Epigogue

I oblige you to leave me a message here if you want to recycle my words in an academic or professional context.

Antimatter

If anyone wants to use this space to ask me about my edits in the article on antimatter, then I would be happy to have a cooperative conversation about that. Epigogue (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Licensing of your contributions

You say on your user page that "I oblige you to leave me a message here if you want to recycle my words in an academic or professional context." In fact, no one is obliged to do that. Anything you write on Wikipedia is released under a Creative Commons license and can be reused for any purpose provided the license terms are adhered to. SpinningSpark 17:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

You are incorrect, I am defining proper attribution here.

If that was an attempt to attribute me, it is improper with respect to my original use.

If you want to write with me, I would be happy to do so in a more professional setting.

The creative commons license does not grant the right to transfer content anonymously, or without notification.Epigogue (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, reusers must give proper attribution, but that is not the issue, nor is it what you said on your user page. Reusers must give attribution in in the derivative work but the license does not oblige them to notify you. You can request them to notify you if you like, but you cannot demand it. SpinningSpark 07:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, this issue is intellectual property attribution, and that is resultant of the original wording on my user page. Attribution without notification is legally improper under any copyright license. A formal request in this context forms an obligation, typically as a legal statement.Epigogue (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That is not the case, see Wikipedia:Copyrights. It is an abuse of user pages to use them to attempt to modify our licensing terms. Please do not reinsert that material. SpinningSpark 15:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You are lying, SpinningSpark, and I have checked with the relevant authorities. You are not even being couth about the nature of copyright within Wikipedia, and for your benefit I quote the imperative to proper attribution: "It is encouraged to do the same thing at the source page, and to add notices at the talk pages of both." Just because wikipedia is free, one does not have the license to assume that the most basic rules about referencing do not apply here. SpinningSpark, please stop vandalizing my User and Talk pages with unlawful orders.Epigogue (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read the text of the licences Wikipedia uses (CC-By-SA 3.0 Unported and GFDL). Neither of them require notification that you be notified when someone uses your text; in fact neither would be workable were that the case. Be lucky you aren't indefinitely blocked, since rejecting the terms of those licences is tantamount to rejecting the Terms of Use. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 16:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You are incorrect, Jeremy, my tack is in concordance with section D of the restrictions. If proper attribution is unknown to be workable, I can program a bot for that purpose. The parsing of URLs for for proper attribution is so blithely simple that any insistence upon impossibility is evidence of malicious intent.Epigogue (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation. Licensor agrees that in those jurisdictions (e.g. Japan), in which any exercise of the right granted in Section 3(b) of this License (the right to make Adaptations) would be deemed to be a distortion, mutilation, modification or other derogatory action prejudicial to the Original Author's honor and reputation, the Licensor will waive or not assert, as appropriate, this Section, to the fullest extent permitted by the applicable national law, to enable You to reasonably exercise Your right under Section 3(b) of this License (right to make Adaptations) but not otherwise (copied verbatim from the section in question) does not require anyone to contact you to merely use your text; they merely require them to contact you if they intend to fold, spindle, and mutiliate it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Jeremy, use without attribution is "other derogatory action prejudicial to the Original Author's honor and reputation", as I have defined here through proper attribution.Epigogue (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not what the licence says, and any lawyer will tell you your interpretation of the licence is flawed if that's your rationale. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect, the reference is a direct quote from the license, wherein the category of other is subject to the licensee. The interpretation you endorse violates first use. The document you cite is more than a year old, and there have since been cases in the United States Supreme Court which contradict your interpretation. All skilled and qualified lawpersons to whom I have spoken assure me that the CC BY-SA 3.0 license is not completely binding. Jeremy, the loose end I cited refers to proper attribution.Epigogue (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

And I just quoted the whole section you are relying on([...]You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation[...]), which makes no such claim as you are making, and instead is about moral rights with respect to having your words folded, spindled, and mutilated. Any competent legal professional will tell you that the section you cite wouldn't apply to the situation you're concerned about. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That sections specifically references the situation here. You are directly insulting me throughout this argument, in a manner that is prejudicial to my reputation. The moral and legal responsibility to notify individuals when their work is being used. The words "folded", and "spindled" appear to be your specification, Jéské; and it seems that you are entirely confused about the difference between "derogatory" and "defamatory". You are missing the subjective aspect of the former definition compared to the objective aspect of the latter definition. If there are so many legal professionals who support your point, then why do you not cite anything to prove it?Epigogue (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The better question is that, given the letter of the licence doesn't support your PoV, why do you not cite anything to corroborate your claim? I do believe the letter of the licence is clear as day here, and you are intentionally misconstruing it, either to continue a sterile argument for entertainment (in which case your block will likely be upped to indef for not being here to improve the encyclopedia) or in an effort to get something you can get a lawyer to latch onto (in which case your block will certainly be upped to indef). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 08:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you are making false accusations and ignoring the crux of my argument. If you need to ban me for positing a reasonable argument which is congruent with the license, then it is evidenced you have no rational counterpoint. It is not my responsibility to cite anything, because you are the one who brought up lawyers in the first place. The letter of the license contradicts your claim, and that is not a joke about your spelling error. I was solely interested in improving the encyclopedia; until a party of abusive users decided to insult me and vandalize my user page.Epigogue (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for Misuse of user page, as you did at User:Epigogue. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  SpinningSpark 18:23, 4 September 2015 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

SpinningSpark is vexing me with inexplicable claims that I am abusing the user page. The offending user claims that I am violating the license, but refuses to disclose how and where that is the case.

Decline reason:

You don't get to make licensing/attribution demands on your page that are contradictory to Wikipedia's clearly defined terms-of-use. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:19, 15 September 2015 (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.

You are insisting on people who quote 'your words' to leave a message here - "I oblige you to leave me a message here if you want to recycle my words in an academic or professional context.". Please see just above the save button on an edit window, where it says "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons licence". This applies to all contributions to Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

In this case, the assumption that sufficient attribution is not improper violates the user's rights of first use and original use. My request for notification is consistent with the fundamental concept of licensing, so it is not lawful to omit that requirement. Furthermore, the only appropriate URL for sufficient licensor attribution is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Epigogue&action=edit , or any equivalent URL built with a different username. Peridon, your interpretation of the CC BY-SA 3.0 License is insufficient for the licensee and improper for all parties involved.Epigogue (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2015 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

OhNoitsJamie Is making false claims of contradiction regarding my tack on the CC BY-SA 3.0 license which is in concordance with section D of the Restrictions section.Epigogue (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Nope; exactly as Ohnoitsjamie says below. I am curious about your "racketeering" comment below. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:21, 15 September 2015 (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.

(1) No one is going to unblock you as long as you insist on misinterpreting Wikipedia policy and (2) if you resume this crap at the end of the two week block, the next block will be indefinite. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

(1) You are not qualified to administrate wikipedia with regards to this issue because you apparently confess to racketeering through the website on your userpage, OhNoitsJamie. That presents a clear conflict of interest and the crude language of your interpretation still appears to support a protection racket. (2) If you need to block me for positing a rational and lawful argument, then it is obvious you have no suitable or legal counterpoint.Epigogue (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Suitable and legal counterpoints have been provided. You don't care to listen to anything except whatever you can interpret to your favour. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You have yet to show evidence of contradiction, and you are abusing legal terms which apply to all licenses in perpetuity. Jeremy, your comment that I am not listening is vexatiously false because you are writing to me, and I read each word.Epigogue (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I have shown that the section you are citing for your claims does not mean what you think it does, going by the letter of the licence. Do I need to point out again that the excerpt I quoted above is verbatim from the section and subsection you are relying on to make your case, and that your case is a particularly egregious case of cherry-picking combined with insane troll logic? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 01:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Jéské, you have not shown anything but the license itself, and you are neglecting the most relevant subsection. You can point things out again, but last time you failed to recognize a direct quote. If you can only express yourself through insults, then it as abundantly clear that you are the only one trolling.Epigogue (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The only one neglecting anything is you, Epigogue. I have cited the very section and subsection your entire claims rest on, in its entirety as opposed to the 11-word except from said section and subsection you're using out-of-context to justify your actions. You continue to claim that those eleven words are all that is needed. I'm pointing out that you cannot cherry-pick a content license's terms to suit your goals. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You are neglecting the license because you have to parse out a subsection to make your argument cohere. Jéské, you reposted the text of the section I cited because you could not explain it in your own words. Those eleven words are the most relevant part, and your personal attacks and uncouth behavior here prove my point. You are supposed to select the most pertinent parts of a license to explain yourself, rather than repost a wall of text. "Cherry-picking" is only a faux pas in science, not law.

jpgordon, read this webpage: https://ohnoitsjamiewikipediascammer.wordpress.com Epigogue (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that particular attack page has been trotted out dozens of times. It provides zero evidence of said wrongdoing and exists solely to defame him. Try something more original than a long-debunked blog from 2008. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 01:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Why does OhNoitsJamie display the link? It provides strong evidence of wrongdoing inasmuch as he posts the information, because it there qualifies as a confession. Try to understand the context of my words, Jéské;instead of superficially misunderstanding the point.Epigogue (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Better question: Why do you take the link at face value given the context on that userpage is clearly sarcastic? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think a claim of sarcasm invalidates a confession? It does not appear as though you know many competent legal professionals.Epigogue (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I just called the Internet Police. They are on there way over to arrest me and put me in Internet Jail. I only hope that the court appoints a legal brainiac to, represent me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

That is why I think you are not qualified to rule in, here.Epigogue (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Epigogue. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)