Misplaced Pages

User talk:Logos

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doug Weller (talk | contribs) at 13:57, 25 August 2009 (Calling another editor a vandal: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:57, 25 August 2009 by Doug Weller (talk | contribs) (Calling another editor a vandal: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is Logos's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Archives: 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 Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages: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 16:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Misplaced Pages again, you will be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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 logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (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 Misplaced Pages'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 logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (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 logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (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 logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (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 Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

User notice: temporary 3RR block


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

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Misplaced Pages'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)

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 Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages: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)

Copyright problems with File:Headarrangement.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Headarrangement.jpg, please note that Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Nja 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages with his edits. Consider yourself warned. Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Logos Add topic