Talk:Shulgin Rating Scale

Part 2 of PiHKAL may be distributed for non-commerical reproduction provided that the introductory information, copyright notice, cautionary notice and ordering information remain attached.

Miserlou 03:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't like just copying a chunk out of the book, but the copyright does let us do that, I think.

The article does still need a rewrite and wikification, but there's no need for the copyright notice anymore.

Miserlou 03:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

:"Distributed for non-commerical reproduction" is not GFDL compliant. It is a copyright violation. Feel free to start writing a new article, but we can't use any of this text. —Keenan Pepper 03:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I bet you're a real douche.

Miserlou 04:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Where's the line between a copyvio / license vio, and a reference to information in a book? How about email Shulgin and ask permission to use it? --Thoric 04:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

:I'm gonna try and get in touch with him . . . [http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/shulgin/blg/index.html ask shulgin] is down, apparently he's on sabbatical and writing a book. so i'm trying to obtain his email address at the moment. (If any one sees this and knows it, feel free to email it to me!) --He:ah? 22:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

::Okay, i've emailed cognitive liberties (who host ask shulgin) a run-down of the situation and a request that they forward my email to Shulgin or send me his email address, so hopefully that'll pan out. --He:ah? 22:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Can the Shulgin Rating Scale itself be included in this article? It can be found in the history[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shulgin_Rating_Scale&oldid=42588707], with original copyright notice attached, and the text was found [http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/pihkal/pihkal.shtml here]. Reprinting it seems like it may be permissable under fair use, as it is scientific, encyclopedic information, consisting solely of the rating scale itself. --He:ah? 02:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

i think we should give it a little while, Keenan. I don't see the problem with it remaining a stub until the copyright issue is sorted out, at the very least. --He:ah? 02:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

:I've gotten kind permission from Dr. Shulgin to reprint the scale, so I am going to reinsert the text; I will remove the merger tags in a few days pending any discussion . . . --He:ah? 03:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

::It looks like you already removed it. I still think it should be merged. What's the point of having a separate article about this? How could this ever become a featured article? —Keenan Pepper 05:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

:::I didn't remove it, i was going to wait. The point of having a seperate article is that this is a research method used by a notable scientist, throught several books as well as consulting work for the DEA and so on; It is the rating system generally used by people describing their experiences. With that said, I don't think it's absolutely imperative or obvious that this should be here. But i'm not sure where it says that articles have to be feature worthy in order to exist- Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Importance make no such claims. Where do you find this? --He:ah? 06:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well done!

Miserlou 04:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)