Talk:Liber XV, The Gnostic Mass

message: An anonymous user has been repeatedly posting links on various Thelema pages to bookofthelaw.com and various other redirect addresses to the same site, for reasons completely beyond me. Myself and several other editors have been removing these links, but the anon user is not getting the hint, despite being repeatedly asked to refrain from reverting. It's becoming an edit war, which we really do not need. Can anon user please explain him or her self, and why they are doing this? --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't be looking too hard then, because he's been presenting the links frequently as something they are not, the most recent example being Hymenaeus Beta's Official Website is most definitely NOT official. Which you yourself corrected, but did not delete. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just had to (again) revert the link to bookofthelaw.com, and re-insert the link to Sabazius' page. Sabazius is the Primate of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica in the USA, he is the co-author of the definitive published work on Liber XV (Mystery of Mystery, currently in its third edition I believe), and the page linked to contains excellent notes and annotations. Whereas bookofthelaw.com appears to be an anonymous blog, and thus should not be considered a valid source for Wikipedia. Please discuss here before reverting this article again.--Rodneyorpheus (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sabazius is the Primate of EGC, however that does not make him the definitive voice of Thelema or even of most Thelemites. His annotated text advocates one view point of the Gnostic Mass and should not be used since it represents a subjective view of the rite not an objective one. Perhaps using a neutral link to SacredTexts.com or the like would be better.Theseus1776 (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether Sabazius is the "definitive voice of Thelema or even of most Thelemites" is completely irrelevant to this article. His work is still the most widely read and respected on the Gnostic Mass, which is the subject at hand, and thus links to it should not be deleted. You have also deleted useful links to other authors who are also widely considered authorities on the Gnostic Mass, and replaced them with one link to an anonymous blog, which is against Wikipedia user guidelines. On your own Talk page I left appropriate guidelines for you to study, and I have asked you to discuss here before continuing to edit war, yet you seem to have chosen to ignore the advice. I would ask you to please stop edit warring until other editors have a chance to make their opinion known and we can build a useful consensus on the subject. Thank you. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would not have an objection to adding the sacred-texts link, other than it being redundant, but I see no justification for deleting any of the original links. --Tahuti418 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war from bookofthelaw.com

message: Ordinarily (unless we're discussing the Disney Corporation, who seem to have carte blanche even beyond the gates of Death itself), International Copyright Law considers a work to be in Copyright for the duration of the creator's lifespan plus fifty years. So, surely the O.T.O.'s Copyright claims upon Crowley's works must be spurious, and all his works must now be in the Public Domain? Nuttyskin (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright