Welcome!

Hello, Logan1939, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place ((helpme)) before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  -- ArglebargleIV 14:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of Alphabet Effect[edit]

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Alphabet Effect. For legal reasons, we will delete copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites (http://electronicmedium.blogspot.com/2006/09/some-communication-theorists-notably.html in this case) or from printed material.

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 the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Alphabet Effect with a link to where we can find that note;
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Alphabet Effect with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own original words to avoid any copyright infringement. Thank you. ArglebargleIV 14:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I am not enjoying the editing experience. The material that is a so-called copyright infringement was actually lifted fron the original Alphabet Effect article on Wikipedia which you can confirm with the wayback machine. If you go to the talk page for the article Alphabet you will see that someone suggested moving the Alphabet Effect section to its own article and having a link to it from the Alphabet article. (I included it below for the convenience of the reader) I think this was a good idea but a self-appointed censor who did not agree with the article just removed it which I do not think was fair. I was trying to reinstate the article by going to the Wayback machine when your staff or a bot perceived a copyright infringement when in fact the material supposedly being infringed was originally lifted from Wikipedia. Is it possible to reinstate the article as it was and reverse the arbitrary action of the self appointed censor. I include the discussion surrounding the Alphabet Effect for your convenience. Two peope thought it was fine as is - one thought it should be a separate article and one did not agree with the ideas and deleted it. Not very democratic - something wrong when any person can delete something they do not agree with that others appreciate.

I hope you are a human reading this and not a bot. The notice I received did not indicate how I could communicate directly with ArglebargleIV. If you read this ArglebargleIV please communicate with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logan1939 (talk • contribs)

September 2011[edit]

Hello Logan1939. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

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

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Please read Wikipedia's edit warring policy. Vsmith (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page contributions[edit]

I cannot figure out your edits to User talk:Vsmith and to User talk:MrOllie. They are so poorly formatted, so all over the place, that it is entirely unclear who is saying what when. I urge you to be more concise, to use "Preview" to avoid mistakes, and to follow our conventions re: signing and using headers for new messages. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how this system works - I hope this goes to Drmies -for me the way of communicating is non-intuitive. I have asked for an email correspondence which I know how to do but I will try to make this work. I tried to make reference to a blog and it was deemed illegal and never explained to me except with some boilerplated rule which said "People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible. " I don't see how I violated that prescription. I also tried to make reference to my book Understanding New Media and that was disallowed - again it was not explained to me. Finally the article talks about scholars who were influenced by McLuhan - I fall into that category so I added my name - this is a true statement - I have written half a dozen books based on my former collaboration with McLuhan and have been invited to speak all over the world on McLuhan. This is a fact. I do not see the bias. I do not think I broke any rules as you state that people with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject. I do not see any bias that I introduce by making references to a blog, my book and stating a fact. I am guily once of forgetting the 4 tilda rule but it was obvious I sent the edit and just forgot the 4 tildas. Please sort this out for me keeping in mind that I do suffer from a mild form of dislexia which I have over come for most media like email and writing books but I have not master wikipedia speak - for this I apologize - I meant no disrespect - Bob Logan Logan1939 (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)logan1939[reply]

Hello Logan1939, sorry for the confusion - I understand that the Wikipedia method of communicating seems a bit odd perhaps to new user. I just now got back online and noted your messages to me.
First, my brief note above was meant to alert you of the Wikipedia policy on edit warring - as you were reverting without discussion. No problem now - we're communicating.
Regarding the conflict of interest note you received above - normally we as editors don't promote our own work. If our work is notable others will use it or make reference to it. We see many people here to promote their "wild ideas" that we get a bit over-touchy perhaps on the topic. You re-added your name and a book written by you to the Marshall McLuhan article 3 times after it had been removed and you had been advised of the conflict of interest policy - so I removed the edits again and advised you about edit warring.
You are now talking and trying to understand our system - that is good. Please realise that we are volunteers here and not always on station - takes time to get a reply sometimes. I see MrOllie hasn't answered your questions - he is likely busy elsewhere as I was (had to go get the grandkids from school and sports practice).
I am not familiar with your book, but I assume it is notable and someone else may now add it to the article, but you really should let it be for others to do.
I also placed an unreferenced tag on the Robert K. Logan article and others have done more there. As you self-identify as Robert Logan, it would be best for you to let others write that article per WP:COI also.
We welcome your expertise in writing articles for subjects of interest, but please add only information based on reliable sources and be wary of conflict of interest on topics related to you and your work. Thank you, Vsmith (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some explanations[edit]

Logan1939 - My name is Beyond My Ken, and I've read some of the comments you've posted on various talk pages. (All comments posted on Wikipedia are visible for anyone to see and respond to if they wish to, that's part of Wikipedia's culture of openness and accountability.) Like any online community, Wikipedia can be confusing at first blush, so I thought I would take a stab an try to explain some things to you.

First, I gather that you are saying that you, Logan1939, are, in real life, Robert K. Logan. We have here an edict that says we should whenever possible assume good faith, so I have no reason to doubt that you are who you say you are. However, in terms of copyright, your say-so is not sufficient, if at any time you wish to add to a Wikipedia article more information from one of your own copyrighted works than would normally be allowed under the legal concept of "fair use", you would have to prove who you are by talking to one of the people at OTRS who deal with things like that. (It's actually a little more complicated than that, because Wikipedia has an internal policy about "non-free content" which is more stringent than legal "fair use" policy.)

Next, as a person who is personally connected with the concept of the Alphabet Effect you may have a conflict of interest (COI) with regard to it. Normally, a COI is about someone having a financial interest in the subject of the article, but it can be about other forms of interest as well. For example, if there were competing theories about a subject, and you were a professional proponent of one of those theories and edited the article to make it unbalanced in favor of your theory, that would be editing with a conflict of interest. As has been explained to you, our policy doesn't forbid people with a COI from editing, but it does suggest that caution be taken, and that, in the worst cases, the conflicted editor should not make changes directly, but instead make suggestions on the article's talk page, to be integrated into the article by other editors.

There is another aspect of this, and it stems from the old saw that "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog" -- that is, people can (and have) claimed to be certain people who are authorities on certain subjects, only it turns out they are not who they say they are. Wikipedia allows anyone to make a ID without presenting any proof of who they are, so while we accept (by the concept of "assuming good faith") that you are who you say you are, we cannot go the next step and and take facts and information on your say-so. Any information you add to an article must be supported by a citation from a reliable source. What complicates this matter is that if "Robert K. Logan" is considered to be a reliable source on a subject, their books andd articles can be used as a supporting reference by anyone, including "Logan1939". What we can't allow is for "Logan1939" to vouch for facts and information themselves, unless their identity has been established with WP:OTRS. (I believe there is a section on the conflict of interest page about citing one's own self as an authority which may explain things better.)

Finally, Wikipedia's complicated copyright situation means that the copyright on everyone's contributions belongs to the contributor, who merely licenses it to Wikipedia. For this reason, information cannot be copied from one place in Wikipedia to another without a notation being made that this has been done. (A rather complex procedure I won't go into here.) Further, as the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit" there's always the possibility of Wikipedia articles having misinformation in them, and for that reason, Wikipedia policy, which requires that facts be supported by a "reliable source", does not consider Wikipedia itself to be a reliable source!

I hope this has clarified things a little bit for you. Wikipedia's policies, culture and folkways can be complex and difficult to understand at first, but they came about for various very good reasons. Because it is, generally speaking, not an encyclopedia which is compiled by experts or professionals, but by volunteers of varying abilities, we have erected numerous safeguards, the purpose of which is to help insure that we provide accurate information to our readers. Sometimes, probably, we go a little overboard, but for reasons which are sound. I hope you can understand where we are coming from, and will be able to continue to participate and add to the project.

Please let me know here, or on my talk page, if there's anything else you would like assistance with. I would caution you, though, that I am not an official of Wikipedia in any sense, simply a rank-and-file editor. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind and lengthy reply. I understand what you wrote but to be perfectly frank the system is just to wieldy for me to use - you folks have rules which make participating difficult - there is a lack of common sense. I see how the rules were designed to prevent abuse but that does not mean they are the most efficient rules.They have too many negative impacts and should be rethought. We have rules in society that the police enforce. If they enforced all the rules to the letter of the law our society would grind to a halt. I have found some editors seem to follow the letter of the law and not the spirit. And that is why I do not wish to play in the sandbox of editing. I am happy to be a user and I wandered into this talk space because I was reading the article and was delighted to see I was mentioned. I was curious to find out who mentioned me and so I hit talk and found your piece which I never replied to because I gave up on editing. In the article below yours I am vindicated and that is good enough for me. All the best to you Beyond my Ken, which is not your name and it is a ridiculous part of the Wikipedia system that people use psuedonyms. I would make everyone identify themselves by name and register with their email and street address. Then you would know who is who. The fact that an expert cannot contribute to an area of expertise is ridiculous. If some one has a different take let both points of view stand. Allowing some one to arbitrarily delete someone elses contribution is the root of the problem of your system. Inappropriate material that is hateful or lewd should be removed but not someone's point of view. I hope you dig. - with kind regards - BobLogan1939 (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

McLuhan Edits[edit]

Hey dude, I think youse getting a bad rap from folks. Your edits seemed fine to me. I dig all of your work on Marhsall. Its good stuff. Keep it up! Don't let the "MAN" let you down as they says in America! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks very much for your support - it was very kind - BobLogan1939 (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited I. A. Richards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Feedforward (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Beyond My Ken - I did not understand what you wrote to me Jan 2016 - It is too convoluted for me to follow - if there a problem I do not understand it - please tell leif there is a problem what to do about it in simple English and not in Wikipedia-talk which I cannot follow. I. A. Richards explained that to communicate one needs to provide the context and in your communication to me you did not provide a context that I could follow. I enjoy Wikipedia but I do not understand the process of editing - also signing the post with Logan1939 (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC) makes no sense to me - can we talk by email -it is such a simple straight forward system unlike this Wikipedia communication protocol and why you use a pseudonym does not seem to promote openness - respectfully - Robert K. Logan Logan1939 (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More