User talk:Spiritdejoie

Welcome!

Hello, Spiritdejoie, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

TheRingess (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:WilliamThetford.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:WilliamThetford.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Bill-Thetford.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bill-Thetford.jpg, which you've sourced to http://www.carolhowe.com/meetcarol.htm. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 02:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A Course in Miracles - Original Edition
I did some copy editing to the article. I also removed the infobox as it was done in html. Copy how A Course in Miracles did the infobox. Template:Infobox book contains all the parameters and information about them. Bgwhite (talk) 07:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that this pre-publication-draft-edition of ACIM that you are promoting here as the "Original Edition" deserves to be noted in Wikipedia somewhere. Still, the implied claim that it is somehow more 'original' than the FIP edition (as implied by the title you ascribe to it), despite the fact that neither Schucman nor Thetford ever authorized its publication, seems to me to be quite confusing, especially when considering the fact that it was not published until decades after FIP's 1st edition.  Your apparent intention of rewriting the history of ACIM by creating an essentially duplicate article also seems to me to be somewhat confusing, and possibly a pov-fork article.


 * In Wikipedia, it is generally not permitted to express alternative views to an existing article by creating a new unique article. Such alternative views are generally first hashed out in an existing article.  I'm not certain if the information that is helpful which has been provided in this article might not best be condensed into a paragraph or so in the main article, or not.  Also, if you might be Mr. Whitmore, or working for him to promote this book, such promotional activities by publishers are generally somewhat frowned upon in Wikipedia. Scott P. (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What is needed here is material that is properly sourced, i.e. that is verifiably from reliable, independent sources that are cited with each claim. Thus it is fine to say 'John Doe said that ACIM was abc'. but totally unacceptable to say 'ACIM is abc' without supporting evidence. I hope this helps - evidence is what is missing here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you so much for the STAR! What a great gift to start the New Year! Spiritdejoie (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see the ACIM talk page before claiming that the copyright was entirely overturned
Please discuss on the article's talk-page, your references to your statement that the copyright was entirely overturned before making such a claim. The article's talk page is at ACIM article Talk page. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Two little pointers
Hi Spiritdejoie,   I do thank you for patiently bearing with the "Wikipedia process", which I know can sometimes be a little frustrating, at least for me it is. Unfortunately, I am afraid that the "Wikipedia process" may work to weed out the "good editors" and leave those of us who are the "persistent crotchety old cusses" to do the work here! At any rate, I have two small suggestions for you here: Looking forward to working with you in the years ahead.   Scott P. (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Whenever you edit a Talk Page, it's good that you put the four tildes after each comment, at the end of the actual text you have inserted into the talk page, but you don't have to put the four tildes at the ends of your "edit summaries", that you put into the edit summary boxes beneath the main editing window. When editing an actual Article Page, you don't have to use the tildes at all, as your name will automatically be entered by the Wikipedia software where it is needed.
 * 2) Also, if you would like to have your name show up like most other editors in blue, instead of red, you are most welcome to click on an instance of your your red-name-link and create a sort of an "about-me" User-Page. Once you have created your User-Page, your name will then be displayed in blue instead of red.  Editors are welcome to put as much or as little about themselves as a they might want on their User-Pages.  If you even only put the word "hi" on your User Page, then your name will be shown in blue from that day forward.  For a sample of what a User Page might look like, you could try clicking on my username.


 * Much appreciated. I love learning new things! In fact, I welcome problems. I always learn so much from each glitch. Spiritdejoie (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Granting permission to use an image
Hi Spiritdejoie, I've replied on my talk page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected
Hi Spiritdejoie, I stand corrected regarding the Ur-text. After reading only Ken's page, it sounded as if what happened back then might still be considered illegal activity, but, due to the fact that the material was ultimately ruled as copyright-free, obviously, in retrospect, the folks who copied the Library of Congress copy of the Urtext (the EA folks) ultimately weren't breaking the law, so the whole point about how the Urtext got copied becomes rather moot. My guess is that Ken was probably about as good at copyright law as he most likely was at plumbing and home repairs (i.e. a total clutz!). He probably wrote that webpage only because that was the best understanding of it that he had, and not with any ill intentions. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)