for research purposes under the terms and conditions my access and that it may not be reproduced or distributed in any way. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

A sockpuppet investigation has been filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Logos Edward321 (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

"The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." Your recent post on the Atlantis talk page had nothing to do with that. Edward321 (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No; my post on the atlantis talk page had/has a lot to do with improving the article. Ancient scrolls written in ancient greek may have some references to a lost continent. You should wait until all the scrolls deciphered.
In order for a material to fall under the clause 4 of WP:NOT#FORUM, its "unsuitableness" should be very obvious (like some of the past posts). Otherwise, removing a material whose unsuitableness is ambiguous would be exploiting a "guideline" as if it had a power of a "policy". You should remember that 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, they should at best "attempt to follow" guidelines. Logos (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

bender235 socking

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/bender235 I opened this up. Edward/Bender continues to troll the Atlantis page, its obvious from their edits and behavior Edward and bender are the same person. AppleJuiceLover (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Logos&oldid=691416553"