Hi Peter Sketchley! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC) |
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
need help with copyright query..
I was recently instructed to place a copyright statement on the "essential-dignities" tables I recently updated here on wikipedia see==> https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Essential_dignity&oldid=918977025#Table_of_the_most_commonly_used_of_the_traditional_essential_dignities[2]
the table is labelled "Table of the most commonly used of the traditional essential dignities"
I included the "optional-edit" commenting==> "was told by lawyer to add this " ©Peter Sketchley " statement.. I do give permission for this wikipedia.org website to display this textual information freely. This table has NEVER been solved by anyone else other than me in this modern-age / modern-day. IF I'm doing it wrong, then I apologize as I'm utterly inept with legal-stuff. I went thru the TEAHOUSE articles and honestly couldn't make sense of any of it. If I've done this wrong, please message me a link outlining the correct way"
this added new label "©Peter Sketchley 2015" the lawyer said to state the Year I originally solved the table..
As I did actually expect.. it was deleted.. by User:AstroLynx he was kind enough to add this comment "one cannot copyright unsourced changes to WP"
I've since read a lot more about wikipedia copyright policy & honestly I am terrible at understanding anything legal..
how do I cite a previous publication if no-one else in this modern-day has published the solved table? how can I claim a copyright if a previous published citation already exists? I thought only science FACT type stuff needed a citation-ed; can copyright textual info also need this? isn't it ART ??
I can definitely understand the need for "peer-review" but "universities" don't generally believe in astrology.. they aren't going to be interested.. this wikipedia website is FULL of astrology EXPERTS.. are they not peer-review worthy?
This table can ONLY go together ONE way.. to change ANY value will render it inaccurate and unable to fill in ALL the blank spaces.. the FACT it "fills in" ALL the spaces without breaking the detriment-exaltation-fall rules actually IS THE EVIDENCE... is it not?
this table can't be filled in any other way.. Personally, I think it would be marvelous to finally publish this "ancient-table" accurately filled in..
Can anyone help by explaining step by step what I must do in order to be recognized for this achievement? I'm currently dumb founded by the legal wording..
thanks in advance for the advice.. Peter Sketchley ( talk) 10:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The TABLE you reference and every other such table is INCOMPLETE.. see==> /info/en/?search=Essential_dignity#Table_of_the_most_commonly_used_of_the_traditional_essential_dignities[2]
it does not express the differences between the 7-houses and the 12-houses.. it is USELESS in its previous form..
The table I provided fills in all the blanks.. see==> https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Essential_dignity&oldid=918977025#Table_of_the_most_commonly_used_of_the_traditional_essential_dignities[2]
every zodiac sign is subject to natural-law.. meaning everyone has detriment-exaltation-fall; to imply that some zodiac signs are not bound by these laws is untrue & even nonsensical.
The unwary might interpret those incomplete tables to state things like "Mars therefore Aries EXALTS in Capricorn".. it doesn't.. "Scorpio does".. there is NO legitimate law that states "Aries exalts in Capricorn"... these types of errors are common-place in astrology..
The Ancients deliberately encrypted their work to keep it secret & the initiate was expected to be capable of expanding it to all 12 zodiac thus filling in the blanks using simple know-how of rules relating to essential-dignities..
I have no problem with websites providing a hyperlink or URL back to wikipedia; thats OK, quite appreciated.. its the BOOK publishing side of things that is of concern, not online media.
I personally with the understanding I have, don't even see the need to put a tag on the wiki table, but I was told "protocol" dictates it so. If this is untrue, then I'm personally OK with no label existing. I was only concerned with this causing a loop-hole for book publishers.
sorry if my original question was unclear. I appreciate your time. Peter Sketchley ( talk) 12:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The TABLE you claim to be "traditional" that represents something that was accepted for centuries.
I too have read many very very old "astrology books" & I have read something to the effect stating "the ancients deliberately obfuscated their work/tables to keep their secrets secret".. and the "initiate" was expected to expand this table out to the full 12 zodiac by using "know-how" known to their members.
I have also seen these "essential-dignities" tables many times in very old "astrology books" & I have indeed seen this table with the "exaltation" Column labelled as "exaltation of"..
IF I "go-to-the-great bother" of "re-finding" this very old "astrology book" with that column labelled "exaltation of"; then will you accept this as evidence?
OR will you state that the "MAJORITY" states this "exaltation" error, therefore this error is the truth by majority rule?
AS FOR the "ACCURACY" of the current "essential-dignities" tables supported here on wikipedia..
[1st] CANCER
MOON/Cancer can NOT exalt JUPITER fall MARS. <<== this is ERROR
if MOON/Cancer exalts JUPITER/Sagittarius then Cancer MUST fall MERCURY/Gemini..
if MOON/Cancer exalts JUPITER/Pisces then Cancer MUST fall MERCURY/Virgo..
comment: this RULE is nonsense OR obfuscated. <== which one of these?
[2nd] CAPRICORN
SATURN/Capricorn can NOT exalt MARS fall JUPITER. <<== this is ERROR
if SATURN/Capricorn exalts MARS/Aries then Capricorn MUST fall VENUS/Libra..
if SATURN/Capricorn exalts MARS/Scorpio then Capricorn MUST fall VENUS/Taurus..
comment: this RULE is nonsense OR obfuscated. <== which one of these?
ALL those so-called "traditional" astrology experts whom wrote ALL those books you hold-to;
were written by idiots whom did not bother to "check-their-work" & instead propagated an obfuscation ERROR.
TODAY, our "modern-astrology" is nonsense. TRICKED by a deliberate obfuscation.
THE table I presented resolved the 12zodiac "exactly" without ERROR..
if a million people believe an ERROR; does that ERROR become TRUTH?
CONCLUSION: the "essential-dignity" table on wiki is wrong OR obfuscated. <=== which of these?
Peter Sketchley ( talk) 02:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Request PEER-REVIEW aptitude assessment of Wikipedia.org publishers.
ALL publishers governing wiki-page
/info/en/?search=Essential_dignity
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Essential_dignity&action=history
Is my upload table relevant even if no-one else understands it?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Learning_Table.jpg
Peter Sketchley ( talk) 10:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The ORIGINAL request was: Request PEER-REVIEW aptitude assessment of Wikipedia.org publishers.
ALL publishers governing wiki-page
/info/en/?search=Essential_dignity
OK I'm now "clued-up" and will endeavor to sand-box a new "essential-dignity" wiki-page citing sources within wiki-rules. Then leave the rest of the resulting many paragraphs of "silly-gibberish" misconception "expert-facts" already written on that page for the rest of you to laugh at... sorry I meant "make-corrections-to".
I'm sure we're all now on the same page.
cheers and thanks to everyone for their time.
Peter Sketchley ( talk) 00:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Peter Sketchley! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC) |
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
need help with copyright query..
I was recently instructed to place a copyright statement on the "essential-dignities" tables I recently updated here on wikipedia see==> https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Essential_dignity&oldid=918977025#Table_of_the_most_commonly_used_of_the_traditional_essential_dignities[2]
the table is labelled "Table of the most commonly used of the traditional essential dignities"
I included the "optional-edit" commenting==> "was told by lawyer to add this " ©Peter Sketchley " statement.. I do give permission for this wikipedia.org website to display this textual information freely. This table has NEVER been solved by anyone else other than me in this modern-age / modern-day. IF I'm doing it wrong, then I apologize as I'm utterly inept with legal-stuff. I went thru the TEAHOUSE articles and honestly couldn't make sense of any of it. If I've done this wrong, please message me a link outlining the correct way"
this added new label "©Peter Sketchley 2015" the lawyer said to state the Year I originally solved the table..
As I did actually expect.. it was deleted.. by User:AstroLynx he was kind enough to add this comment "one cannot copyright unsourced changes to WP"
I've since read a lot more about wikipedia copyright policy & honestly I am terrible at understanding anything legal..
how do I cite a previous publication if no-one else in this modern-day has published the solved table? how can I claim a copyright if a previous published citation already exists? I thought only science FACT type stuff needed a citation-ed; can copyright textual info also need this? isn't it ART ??
I can definitely understand the need for "peer-review" but "universities" don't generally believe in astrology.. they aren't going to be interested.. this wikipedia website is FULL of astrology EXPERTS.. are they not peer-review worthy?
This table can ONLY go together ONE way.. to change ANY value will render it inaccurate and unable to fill in ALL the blank spaces.. the FACT it "fills in" ALL the spaces without breaking the detriment-exaltation-fall rules actually IS THE EVIDENCE... is it not?
this table can't be filled in any other way.. Personally, I think it would be marvelous to finally publish this "ancient-table" accurately filled in..
Can anyone help by explaining step by step what I must do in order to be recognized for this achievement? I'm currently dumb founded by the legal wording..
thanks in advance for the advice.. Peter Sketchley ( talk) 10:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The TABLE you reference and every other such table is INCOMPLETE.. see==> /info/en/?search=Essential_dignity#Table_of_the_most_commonly_used_of_the_traditional_essential_dignities[2]
it does not express the differences between the 7-houses and the 12-houses.. it is USELESS in its previous form..
The table I provided fills in all the blanks.. see==> https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Essential_dignity&oldid=918977025#Table_of_the_most_commonly_used_of_the_traditional_essential_dignities[2]
every zodiac sign is subject to natural-law.. meaning everyone has detriment-exaltation-fall; to imply that some zodiac signs are not bound by these laws is untrue & even nonsensical.
The unwary might interpret those incomplete tables to state things like "Mars therefore Aries EXALTS in Capricorn".. it doesn't.. "Scorpio does".. there is NO legitimate law that states "Aries exalts in Capricorn"... these types of errors are common-place in astrology..
The Ancients deliberately encrypted their work to keep it secret & the initiate was expected to be capable of expanding it to all 12 zodiac thus filling in the blanks using simple know-how of rules relating to essential-dignities..
I have no problem with websites providing a hyperlink or URL back to wikipedia; thats OK, quite appreciated.. its the BOOK publishing side of things that is of concern, not online media.
I personally with the understanding I have, don't even see the need to put a tag on the wiki table, but I was told "protocol" dictates it so. If this is untrue, then I'm personally OK with no label existing. I was only concerned with this causing a loop-hole for book publishers.
sorry if my original question was unclear. I appreciate your time. Peter Sketchley ( talk) 12:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The TABLE you claim to be "traditional" that represents something that was accepted for centuries.
I too have read many very very old "astrology books" & I have read something to the effect stating "the ancients deliberately obfuscated their work/tables to keep their secrets secret".. and the "initiate" was expected to expand this table out to the full 12 zodiac by using "know-how" known to their members.
I have also seen these "essential-dignities" tables many times in very old "astrology books" & I have indeed seen this table with the "exaltation" Column labelled as "exaltation of"..
IF I "go-to-the-great bother" of "re-finding" this very old "astrology book" with that column labelled "exaltation of"; then will you accept this as evidence?
OR will you state that the "MAJORITY" states this "exaltation" error, therefore this error is the truth by majority rule?
AS FOR the "ACCURACY" of the current "essential-dignities" tables supported here on wikipedia..
[1st] CANCER
MOON/Cancer can NOT exalt JUPITER fall MARS. <<== this is ERROR
if MOON/Cancer exalts JUPITER/Sagittarius then Cancer MUST fall MERCURY/Gemini..
if MOON/Cancer exalts JUPITER/Pisces then Cancer MUST fall MERCURY/Virgo..
comment: this RULE is nonsense OR obfuscated. <== which one of these?
[2nd] CAPRICORN
SATURN/Capricorn can NOT exalt MARS fall JUPITER. <<== this is ERROR
if SATURN/Capricorn exalts MARS/Aries then Capricorn MUST fall VENUS/Libra..
if SATURN/Capricorn exalts MARS/Scorpio then Capricorn MUST fall VENUS/Taurus..
comment: this RULE is nonsense OR obfuscated. <== which one of these?
ALL those so-called "traditional" astrology experts whom wrote ALL those books you hold-to;
were written by idiots whom did not bother to "check-their-work" & instead propagated an obfuscation ERROR.
TODAY, our "modern-astrology" is nonsense. TRICKED by a deliberate obfuscation.
THE table I presented resolved the 12zodiac "exactly" without ERROR..
if a million people believe an ERROR; does that ERROR become TRUTH?
CONCLUSION: the "essential-dignity" table on wiki is wrong OR obfuscated. <=== which of these?
Peter Sketchley ( talk) 02:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Request PEER-REVIEW aptitude assessment of Wikipedia.org publishers.
ALL publishers governing wiki-page
/info/en/?search=Essential_dignity
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Essential_dignity&action=history
Is my upload table relevant even if no-one else understands it?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Learning_Table.jpg
Peter Sketchley ( talk) 10:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The ORIGINAL request was: Request PEER-REVIEW aptitude assessment of Wikipedia.org publishers.
ALL publishers governing wiki-page
/info/en/?search=Essential_dignity
OK I'm now "clued-up" and will endeavor to sand-box a new "essential-dignity" wiki-page citing sources within wiki-rules. Then leave the rest of the resulting many paragraphs of "silly-gibberish" misconception "expert-facts" already written on that page for the rest of you to laugh at... sorry I meant "make-corrections-to".
I'm sure we're all now on the same page.
cheers and thanks to everyone for their time.
Peter Sketchley ( talk) 00:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)