Edgar Cayce on Karma

Merge article?
It isn't clear that this article should be merged with Mosquito ringtone Edgar Cayce. The material here was originally part of the substantive Sabrina Martins Karma article, but was pulled out from there to distinguish it from the traditional Hindu/Buddhist Karma material. While the Cayce article does include material on his substantive message, that article may be on its way to becoming more of a personal biography, with substantive beliefs and doctrines moving out to articles like this one. I did not author this article, but I did originally opine to the author that I thought this material stood better on its own here than in the Cayce biography article. Nextel ringtones Gary D/Gary D 22:58, Sep 15, 2004

I don't see why they should be merged. Merging will bloat up the Edgar Cayce article and these are two seperate themes(E.C. 's life and Karma). I originally wanted to write about a Western interpretation of Karma. Edgar Cayce's representation seems the best. This article or Edgar Cayce, for example, relates Karma to Christianity. Pls. feel free to edit the article on portions, e.g. parts on Hindu concepts , about his personal life, or other portions that are not related to Karma and E.C.'s interpretation. The Karma article is Hindu/Buddhist oriented. I feel Karma(reaction to action in a moral or ethical realm ) is a universal and core concept especially in Spirituality, regardless of religion.Abbey Diaz Jondel/Jondel 04:24, 16 Sep 2004

:I'm totally a non-expert on this topic, and just happened across the © questions in my watchlist. I'm of two minds about the merge idea. First of all, the two articles are both reasonable length, so it doesn't hurt to keep them separated. Then again, the (de facto) mother article doesn't strike me as one that's likely to mushroom out to fill another 5-6 paragraphs any time soon...
:My radical suggestion: Add a summary section about Edgar Cayce's ideas on Karma to the Free ringtones Edgar Cayce article, with a ''Main article: Majo Mills Edgar Cayce on Karma'' at the beginning of the section. Then, just to be really radical, Jondel mentions above that his original intent was to write an article on Western notions of Karma. Perhaps he could do just that, replacing the little bit that is in Mosquito ringtone Karma with a summary section pointing to this new article, e.g. Sabrina Martins Western interpretations of karma; this should also have a summary section pointing to the Cayce ideas. This keeps the Western ideas available in the main Nextel ringtones Karma article, but also frees you from the politics on that article to write your own article. (It also firmly connects this article into the structure of Wikipedia, so that no one can consider it ancillary.) Just my 0.02 €. Abbey Diaz Mpolo/Mpolo 07:20, Oct 2, 2004

Copyright violation discussion
Pls understand that it is them who are doing the copyrignt violations. I recognize my own way of writing. I wrote this original. Please investigate.Cingular Ringtones Jondel/Jondel 04:36, 16 Sep 2004
to the website that copied the article after this to try to clarify ownership. catholics began Jondel/Jondel 05:44, 16 Sep 2004

: According to the article's history log, Jondel posted it at "08:38, 2004 Aug 4". Google's http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:bJEem96vOBEJ:www.thenazareneway.com/karma.htm+%22One+may+be+born+for+example+as+a+genius+or+prodigy%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&strip=0 of that page says "Aug 3, 2004 06:32:18 GMT". duly negotiated Netoholic/Netoholic for neurontin User talk:Netoholic/@ 05:56, 2004 Sep 16

::: Googles' Aug. 3? I posted on the job welcome Karma page about Cayce as early as June to July. Pls check the Karma page, the older one. The article originally was part of the inch by Karma page. It was about to be halved by user Lords of Shurya so I did it myself. If Google says Aug. 3 and the history of the Karma says June, does this settle it then? . usually determined Jondel/Jondel 06:01, 16 Sep 2004

:Evidence in Jondel's favor: The other site has "??" for the Chinese characters for "crisis", while the article has the actual characters. A copy/paste would create that error; if not, then either that page has a different font or something (But if I can see them on one page, why not the other?), or Jondel figured out the characters, or it's not a copyvio.
:Furthermore, history from gorris whose Karma proves that at least portions of this page (as evidenced by the "crisis" line) were present in old merchant Karma as early as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Karma&oldid=4837299, possibly earlier. I think this is a clear case of exactly what Jondel put forth on the pump. I say contact the webmaster of the other site; if they did indeed copy it, they are in violation of the GFDL. It would also be useful to find out just when their page went online, if they are willing to give an honest answer. always based Golbez/Golbez 06:25, Sep 16, 2004

:: The edits to back security Karma are also suspected. I'm going to work through this mess, but these do not appear to be the only questionable edits from Jondel. grosse pointe Netoholic/Netoholic and newspapers User talk:Netoholic/@ 07:13, 2004 Sep 16

::e-mailed the violation webmaster. Hope he replies.I have a Japanese PC which allows me to write Chinese characters. Here the are again. 危機　 Contributing to Wikipedia is hard: you have to defend each and every contribution.only shrank Jondel/Jondel 07:20, 16 Sep 2004

I do believe that indeed ''our'' text is original, and the external site copied our text. As evidence, consider the paragraph on Jainism over in no referendum Karma: it was added on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Karma&diff=1526306&oldid=1502415 by central biggest Lir. At that time, the external page at http://thenazareneway.com/karma.htm didn't look like our article on vasari frescoes Karma at all, it looked like http://web.archive.org/web/20031207172330/http://thenazareneway.com/karma.htm ! Therefore, I do think that '''this is not a copyright violation''' but that the external site copied our text and is violating the terms of the GFDL by not mentioning the Wikipedia article on that page. gateways and User:Lupo/Lupo 07:40, 16 Sep 2004

The August 3 version of The Nazarene Way page is very similar to the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Karma&oldid=4418290 Wiki revision. If they did copy the Karma article, it was probably sometime between June 29 and July 3. pars at DanBlackham/DanBlackham 08:23, 16 Sep 2004

:Please note that the cache version only represents the last time Google ran by it. There is no way to know when the page actually changed. them kurt Netoholic/Netoholic another hypotheses User talk:Netoholic/@ 15:38, 2004 Sep 16

::The most recent version of The Nazarene Way page in the Internet Archive is Feb 12, 2004. It does not look anything like the Wiki Karma revision of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Karma&oldid=2415570. However several sentences in the current version of The Nazarene Way http://www.thenazareneway.com/karma.htm are word for word copies of sentences in the Feb 9 Wiki article. (The sentences are also in the Wiki revision dated June 29, 2004.) For example a large part of the New Age and Theosophy section in The Nazarene Way article is a word for word copy of the addition made on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Karma&diff=477345&oldid=395093 by Fubar Obfusco. That addition has been in the Wiki Karma article without any change for almost 2 years. In my opinion the evidence indicates that The Nazarene Way copied the Wiki Karma article in late June or early July of 2004. DanBlackham/DanBlackham 07:15, 17 Sep 2004

I just read through all this discussion and the stuff on VP, after looking through everything, it seems as though the version on Wikipedia is ''not'' a copyvio, should we restore the original text? User:Siroxo/ —User:Siroxo/siroUser talk:Siroxo/''χ''User:Siroxo/o

:Yup, I think that'd be a good idea. Lupo/Lupo 06:25, 17 Sep 2004

:Jondel has said he is getting confirmation from the originating websites. Until then, we should keep it listed. To be honest, I am not an expert on the subject of this article, but if I was trying to learn about it, I don't think that I could. I actually think that the article would do well to go through a major re-write during this time, just to clear up it's readability. There is also some discussion about whether it belongs separate from Edgar Cayce and Karma. Netoholic/Netoholic User talk:Netoholic/@ 06:45, 2004 Sep 17


The e-mail confirmation is posted below. Please keep seperate from Edgar Cayce and Karma. Please allow issues (the first copyright violation) to be fixed at one a time.Jondel/Jondel 06:51, 17 Sep 2004

=Email confirmation=
- Original Message -

From:
To:
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 11:14 AM
Subject: RE: Coyright violation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Cayce_on_Karma


Peaceful Greetings

Our archives, like yours, are written and contributed by numerous authors. We are trying to clarify where this thesis originated. We have removed the portion you inquired about Cayce.

We would however like to retain the piece if possible as it is written. We claim no copyright to this text. If an acknowledgment or by line to wikipedia would surfice, we would gladly apply it to the page.

Peace be with you.
The Nazarene Way

- - Original Message - -
From: "John Martinez"
To:
Sent: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:30:20

- Original Message -
From: John Martinez
To: Comments@TheNazareneWay.com
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 3:36 PM
Subject: Coyright violation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Cayce_on_Karma

Hi,
Please acknowledge the source, or mention the source.e.g. 'This was originally from wikipedia, etc..'

I wrote the portion of Edgar Cayce on Karma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Cayce_on_Karma
(now removed)This is a copy: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Edgar_Cayce_on_Karma&oldid=5916825 Now, administrators are accusing me of plagiarism and are about to delete it. I believe that the contents of this: http://www.thenazareneway.com/karma.htm were copied from wikipedia.

Please clarify
Thanks and best regards

John Martinez
User : Jondel at http://en.wikipedia.org

=Post-confirmation status=
Ok, can you tell them to attribute the source in the footer or header of the page with a text like:

:"This page reproduces text from the<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/">Wikipedia</a> article on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma">Karma</a>, licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License."

Jondel/Jondel, could you do that, please? User:Lupo/Lupo 09:24, 17 Sep 2004

:I will . thanks a lot. Tied up at the moment. I spend about 2 mins to check. Jondel/Jondel 09:40, 17 Sep 2004

:Lupo I am sending the above, after this. thanks again. Jondel/Jondel 10:15, 17 Sep 2004

:Status: Sent. Now on standby, waiting for reply. Jondel/Jondel 10:26, 17 Sep 2004

I have now restored the article as non-copyvio. We know they most likely they copied it from us, and even if they didn't, they claim no copyright in the material. Gary D/Gary D 17:43, Sep 17, 2004

:In fact, they have just added the footer I suggested and thus ''do'' now properly attribute Wikipedia. With the links, too! Lupo/Lupo 08:56, 18 Sep 2004

The following footer can be found at the bottom of their page.:''Portions of this page were compiled from the Wikipedia article on Karma and are licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.''

Thanks Gary D and Lupo.Jondel/Jondel 11:14, 18 Sep 2004