Would you be interested in running for an empty ArbCom seat? See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004. -- mav 19:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I posed this question on the talk page for Meta:Guide to the CC dual-license, but I thought I might as well put it here as well: (moved) -- Kukkurovaca
Thank you! Mark Richards 15:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi. I am not sure I know what changes you mean, but if it means making anything I did even more accessible as free information, then I am for it. Danny 19:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hey, as far as I am concerned everything I write on Wikipedia (with the exception of my user page) is public domain. I have no interest in protecting my intellectual property in regards to Wikipedia. In regards to the creative commons license I approve of it as well. Kevin Rector 19:12, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
Hi. I have no problem with dual-licensing my particular dot-map contributions to Wikipedia. I simply used the same method that was/is being used by Seth Ilys. You might want to talk to him and Catbar as well as they are the other two primary contributors of dot-maps to WP. The only issue I worry about is the sheer number of maps that would need to be edited to change the license tags, but I suppose someone could make a bot to do that (you seem quite good with bots ;) . Bumm13 20:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please see my reply on my talk page. -- The Anome 22:42, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
I trust you. Tell me what to do and it will be done. Danny 23:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm fuzzy, too. The way I understand your note on my page, if I put the dual license template {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} on my User Page, I'll grant the CreativeCommons license to all my work on Wikipedia. I have no problem with that. Should I do something to current (and future) maps? By the way, I'm not using a bot; it's manual. Thanks. Catbar (Brian Rock) 00:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why would user pages be US state articles? I'm not sure the exception here makes sense. Perhaps having a template for this would be better than people typing that directly on their user pages. This way, you could check who had used each option more easily with "what links here". Angela . 14:52, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
I'll have to think about it. A quick perusal of the pros and cons didn't really give me enough incentive to want to dual-license, especially if there is any risk of my contributions becoming incompatible with Wikipedia. But as I said, I'll consider it, and make a decision once I understand a little more about the differences between the GFDL and CC-by-sa licenses. -- Wapcaplet 17:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm convinced; after looking into it, it does appear that CC extends free use without compromising the things I was concerned about. I hereby dual-license all my contributions as CC BySA-Dual (1.0/2.0), and will put a note on my user page to that effect. Also, you are right: User:Jdforrester participated in creating the county maps. He and I made the images, and User:The Anomebot uploaded them. The WikiProject U.S. Counties archive has the discussion that occurred at the time. -- Wapcaplet 03:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've added a statement preceding the dual-license on my user page. In case that is not adequate to cover the county map images, I hereby declare that all county map images that I created or modified, uploaded by User:The Anomebot or by any other user or bot, are multi-licensed with Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License versions 1.0 and 2.0. -- Wapcaplet 01:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'll dual license my contributions. I don't consider edits performed by the TNIS to be copyrightable. You may consider those edits to be public domain for all intents and purposes. -- Tim Starling 23:54, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
In the change from town to CDP (thank you!), some of the articles got screwed up, probably the ones where I changed town to unincorporated area. For instance, Wekiwa Springs, Florida.-- SPUI 05:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I noticed Rambot is adding municipalities in the state of Georgia to Category:Towns in Georgia; however, the proper category is Category:Towns in Georgia (U.S. state), to distinguish from the nation of the same name. Sarge Baldy 06:48, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
Rambot is making some rather inappropriate changes to Michigan articles. For example, see Grosse Ile Township, Michigan, where township is becoming CDPship. Also, it has been adding Category:Charter townships in Michigan to some articles when there already is a well-populated Category:Charter Townships in Michigan--some apparently duplicate entries. older≠ wiser 01:50, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
There is a similar problem with Dedham, Massachusetts where "town" has been replaced with "census-designated place" or "CDP" everywhere it appears. From what I can tell from the link to "CDP", this is inaccurate, and according to the Town Charter of Dedham [1] "The inhabitants of the Town of Dedham, within the territorial limits established by law, shall continue to be a body corporate and politic under the name 'Town of Dedham.'" -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Is there someplace to list corrections to Census-generated stuff that might help Rambot avoid stepping over already made corrections? For example, Stambaugh, Michigan and Mineral Hills, Michigan merged into Iron River, Michigan in 2000 and are no longer separate municipalities. I removed Category:Cities in Michigan but Rambot re-added it. I have since updated the phrasing (past tense) to make it clearer, so if the bot relies on a specific string, that may be sufficient. older≠ wiser 17:43, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
I believe that the recent edit to Springfield, Missouri changed some factual information about the poverty statistics. I've detailed them on the Talk:Springfield,_Missouri page. Is the new or old version accurate? - Amoore 22:31, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm addressing a person or a machine, but you seen to be insisting that Bartlesville Oklahoma is in Osage County when it is in Washington County
http://www.countycourthouse.org/main.htm
Don't take my word for it, see what the folks that have to say for them selves. life is good - Carptrash 06:18, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A week or two ago, I added id's to each footnote in
Geographic references. I think that you should update rambot to link directly to these, if you have not already done so. (By the way, the footnote number is the text of the id - <sup>1</sup>
became <sup id="1">1</sup>
, etc.) --
ABCD |
Talk 00:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee -- just an FYI, in case you have an opinion on this. older≠ wiser 16:49, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
You've changed all the copyright tags I put on my photos. I'm not entirely sure why as it seems one box is preferable to two. -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:28, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
I'm spamming this complaint around a bit as I'm unsure where the responsibility lies. I have started a discussion on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) regarding the extremely inaccurate geographical statistics I noticed for a couple of coastal cities. (For example, Malibu, California, is about 20 square miles. The Rambot statistics listed it as 101 square miles, and 80% water). Another user has tracked down the problem. It appears to be systemic - coastal areas are computed as if their borders are far out to sea. Can anything be done? The information is worse than useless. Here is what user Ilya reported:
copied from Talk:Santa Monica, California
I notice this change made by the bot. While the original article was indeed wrong in calling Lyndhurst a town, the correction made was, in fact, incorrect. Lyndhurst is a Township. We shouldn't assume that every incorrect reference to town is, in fact, supposed to be a reference to CDP. john k 00:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Furthermore, the bot originally made an article at Lyndhurst Township, New Jersey. This was then merged into the Lyndhurst, New Jersey article when it should have been the other way around. john k 00:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, this is entirely ridiculous - I've now found a town in Connecticut that Ram-Bot changed to a CDP...This really needs to be fixed. john k 23:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the ones in Connecticut are, in fact, legally designated towns, as are all towns in New England, New York, and Wisconsin. At any rate, I know it's not the bot's fault, exactly, but surely it must be somebody's fault that townships in New Jersey were encoded as towns, thus making Ram-Bot now go through and recode them as CDPs...another problem I've noticed is the lack of creation of redirects, leading to people creating pages on towns with no link to the Ram-Bot article on that town. This usually happens with places that are both CDPs and towns, or what not. (Also, Stratford, Connecticut does not seem to have any Ram-Bot entry at all) john k 01:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The census bureau has two entries for Mountain Park, Georgia. One is just a census tract with a seemingly arbitrary name in Gwinnett County (see Mountain Park, Gwinnett County, Georgia). The other is the real city, located about 25 milkes or 40km away in Fulton County, Georgia (see Mountain Park, Fulton County, Georgia). Oddly, that entry was originally under Mountain Park, Cherokee County, Georgia, which is incorrect. I'd like to move the real city to the main article, but I'm not sure how Rambot would take this, or if there is a preferred way to disambiguate in this case. Suggestions? – radiojon 01:56, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)
I have released all of the contribution from the Pearle and Beland accounts into the public domain, which should be compatible with any of the popular copyleft licenses. -- Beland 03:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Rambot has twice changed the formatting of the "External links" header on Long Beach, New York. For some reason it insists on changing to from not have a space between the equals and the words, to having a space between the equals and the words. Not only do I know do this, as it makes no sense, but I have reverted the changes only to have them come back. It also makes no sense that the bot would do it only to "External links". Please stop this from happening. GPHemsley→ ◊ 00:05, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
I previously gave you an idea for using your Rambot to add articles on Canadian communities. Well, I now have a source for the information that Rambot could use to make these articles. It is right here. Denelson83 00:10, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi, Ram-Man. I understand your concerns about the fish articles' references. There were several reasons I made the change. Every fish article should link the FishBase and ITIS references, and both databases have their own Wikipedia articles. For any other sources, I follow normal citation practices, but for these two it is a bit redundant to use the full citation on every single species, genus, family, and order page. A paper Wikipedia should cross-reference the articles on the databases which provide much more information than a bibliographical citation could. I note also that the editors of these databases are much more likely to change than their URLs (at fishbase.org and itis.usda.gov), since one is a major international project and the other is a U.S. Federal government project. There is no consistency in how these two have been cited in Wikipedia in the past, so I was bold and came up with a simple and clear one to use.
BTW, would you be interested in starting a fish project to standardize a format for fish pages? — Tkinias 21:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've put up a draft for WikiProject Fishes. Please take a look and let me know if the proposed citation format will accomplish what you want. — Tkinias 01:04, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I made some suggestions for User:Rambot at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#Maui, Hawaii ? on the problem of Hawaiian CDPs vs. Hawaiian communities. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 08:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I noticed you added a copyright notice on your user page. You can add the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template to your page. You didn't specify the version of the license (it seems to imply that any version will do, which is what the template says). The template will also add your name to the category/list of other users who also use this license. If you don't want to use the template, you should still specify the version(s) of the licenses (or any version). -- Ram-Man 16:21, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Hi there. So, on November 19th, rambot incorrectly relabeled about two dozen articles on Massachusetts towns as CDPs. See the edit history for Wakefield, Massachusetts, for example. I just noticed it today and went in and changed them back, but I only know Massachusetts; it could be that there are towns in other states that got the same treatment and are now incorrectly categorized. I just thought you should know. AJD 01:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the note - I'm going to have to see if I'm really available that day. Living in the suburbs means I need to coordinate taking the train and so on. Anyway, thanks. Andre ( talk) 06:45, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
Just an FYI: I've got a drafty list of fishes to work on at User:Tkinias/Fish; it's just to keep track for my own purposes of some taxa I have or would like to hit, but if you want to peer review or clean up citations check it out. (I wouldn't mind your looking over my prose as a second set of eyes, either...) — Tkinias 17:16, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have dual licensed my own material under CC-BY-SA. I see no need to do that for Robbot, since its changes are all so trivial that I do not consider them copyrightable, and thus being in the public domain by default. - Andre Engels 14:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have added CC-by-SA to my user page. - UtherSRG 17:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is probably going to sound terribly anal. :) I'd like to license my text contributions as PD, but I would like photographs I've taken myself and uploaded to be CC-by-SA. How would I go about wording that? - Hephaestos| § 18:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You give me way too much credit, man. I don't understand hardly a word of what you're asking me to do. Dumb it down, way down. Everyking 19:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have dual licensed my contributions and placed a notice on my user page. older≠ wiser 21:12, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
I used to have a notice on my user page saying that all my text is in the public domain (and whatever I write still is), but what with one thing and another it kept getting lost. It might be an idea to maintain a central list of multiply-licensed contributions rather than putting it on separate user pages... 62.254.128.4 22:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Kate, not logged in)
Hey Ram-Man, I think the only work I have ever done on US city articles is adding a tiny sentence to Lakeland, Florida. So you can do whatever you want with that... Adam Bishop 01:05, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have no problem with licensing my edits in whatever way you want to do it. Rick K 05:47, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
I've put the licence on my user page. jimfbleak 07:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm willing to consider it, but for whatever reason my brain just doesn't seem to grok it all just at the moment. (I'm tempted to blame Effexor.) I'll read up a bit more on it when my synapses are firing properly. Bearcat 00:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've taken your suggestion and multi-licensed my edits into the public domain. Hope this is helpful to you, and thanks for the fine work on the Rambot articles; it's nice to be able to type "So and so was born in [[Small Town, Iowa]]..." with confidence it'll be there. Best, [[User:Meelar| Meelar (talk)]] 04:44, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
This is a very good idea. I've often complained that the GFDL is clunky, and have been chewing on the idea of releasing my edits under a more general license (what you called multi-licensing). I just haven't thought it through to the point of deciding on a license and doing it. I should do so now. Very Verily 09:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Could you check my comments on the Talk page for Template:DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual? Thanks. Rick K 07:13, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
I basically know nothing about licensing, so I asked my brother, who does, and he said it was a good idea, so I added the dual license template to my user page. And I very much agree with Meelar about how convenient the consistent naming is--not having to check every time. Niteowlneils 00:43, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm happy to dual-license my contributions, and I've put the suggested template on my user page. I note that I've been invited because I'm in the top 1000 sexiest/richest/most active wikipedians, I hope this doesn't mean I'll get lots of requests for donations / offers of marriage / missives from Nigerians needing help to transfer encyclopedia articles out of their country. - gadfium 19:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I will release any edits to articles started by Rambot into the public domain. If there are any other types of licensing that would help you let me know. I don't want to release everything into the public domain, but I'm quite willing to grant licenses to people who need them. anthony 警告 22:04, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi Ram-man - thanks for the note; I don't have a clue what all these various different gfdls and ccbycs and pds and so on mean, they're all written in jargonese that I don't understand (I just stick 'gfdl' on my pics because everyone else does), but I'm happy for anyone to use what I put on wikipedia freely however they wish (which is what I thought wikipedia was all about!) . . . does that help at all? What do you think is the most appropriate one to use then? - MPF 20:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes. Lirath Q. Pynnor
I'll dual license. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:27, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
I'd appreciate a clarification. I certainly don't want to release my work into the public domain: Wikipedia mirrors are bad enough, I don't want to encourage an uncredited equivalent. I'm open to pretty much any use that gives attribution. Is there a particular combination that amounts to that? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:06, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
I just dual-licensed my contributions under cc-by-sa. -- Magnus Manske 09:04, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
My works here are placed in the public domain, and I have put the requisite template stuff on my user page. —Morven 18:27, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
I just dual-licensed all my state, county, and city contributions, and added the appropriate template to my user page. Rlquall
I've added Option 1 to my User-Page. Reubenbarton 19:45, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You asked me a question, I answered yes -- connect the dots... Lirath Q. Pynnor
I've chosen PD. I agree with Everyking. Dumb it down in the future. -- user:zanimum
Ive hardly ever contributed to city articles on Wikipedia - its just not my thing, so it doesnt really make much sense to deal with that. Ive left a comment under the vote section for you though. Otherwise I wish you luck. - S V 21:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I would suggest a concurrent drive to list users who want to pd license all of their contributions... in the end it may not matter. Keep in mind that the point of a open license is to "protect" the open use of material from being claimed as property. PD does not carry this kind of protection, and hence it may fly in the face of WP goals, which desires to keep its material under the protection of the GFDL. I may not be entirely clear about that part, but in anycase if you are completely forthright about your intentions it can help your cause. "The fact is that about 90% or so of those people who multi-license their state/county/city articles ALSO multi-license ALL of their main namespace edits." Then IMHO it definitely would be a Good Thing to open a more general drive, and to keep the distinctions between the contexts as firm as contract. Regards - S V 22:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OK, I've now done this. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:34, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Added {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} to my user page. Will a bot update my contributions or do I have to do it? Also, you should do this at the Commons, too. Lots of GFDL and PD images are added to the commons now. -- Chris 73 Talk 23:41, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Hi Ram-Man. I've been thinking about this carefully, and for now I am going to stick with the GFDL for all my contributions. Basically my hopes are on an improved version of the GFDL that fits our needs more closely, and I want to hold out for that for a while longer. I'll be happy to reconsider at a later date. -- sannse (talk) 18:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't think anyone who contributes to Wikipedia can possibly object to re-use of their work, but all this intellectual property stuff makes my head hurt. I can't quite understand how I can give away something I have no claim to in the first place. It seems to me the right answer is to merge GFDL with Creative Commons, but I don't see how one-by-one "freeing" my many contributions to Rambot articles (Did you forget that I was the one who dubbed it the Rambot?) or the thousands of other articles I have added something to (maybe only a comma or an em-dash) will help with the general goal of aligning Wikipedia with the rest of the the "open" world.
I don't want to participate ever again in the sort of messes I got involved in in Talk:Oregon City, Oregon and Talk:Hitler has only got one ball. I guess I'm disinclined to "license" anything if I don't understand what I'm doing. Add me to the list like Sannse just above, get back to me when it's a little clearer. Best regards, Ortolan88 02:33, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've added DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual to my user pages. Sometime I'll go thru all my images & licence them in the same way, although I guess I consider that they are now so licenced, it's just a case of removing the previous GFDL from them. best wishes & good luck to you -- Tagishsimon (talk)
Thanks for the compliment about being in the top 1000 conbtributors. I've added both Public Domain licenses to my User page as requested. I've always operated under this impression anyway. I presume that this is sufficient for Wikitravel? If so, perhaps you need to add Wikitravel-compatible to the Public Domain entries. CC and SA mean nothing to me nor to the legal system where I operate. Ian Cairns 14:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't even think I've written any geographics related article. If you find anything of use, please let me know and I'll think about it again. // Liftarn
I agree to multi-license... WhisperToMe 23:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I added a short sentence on the page. Is this what you were thinking of? WhisperToMe 05:49, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi. First, congratulations on your patience to sacrifice your time for the good of the wiki-community. I thought all we did was for everybody to use and abuse, thats what i like about wikipedia, but apparently not. Can you be kind enough to explain who can not use our stuff? In plain english please because i have no clue what a creative commons license is. Thanks, muriel@pt 14:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why? - Joseph (Talk) 15:10, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
All my stuff is public domain; do whatever the fuck you want with it. -- SPUI 18:25, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've put all of my contributions (except User pages) into the public domain. If I've contributed anything more substantial than italics and em-dashes, they're fair game. :) — tregoweth 19:35, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
I'd like just my main-namespace edits CC-by-SA. What should I do? -- ℛyan! | Talk 00:23, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
I agree to multi-license. - Evil saltine 01:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Add me to the Public Domain users, see my user page, Lou I 10:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I recieved your request @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Article_Licensing. Unfortunately I don't understand the legal ramifications well enough to do anything at this time. I recomend you create a wikipedia namespace page, or better yet a meta-wiki page to explain the situation, and the ramifications of the various options. If I were better informed I would probably agree to doing something, but until I am, I intend to hold off. [[User:Sam Spade| Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I got your spam message as well. I'd like to dual license, but I'd rather not put a big message about it on my user page (which I try to keep short). Are you going to be parsing user pages, or can I put this message (or sign my name) elsewhere? Dori | Talk 18:33, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
One more question, I'd like to dual license the text in the uniform manner as specified, but I usually do the media on a case by case basis. As far as I can tell, adding this message would dual license everything. If it's changed to just the text and permanently protected so that no one could change how I can license just by changing the template, I'll add it (or I'll do it via subst or use my custom message, but it won't be as easy to parse). I might even add that changing the message might invalidate it as it's not the user himself/herself who's agreeing to it. Dori | Talk 18:49, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
What a PITA, I always prefer CC-BY-SA over GFDL actually. Modifications done on my user page. — Joseph | Talk 20:22, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
All photos taken by me are posted cc-sa with the exception of performance photos, which are cc-nc. I have also posted other's work (with permission) as cc-by-sa. I noticed that other commercial encyclopedia sites do not post images if the images are marked with "Wikipedia License cc-sa" or similar. It appears that they are attempting to hide the source of their materials. These sites usually look terrible as they post the large image version only, or only the thumb, with no click through. I may post some personal artwork with cc-by-sa. So am I already covering your request? Leonard G. 20:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Suppose all but one person working on an article releases their contributions under the CC license, does that spoil the article so it can't be reused under that license? It seems like it could be a mess. - Evil saltine 01:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
All my own contribs are multi-licensed; CC-by-sa as well sa GFDL.... some of them are moreover PD. +sj. + 13:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi, Ram-man: I've already thought over the issue of licensing many times, and it gives me a headache. Sorry that I can't be more enthusiastic about this initiative, but I'm going to stick with the GFDL for now. Sewing - talk 15:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the information on my talk page. I hadn't known about the provision of the template that you refer to. Nevertheless, the "unless otherwise stated" language is a little too vague for my taste. My version makes clear that I might limit a multi-license by "so stating in the edit summary and/or on the appropriate talk page and/or here." That rules out a claim by someone that s/he looked in one or two of those places and didn't see anything that "otherwise stated". Therefore, in the (unlikely) event that I want to restrict multi-licensing, I can do it wherever the whim moves me. I assume this works for your purposes of getting licensing for anything I've contributed to the Ram-bot articles. Incidentally, it was when I noticed one of your messages to someone else about multi-licensing that I finally got around to looking at the subject myself, so thanks for the impetus! JamesMLane 19:10, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So if I MultiLicensePD then Wikitravel cannot use it? Leonard G. 20:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding multi-licensing, I'd just like to let you know that I'm not ignoring your query: I simply haven't decided yet. For now, I think I'll stick with the GFDL only, but I'll continue to consider it carefully. At any rate, I wish you the best of luck in your endeavour. -- Hadal 09:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have multi-licensed my text contributions, except for user pages with CC-by-SA. -- Big_Iron 11:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hello Derek, I another question(s) for you. I've been thinking about this during the weekend and got confused again. I understand the use of licensing images i created, but what good will it do if i release *my* written contributions? They are not mine! See War elephant, for example. I wrote it, but now so many people edited it that i hardly recognize my text. What if user B does not release it, either for stubborness or ignorance? Is the article unusable? Which licensing will prevail? The initial writer? The small editor? The vandal that edited and was reverted but is still in the edit history? Does this make any sense? muriel@pt 13:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the message -- I've been thinking about this, but since you reduced the work to do it literally to zero, I jumped on the multi-bandwagon. I now dual-lic all of my contributions. -- Sverdrup
Being a Wikitraveler, I'm going to dual-license, but does that affect images too? In particular Ropey the Cornish Rex is not mine, he belongs to a friend of mine, I just uploaded the picture. - phma 02:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Can i request that the template for PD be changed to look more like the template for CC, because it just looks freaking ugly at the moment, and i feel ashamed to have it on my userpage. CC even has a buton that can be used for PD that says no rights reserved on it. The bellman 02:31, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)
I have chosen not to release my contributions under any license other than the GFDL. Gentgeen 15:20, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have multi-licensed my contributions, except for user pages and images with CC-by-SA Dual. --[[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 17:20, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
I'll stick with the GDFL, thanks. - khaosworks 18:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't care about attribution for my work. But I don't like the idea of (slightly) derivative works being copyrighted so that I can't even use them. So I am going to go with the dual GFDL and CC license. Does this sound right according to my concerns? - Omegatron 19:47, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
I hate licensing issues and like to keep them off my doorstep, 'cause they only take away time I need for creative work. That said, in the high hopes that CC + GFDL will kill off a few lawyers, I have dual-licensed all of my articles. Nixdorf 19:59, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
I have multilicensed my contributions to geographic articles using the template you provided in your message to me. I'm uncertain about releasing all contributions, and will need to take time and learn more about this. I find this a bit confusing, I admit. Jwrosenzweig 20:43, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I added {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} to my user page. – Quadell ( talk) ( help)[[]] 19:32, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
When I added {{NoMultiLicense}} to my userpage I must not have been thinking straight! A government job will do that to you sometimes... :-) -- David Iberri | Talk 23:04, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Is there a tag I can use to put my changes to Rambot pages into the public domain? These are insubstantive enough that I don't feel any need to retain ownership of them. In fact, I'd really like to place all my changes that aren't linked from my user page into the public domain. I don't think this is legally sound though, because removing a link from that page would amount to pulling the changes out of the public domain, which is not possible. What's your advice? Thanks. Deco 00:29, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi Ram Man. Thank you for your note on my page. It was nice of you to consider me on this thing yo-u have in mind.
I prefer to stay under GFDL, because I like the fact that everyone can enjoy my articles, and hopefully someone could translate them into other languages soon too.
Thanks and God bless you!
Sincerely yours, " Antonio Margaritas and Senoritas Martin"
I'm going with {{MultiLicensePD}}. Filiocht 14:53, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
Hi! I've read your proposal and I don't think it applies to my way of licencing photos. So far I've put (very approx) 1200 pics on WP and about 95 percent of those are taken with my own camera so I simply put the {{PD}} template on the Image Description Page and make them all PD. Of the remaining five percent most are from US Government sources so those are PD as well. So are your proposals relevant to me? Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 14:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is non-trivial. I would like a combination of things.
I think GFDL covers it? Rich Farmbrough 14:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I chose Option 2. -- Daniel C. Boyer 16:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is surprisingly complicated in its implications, but I decided to dual-license, and decided against plain-jane public-domain. Thanks for taking this on. Antandrus 16:29, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Chose option 1 - CC is a great licensing scheme. -- Zappaz 16:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Chose option 2. -- Zigger 18:51, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
I understand your reason for adding the various multi-licensing categories to my user page, but I think that barrage of category links at the top looks a little distracting. Is there a way to retain the categorizations but not have them displayed, or to move them to the bottom? If not, I can live with them the way they are now. JamesMLane 18:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't consider anything I do on wikipedia to be my own private property, so if your proposal is just about making it available more broadly I can't object! Slrubenstein 18:21, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for informing me. Arvindn 21:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've added a message to my user page giving my licensing information. -- [[User:Djinn112| Djinn112 ♠♥♣♦,]] 01:44, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
I've done dual CC/GFDL, but only with Option #2 for US cities/towns/counties for the moment. I want to see what happens with this limited experiment before going the whole way. -- Lexor| Talk 14:24, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
I took option 1. Sortior 18:23, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
I'm still confused about the difference between the three. Can you make a short summary of PD, GFDL, and CC and put them in this FAQ. I'm thinking of PD, but I don't really understand the implications. - Omegatron 18:33, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
I have dual-licensed all my contributions, per your request. Good luck with your drive, and feel free to delete this message. Nohat 18:37, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ram-Man, would you kindly hop over to User:Arpingstone and see if I've done the PD licencing for text correctly. Thanks - Adrian Pingstone 18:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I hereby agree to {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}. I put the notice on my user page.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:52, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
I prefer using PD because I do not want to place any restrictions on further use. -- AlainV 19:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I will not release my work with less than GFDL. I'm not getting paid for the stuff I write, and I don't want someone else to profit from it while claiming they wrote it. I also don't want people to restrict the rights of the downstream users of the work you have done, but I wonder why you contributed it without understanding the implications of the GFDL. Christopher Mahan 19:32, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for the note. I have done the {{MultiLicensePD}} option. I am no longer here, so I am keen for people to have the best possible access. Regards,
Nevilley 21:11, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
from BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC): All due respect, this is what I have to say: Template:NoMultiLicense
As a proud member of "the 1000", I chose the PD option. Thanks all your hard work in this area. Ellsworth 21:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me a kick on this one- I'd seen the templates but never understood the significance. One request: any chance of an officially-sanctioned International English template that knows the difference between licence and license? adamsan 21:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described: Template:DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual. Vaoverland 22:11, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm all for this, Ram-Man. I had no idea I was in the top 1,000. Anyway, count me in for Option 1. Stombs 22:25, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. Unfortunately, somehow I just can’t get rid of the impression that all of those other licences are a restriction in some sense compared to the current one. Also, I think that if e.g. Wikitravel wants to use whole articles from the Wikipedia - why they just do not make a link to the Wikipedia then ? , and if they want to use only some of the Wikipedia information - such a copyright "infringement" is conducted every second in the world and is no real copyright infringement... Juro 22:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. I'll go for the dual license. See my user page :) Pakaran (ark a pan) 22:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your message, but I think I'll stick with the GFDL at this time. I wish you the best with your endeavors! -[[User:Frazzydee| Frazzydee| ✍]] 23:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hiya.. just dropping a line to let you know that I am perfectly cool with this dual-licensing project and have added the appropriate notices to my user page, and added myself to the List of supporters. Cheers! — Stormie 23:08, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
I have released all my text contributions into the public domain. DCEdwards1966 23:37, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
I release all changes I have made to Rambot-originated articles into the public domain. silsor 23:43, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
I'd prefer GFDL myself. One question, too. Does "Articles" in this context include the images within them? Because I gove all my photos the "nocommercial|provided" tag, and have used other photos from the Wikipedia image archive which are not public domain. If photos are part of articles, I cannot grant those articles CC-by-sa status. [[User:Grutness|
Grutness
talk
]] 23:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
____
Hi there! I just saw your note on my talk page. Now I'm confused. Every article contains this notice at the bottom: All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Wikipedia:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. I've always taken that to mean that by default, I do not own the copyright on anything I write, and that it is all PD. Am I wrong? If so, I have no objection at all to licensing my work as you suggest. I'll spend some time studying the options and will get back to you. David Cannon 23:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, Ram-Man. However, I only look at articles on Canadian cities and towns. Denelson83 00:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have only edited a few city articles, so that is not much of an issue for me. However, I have released all of my contributions into the public domain. I don't think that I or anyone else on Wikipedia will get anything more than an ego boost from having their material copyrighted, especially since I and many other contributors do not use our real names on Wikipedia. Anyone who really cares who wrote my articles can go to Wikipedia and check their version. Academic Challenger 00:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
All of my contributions are fully in the public domain. I do not reserve any rights. -- Sesel 00:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For now at least, I prefer to keep my contributions under the GFDL. I believe it is well enough established at this point that similar, interested projects can be expected to find a way to handle content that has been released under it. Even free and open approaches need standards. Thanks! Rdikeman 01:13, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Dual licensing is fine by me; I've agreed to dual-license all of my contributions. (I'm still not convinced how practical this drive is, given the number of contributors to Wikipedia, but oh well.) —Steven G. Johnson 02:50, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the extra note Ram-Man: I've put my licence in. Stombs 04:01, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
What if I translate something from another Wikipedia? Multilicensing would be misleading since the only appliable license would be that of the other-language article. -- Error 02:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There are no provisions for multilicensing with CC-SA, are there? I may like it for articles, not for pics. -- Error 02:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I want my work to be credited and everyone can use them for free, but not release them in other more restrict license (which means anyone who uses my work should guarantee the derived copies can be used for free), is that called “CC-by-SA”? I will think about again that later. But actually, I don’t think there are any articles completely written by me. So we’d better ask other contributors. -- Yacht (talk) 03:38, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep my contributions under the GFDL for the time being, although I would be willing to consider a change at some point in the future. CJCurrie 03:52, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No
Solicitation
Thanks to your notice regarding article licensing, I have been motivated to add a new template which I have applied to my talk page, which I will include here. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 04:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In response to your poke, I've decided to multi-license minor edits as PD and other edits as CC-by-sa. (I considered going to PD but am not sure whether I want to make my contributions to Wikipedia that open just yet.) -- pne 14:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi there! Yes, I'm going to be to the meetup in new york. I hope you are, too. See my user page for a phone # where you can reach me this weekend...
I'm also writing to a lot of wikipedia users to see if they are interested in taking a survey about how and when and why they wikipedialize :) I see you are very active these days, and sending around notices about licensing which would be well-suited to part of the survey; would you like to coordinate our outreach efforts? +sj + 05:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your invitation to multi-license my work. The only licensing change I'm willing to make is to release into the public domain all of my minor edits. How do I do this? — Vespristiano 05:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The only work I've done to geographic articles has been minor edits, which aren't copyrightable. The other stuff I am not prepared to make any decisions on right now. Maurreen 06:05, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have decided to multi-liscense my edits both in the GFDL and the Public Domain. I think this is probably the most suitable course of action for me. →Iñgólemo← (talk) 06:12, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
I'm setting all my contributions, with a couple of exceptions (my user page and my images), as public domain. Thanks for bringing the issue to my attention; I had been wondering about it. - Branddobbe 06:21, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Seems fine to me, I added the dual-license notice on my user page. I added however the notice that some of my contributions are copied from other GFDL sources, such as [2]. This means I cannot change the license of these contributions.
Donar Reiskoffer 07:44, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've read Cretive Commons a bit more thoroughly, and have gone dual. Rich Farmbrough 13:03, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Me too; may go public domain later. TOttenville8 14:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I like the GFDL. It's a simple straightforward system. The multi-licensing probably has some merits but it looks too complicated. I feel in my gut there must be a simpler way.
-- wayland 13:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi.
My first reaction to this was that it is a great idea, after all I came to Wikipedia via Wikitravel and I'm still an ocassional contributor there. I have added the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template to my user page.
However I have also just read both Wikipedia:Multi-licensing and the Wikitraval equivalent article ( Dual licensing) and I'm no longer so sure. Wikitravel seems to be discouraging dual licencing on the grounds it hinders collaboration, and they seem to reckon that a derivative work (ie. any article with more than one contributor) cannot be dual-licenced anyway. The Wikipedia version is more upbeat, but there still seems to be so many barriers that I wonder if dual-licencing will ever bring any practical benefit.
A further thought is that the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template only seems to apply to text. If I have also contributed images (that I own the copyright on), I guess I also need to dual licence these too. As far as I can see the only way of doing this is to add all three of {{GFDL}}, {{cc-by-sa}} and {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} to the image page.
I'd appreciate your comments on this. -- Chris j wood 14:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have dual liscenced all of my contributions. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 15:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi Ram-man, I added the option 1 template to my user page. Alfio 15:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've added the dual licence template to my user page. I would like clarification on images - I contribute a lot, what do I need to do about those?
Theresa Knott
(The snott rake) 15:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your invitation, but I am afraid I have to decline. My reason is the unresolved " incompatible fork" problem. Much as I admire your effort, I can't see how the situation can be cleanly resolved other than by a modification of the GFDL to make it compatible with CC-By-SA. Thanks again, Kosebamse 15:53, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for replying to my query about the spelling. I've linked to from the Templates page to a nascent list of alternative spellings I'm working on. adamsan 19:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I had no idea I was in the top 2000. I still don't think I am. Regardless... Can you explain to me what exactly is the incompatibility between GFDL and CC-BY-SA?
The idea of having to multi-license works foretells a nightmare of having to release everything we do with a veritable cluttered patchwork of licenses.
Besides, if GFDL and CC-BY-SA are incompatible, isn't there then a conflict between using two licenses? Does it truly imply the freedom of both, or does it imply the restrictions of both?
Furthermore... Why would it not be enough for me to singly license everything with CC-BY or CC-BY-SA? Lastly, would it be possible simply to draw up a new license that was compatible with both, and just use that?
Thanks, [[User:KeithTyler| Keith D. Tyler [ flame]] 00:42, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
Would you be interested in running for an empty ArbCom seat? See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004. -- mav 19:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I posed this question on the talk page for Meta:Guide to the CC dual-license, but I thought I might as well put it here as well: (moved) -- Kukkurovaca
Thank you! Mark Richards 15:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi. I am not sure I know what changes you mean, but if it means making anything I did even more accessible as free information, then I am for it. Danny 19:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hey, as far as I am concerned everything I write on Wikipedia (with the exception of my user page) is public domain. I have no interest in protecting my intellectual property in regards to Wikipedia. In regards to the creative commons license I approve of it as well. Kevin Rector 19:12, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
Hi. I have no problem with dual-licensing my particular dot-map contributions to Wikipedia. I simply used the same method that was/is being used by Seth Ilys. You might want to talk to him and Catbar as well as they are the other two primary contributors of dot-maps to WP. The only issue I worry about is the sheer number of maps that would need to be edited to change the license tags, but I suppose someone could make a bot to do that (you seem quite good with bots ;) . Bumm13 20:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please see my reply on my talk page. -- The Anome 22:42, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
I trust you. Tell me what to do and it will be done. Danny 23:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm fuzzy, too. The way I understand your note on my page, if I put the dual license template {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} on my User Page, I'll grant the CreativeCommons license to all my work on Wikipedia. I have no problem with that. Should I do something to current (and future) maps? By the way, I'm not using a bot; it's manual. Thanks. Catbar (Brian Rock) 00:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why would user pages be US state articles? I'm not sure the exception here makes sense. Perhaps having a template for this would be better than people typing that directly on their user pages. This way, you could check who had used each option more easily with "what links here". Angela . 14:52, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
I'll have to think about it. A quick perusal of the pros and cons didn't really give me enough incentive to want to dual-license, especially if there is any risk of my contributions becoming incompatible with Wikipedia. But as I said, I'll consider it, and make a decision once I understand a little more about the differences between the GFDL and CC-by-sa licenses. -- Wapcaplet 17:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm convinced; after looking into it, it does appear that CC extends free use without compromising the things I was concerned about. I hereby dual-license all my contributions as CC BySA-Dual (1.0/2.0), and will put a note on my user page to that effect. Also, you are right: User:Jdforrester participated in creating the county maps. He and I made the images, and User:The Anomebot uploaded them. The WikiProject U.S. Counties archive has the discussion that occurred at the time. -- Wapcaplet 03:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've added a statement preceding the dual-license on my user page. In case that is not adequate to cover the county map images, I hereby declare that all county map images that I created or modified, uploaded by User:The Anomebot or by any other user or bot, are multi-licensed with Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License versions 1.0 and 2.0. -- Wapcaplet 01:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'll dual license my contributions. I don't consider edits performed by the TNIS to be copyrightable. You may consider those edits to be public domain for all intents and purposes. -- Tim Starling 23:54, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
In the change from town to CDP (thank you!), some of the articles got screwed up, probably the ones where I changed town to unincorporated area. For instance, Wekiwa Springs, Florida.-- SPUI 05:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I noticed Rambot is adding municipalities in the state of Georgia to Category:Towns in Georgia; however, the proper category is Category:Towns in Georgia (U.S. state), to distinguish from the nation of the same name. Sarge Baldy 06:48, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
Rambot is making some rather inappropriate changes to Michigan articles. For example, see Grosse Ile Township, Michigan, where township is becoming CDPship. Also, it has been adding Category:Charter townships in Michigan to some articles when there already is a well-populated Category:Charter Townships in Michigan--some apparently duplicate entries. older≠ wiser 01:50, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
There is a similar problem with Dedham, Massachusetts where "town" has been replaced with "census-designated place" or "CDP" everywhere it appears. From what I can tell from the link to "CDP", this is inaccurate, and according to the Town Charter of Dedham [1] "The inhabitants of the Town of Dedham, within the territorial limits established by law, shall continue to be a body corporate and politic under the name 'Town of Dedham.'" -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Is there someplace to list corrections to Census-generated stuff that might help Rambot avoid stepping over already made corrections? For example, Stambaugh, Michigan and Mineral Hills, Michigan merged into Iron River, Michigan in 2000 and are no longer separate municipalities. I removed Category:Cities in Michigan but Rambot re-added it. I have since updated the phrasing (past tense) to make it clearer, so if the bot relies on a specific string, that may be sufficient. older≠ wiser 17:43, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
I believe that the recent edit to Springfield, Missouri changed some factual information about the poverty statistics. I've detailed them on the Talk:Springfield,_Missouri page. Is the new or old version accurate? - Amoore 22:31, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm addressing a person or a machine, but you seen to be insisting that Bartlesville Oklahoma is in Osage County when it is in Washington County
http://www.countycourthouse.org/main.htm
Don't take my word for it, see what the folks that have to say for them selves. life is good - Carptrash 06:18, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A week or two ago, I added id's to each footnote in
Geographic references. I think that you should update rambot to link directly to these, if you have not already done so. (By the way, the footnote number is the text of the id - <sup>1</sup>
became <sup id="1">1</sup>
, etc.) --
ABCD |
Talk 00:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee -- just an FYI, in case you have an opinion on this. older≠ wiser 16:49, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
You've changed all the copyright tags I put on my photos. I'm not entirely sure why as it seems one box is preferable to two. -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:28, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
I'm spamming this complaint around a bit as I'm unsure where the responsibility lies. I have started a discussion on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) regarding the extremely inaccurate geographical statistics I noticed for a couple of coastal cities. (For example, Malibu, California, is about 20 square miles. The Rambot statistics listed it as 101 square miles, and 80% water). Another user has tracked down the problem. It appears to be systemic - coastal areas are computed as if their borders are far out to sea. Can anything be done? The information is worse than useless. Here is what user Ilya reported:
copied from Talk:Santa Monica, California
I notice this change made by the bot. While the original article was indeed wrong in calling Lyndhurst a town, the correction made was, in fact, incorrect. Lyndhurst is a Township. We shouldn't assume that every incorrect reference to town is, in fact, supposed to be a reference to CDP. john k 00:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Furthermore, the bot originally made an article at Lyndhurst Township, New Jersey. This was then merged into the Lyndhurst, New Jersey article when it should have been the other way around. john k 00:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, this is entirely ridiculous - I've now found a town in Connecticut that Ram-Bot changed to a CDP...This really needs to be fixed. john k 23:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the ones in Connecticut are, in fact, legally designated towns, as are all towns in New England, New York, and Wisconsin. At any rate, I know it's not the bot's fault, exactly, but surely it must be somebody's fault that townships in New Jersey were encoded as towns, thus making Ram-Bot now go through and recode them as CDPs...another problem I've noticed is the lack of creation of redirects, leading to people creating pages on towns with no link to the Ram-Bot article on that town. This usually happens with places that are both CDPs and towns, or what not. (Also, Stratford, Connecticut does not seem to have any Ram-Bot entry at all) john k 01:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The census bureau has two entries for Mountain Park, Georgia. One is just a census tract with a seemingly arbitrary name in Gwinnett County (see Mountain Park, Gwinnett County, Georgia). The other is the real city, located about 25 milkes or 40km away in Fulton County, Georgia (see Mountain Park, Fulton County, Georgia). Oddly, that entry was originally under Mountain Park, Cherokee County, Georgia, which is incorrect. I'd like to move the real city to the main article, but I'm not sure how Rambot would take this, or if there is a preferred way to disambiguate in this case. Suggestions? – radiojon 01:56, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)
I have released all of the contribution from the Pearle and Beland accounts into the public domain, which should be compatible with any of the popular copyleft licenses. -- Beland 03:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Rambot has twice changed the formatting of the "External links" header on Long Beach, New York. For some reason it insists on changing to from not have a space between the equals and the words, to having a space between the equals and the words. Not only do I know do this, as it makes no sense, but I have reverted the changes only to have them come back. It also makes no sense that the bot would do it only to "External links". Please stop this from happening. GPHemsley→ ◊ 00:05, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
I previously gave you an idea for using your Rambot to add articles on Canadian communities. Well, I now have a source for the information that Rambot could use to make these articles. It is right here. Denelson83 00:10, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi, Ram-Man. I understand your concerns about the fish articles' references. There were several reasons I made the change. Every fish article should link the FishBase and ITIS references, and both databases have their own Wikipedia articles. For any other sources, I follow normal citation practices, but for these two it is a bit redundant to use the full citation on every single species, genus, family, and order page. A paper Wikipedia should cross-reference the articles on the databases which provide much more information than a bibliographical citation could. I note also that the editors of these databases are much more likely to change than their URLs (at fishbase.org and itis.usda.gov), since one is a major international project and the other is a U.S. Federal government project. There is no consistency in how these two have been cited in Wikipedia in the past, so I was bold and came up with a simple and clear one to use.
BTW, would you be interested in starting a fish project to standardize a format for fish pages? — Tkinias 21:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've put up a draft for WikiProject Fishes. Please take a look and let me know if the proposed citation format will accomplish what you want. — Tkinias 01:04, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I made some suggestions for User:Rambot at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#Maui, Hawaii ? on the problem of Hawaiian CDPs vs. Hawaiian communities. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 08:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I noticed you added a copyright notice on your user page. You can add the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template to your page. You didn't specify the version of the license (it seems to imply that any version will do, which is what the template says). The template will also add your name to the category/list of other users who also use this license. If you don't want to use the template, you should still specify the version(s) of the licenses (or any version). -- Ram-Man 16:21, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Hi there. So, on November 19th, rambot incorrectly relabeled about two dozen articles on Massachusetts towns as CDPs. See the edit history for Wakefield, Massachusetts, for example. I just noticed it today and went in and changed them back, but I only know Massachusetts; it could be that there are towns in other states that got the same treatment and are now incorrectly categorized. I just thought you should know. AJD 01:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the note - I'm going to have to see if I'm really available that day. Living in the suburbs means I need to coordinate taking the train and so on. Anyway, thanks. Andre ( talk) 06:45, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
Just an FYI: I've got a drafty list of fishes to work on at User:Tkinias/Fish; it's just to keep track for my own purposes of some taxa I have or would like to hit, but if you want to peer review or clean up citations check it out. (I wouldn't mind your looking over my prose as a second set of eyes, either...) — Tkinias 17:16, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have dual licensed my own material under CC-BY-SA. I see no need to do that for Robbot, since its changes are all so trivial that I do not consider them copyrightable, and thus being in the public domain by default. - Andre Engels 14:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have added CC-by-SA to my user page. - UtherSRG 17:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is probably going to sound terribly anal. :) I'd like to license my text contributions as PD, but I would like photographs I've taken myself and uploaded to be CC-by-SA. How would I go about wording that? - Hephaestos| § 18:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You give me way too much credit, man. I don't understand hardly a word of what you're asking me to do. Dumb it down, way down. Everyking 19:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have dual licensed my contributions and placed a notice on my user page. older≠ wiser 21:12, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
I used to have a notice on my user page saying that all my text is in the public domain (and whatever I write still is), but what with one thing and another it kept getting lost. It might be an idea to maintain a central list of multiply-licensed contributions rather than putting it on separate user pages... 62.254.128.4 22:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Kate, not logged in)
Hey Ram-Man, I think the only work I have ever done on US city articles is adding a tiny sentence to Lakeland, Florida. So you can do whatever you want with that... Adam Bishop 01:05, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have no problem with licensing my edits in whatever way you want to do it. Rick K 05:47, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
I've put the licence on my user page. jimfbleak 07:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm willing to consider it, but for whatever reason my brain just doesn't seem to grok it all just at the moment. (I'm tempted to blame Effexor.) I'll read up a bit more on it when my synapses are firing properly. Bearcat 00:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've taken your suggestion and multi-licensed my edits into the public domain. Hope this is helpful to you, and thanks for the fine work on the Rambot articles; it's nice to be able to type "So and so was born in [[Small Town, Iowa]]..." with confidence it'll be there. Best, [[User:Meelar| Meelar (talk)]] 04:44, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
This is a very good idea. I've often complained that the GFDL is clunky, and have been chewing on the idea of releasing my edits under a more general license (what you called multi-licensing). I just haven't thought it through to the point of deciding on a license and doing it. I should do so now. Very Verily 09:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Could you check my comments on the Talk page for Template:DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual? Thanks. Rick K 07:13, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
I basically know nothing about licensing, so I asked my brother, who does, and he said it was a good idea, so I added the dual license template to my user page. And I very much agree with Meelar about how convenient the consistent naming is--not having to check every time. Niteowlneils 00:43, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm happy to dual-license my contributions, and I've put the suggested template on my user page. I note that I've been invited because I'm in the top 1000 sexiest/richest/most active wikipedians, I hope this doesn't mean I'll get lots of requests for donations / offers of marriage / missives from Nigerians needing help to transfer encyclopedia articles out of their country. - gadfium 19:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I will release any edits to articles started by Rambot into the public domain. If there are any other types of licensing that would help you let me know. I don't want to release everything into the public domain, but I'm quite willing to grant licenses to people who need them. anthony 警告 22:04, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi Ram-man - thanks for the note; I don't have a clue what all these various different gfdls and ccbycs and pds and so on mean, they're all written in jargonese that I don't understand (I just stick 'gfdl' on my pics because everyone else does), but I'm happy for anyone to use what I put on wikipedia freely however they wish (which is what I thought wikipedia was all about!) . . . does that help at all? What do you think is the most appropriate one to use then? - MPF 20:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes. Lirath Q. Pynnor
I'll dual license. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:27, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
I'd appreciate a clarification. I certainly don't want to release my work into the public domain: Wikipedia mirrors are bad enough, I don't want to encourage an uncredited equivalent. I'm open to pretty much any use that gives attribution. Is there a particular combination that amounts to that? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:06, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
I just dual-licensed my contributions under cc-by-sa. -- Magnus Manske 09:04, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
My works here are placed in the public domain, and I have put the requisite template stuff on my user page. —Morven 18:27, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
I just dual-licensed all my state, county, and city contributions, and added the appropriate template to my user page. Rlquall
I've added Option 1 to my User-Page. Reubenbarton 19:45, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You asked me a question, I answered yes -- connect the dots... Lirath Q. Pynnor
I've chosen PD. I agree with Everyking. Dumb it down in the future. -- user:zanimum
Ive hardly ever contributed to city articles on Wikipedia - its just not my thing, so it doesnt really make much sense to deal with that. Ive left a comment under the vote section for you though. Otherwise I wish you luck. - S V 21:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I would suggest a concurrent drive to list users who want to pd license all of their contributions... in the end it may not matter. Keep in mind that the point of a open license is to "protect" the open use of material from being claimed as property. PD does not carry this kind of protection, and hence it may fly in the face of WP goals, which desires to keep its material under the protection of the GFDL. I may not be entirely clear about that part, but in anycase if you are completely forthright about your intentions it can help your cause. "The fact is that about 90% or so of those people who multi-license their state/county/city articles ALSO multi-license ALL of their main namespace edits." Then IMHO it definitely would be a Good Thing to open a more general drive, and to keep the distinctions between the contexts as firm as contract. Regards - S V 22:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OK, I've now done this. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:34, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Added {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} to my user page. Will a bot update my contributions or do I have to do it? Also, you should do this at the Commons, too. Lots of GFDL and PD images are added to the commons now. -- Chris 73 Talk 23:41, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Hi Ram-Man. I've been thinking about this carefully, and for now I am going to stick with the GFDL for all my contributions. Basically my hopes are on an improved version of the GFDL that fits our needs more closely, and I want to hold out for that for a while longer. I'll be happy to reconsider at a later date. -- sannse (talk) 18:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't think anyone who contributes to Wikipedia can possibly object to re-use of their work, but all this intellectual property stuff makes my head hurt. I can't quite understand how I can give away something I have no claim to in the first place. It seems to me the right answer is to merge GFDL with Creative Commons, but I don't see how one-by-one "freeing" my many contributions to Rambot articles (Did you forget that I was the one who dubbed it the Rambot?) or the thousands of other articles I have added something to (maybe only a comma or an em-dash) will help with the general goal of aligning Wikipedia with the rest of the the "open" world.
I don't want to participate ever again in the sort of messes I got involved in in Talk:Oregon City, Oregon and Talk:Hitler has only got one ball. I guess I'm disinclined to "license" anything if I don't understand what I'm doing. Add me to the list like Sannse just above, get back to me when it's a little clearer. Best regards, Ortolan88 02:33, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've added DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual to my user pages. Sometime I'll go thru all my images & licence them in the same way, although I guess I consider that they are now so licenced, it's just a case of removing the previous GFDL from them. best wishes & good luck to you -- Tagishsimon (talk)
Thanks for the compliment about being in the top 1000 conbtributors. I've added both Public Domain licenses to my User page as requested. I've always operated under this impression anyway. I presume that this is sufficient for Wikitravel? If so, perhaps you need to add Wikitravel-compatible to the Public Domain entries. CC and SA mean nothing to me nor to the legal system where I operate. Ian Cairns 14:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't even think I've written any geographics related article. If you find anything of use, please let me know and I'll think about it again. // Liftarn
I agree to multi-license... WhisperToMe 23:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I added a short sentence on the page. Is this what you were thinking of? WhisperToMe 05:49, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi. First, congratulations on your patience to sacrifice your time for the good of the wiki-community. I thought all we did was for everybody to use and abuse, thats what i like about wikipedia, but apparently not. Can you be kind enough to explain who can not use our stuff? In plain english please because i have no clue what a creative commons license is. Thanks, muriel@pt 14:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why? - Joseph (Talk) 15:10, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
All my stuff is public domain; do whatever the fuck you want with it. -- SPUI 18:25, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've put all of my contributions (except User pages) into the public domain. If I've contributed anything more substantial than italics and em-dashes, they're fair game. :) — tregoweth 19:35, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
I'd like just my main-namespace edits CC-by-SA. What should I do? -- ℛyan! | Talk 00:23, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
I agree to multi-license. - Evil saltine 01:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Add me to the Public Domain users, see my user page, Lou I 10:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I recieved your request @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Article_Licensing. Unfortunately I don't understand the legal ramifications well enough to do anything at this time. I recomend you create a wikipedia namespace page, or better yet a meta-wiki page to explain the situation, and the ramifications of the various options. If I were better informed I would probably agree to doing something, but until I am, I intend to hold off. [[User:Sam Spade| Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I got your spam message as well. I'd like to dual license, but I'd rather not put a big message about it on my user page (which I try to keep short). Are you going to be parsing user pages, or can I put this message (or sign my name) elsewhere? Dori | Talk 18:33, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
One more question, I'd like to dual license the text in the uniform manner as specified, but I usually do the media on a case by case basis. As far as I can tell, adding this message would dual license everything. If it's changed to just the text and permanently protected so that no one could change how I can license just by changing the template, I'll add it (or I'll do it via subst or use my custom message, but it won't be as easy to parse). I might even add that changing the message might invalidate it as it's not the user himself/herself who's agreeing to it. Dori | Talk 18:49, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
What a PITA, I always prefer CC-BY-SA over GFDL actually. Modifications done on my user page. — Joseph | Talk 20:22, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
All photos taken by me are posted cc-sa with the exception of performance photos, which are cc-nc. I have also posted other's work (with permission) as cc-by-sa. I noticed that other commercial encyclopedia sites do not post images if the images are marked with "Wikipedia License cc-sa" or similar. It appears that they are attempting to hide the source of their materials. These sites usually look terrible as they post the large image version only, or only the thumb, with no click through. I may post some personal artwork with cc-by-sa. So am I already covering your request? Leonard G. 20:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Suppose all but one person working on an article releases their contributions under the CC license, does that spoil the article so it can't be reused under that license? It seems like it could be a mess. - Evil saltine 01:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
All my own contribs are multi-licensed; CC-by-sa as well sa GFDL.... some of them are moreover PD. +sj. + 13:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi, Ram-man: I've already thought over the issue of licensing many times, and it gives me a headache. Sorry that I can't be more enthusiastic about this initiative, but I'm going to stick with the GFDL for now. Sewing - talk 15:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the information on my talk page. I hadn't known about the provision of the template that you refer to. Nevertheless, the "unless otherwise stated" language is a little too vague for my taste. My version makes clear that I might limit a multi-license by "so stating in the edit summary and/or on the appropriate talk page and/or here." That rules out a claim by someone that s/he looked in one or two of those places and didn't see anything that "otherwise stated". Therefore, in the (unlikely) event that I want to restrict multi-licensing, I can do it wherever the whim moves me. I assume this works for your purposes of getting licensing for anything I've contributed to the Ram-bot articles. Incidentally, it was when I noticed one of your messages to someone else about multi-licensing that I finally got around to looking at the subject myself, so thanks for the impetus! JamesMLane 19:10, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So if I MultiLicensePD then Wikitravel cannot use it? Leonard G. 20:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding multi-licensing, I'd just like to let you know that I'm not ignoring your query: I simply haven't decided yet. For now, I think I'll stick with the GFDL only, but I'll continue to consider it carefully. At any rate, I wish you the best of luck in your endeavour. -- Hadal 09:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have multi-licensed my text contributions, except for user pages with CC-by-SA. -- Big_Iron 11:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hello Derek, I another question(s) for you. I've been thinking about this during the weekend and got confused again. I understand the use of licensing images i created, but what good will it do if i release *my* written contributions? They are not mine! See War elephant, for example. I wrote it, but now so many people edited it that i hardly recognize my text. What if user B does not release it, either for stubborness or ignorance? Is the article unusable? Which licensing will prevail? The initial writer? The small editor? The vandal that edited and was reverted but is still in the edit history? Does this make any sense? muriel@pt 13:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the message -- I've been thinking about this, but since you reduced the work to do it literally to zero, I jumped on the multi-bandwagon. I now dual-lic all of my contributions. -- Sverdrup
Being a Wikitraveler, I'm going to dual-license, but does that affect images too? In particular Ropey the Cornish Rex is not mine, he belongs to a friend of mine, I just uploaded the picture. - phma 02:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Can i request that the template for PD be changed to look more like the template for CC, because it just looks freaking ugly at the moment, and i feel ashamed to have it on my userpage. CC even has a buton that can be used for PD that says no rights reserved on it. The bellman 02:31, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)
I have chosen not to release my contributions under any license other than the GFDL. Gentgeen 15:20, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have multi-licensed my contributions, except for user pages and images with CC-by-SA Dual. --[[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 17:20, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
I'll stick with the GDFL, thanks. - khaosworks 18:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't care about attribution for my work. But I don't like the idea of (slightly) derivative works being copyrighted so that I can't even use them. So I am going to go with the dual GFDL and CC license. Does this sound right according to my concerns? - Omegatron 19:47, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
I hate licensing issues and like to keep them off my doorstep, 'cause they only take away time I need for creative work. That said, in the high hopes that CC + GFDL will kill off a few lawyers, I have dual-licensed all of my articles. Nixdorf 19:59, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
I have multilicensed my contributions to geographic articles using the template you provided in your message to me. I'm uncertain about releasing all contributions, and will need to take time and learn more about this. I find this a bit confusing, I admit. Jwrosenzweig 20:43, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I added {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} to my user page. – Quadell ( talk) ( help)[[]] 19:32, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
When I added {{NoMultiLicense}} to my userpage I must not have been thinking straight! A government job will do that to you sometimes... :-) -- David Iberri | Talk 23:04, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Is there a tag I can use to put my changes to Rambot pages into the public domain? These are insubstantive enough that I don't feel any need to retain ownership of them. In fact, I'd really like to place all my changes that aren't linked from my user page into the public domain. I don't think this is legally sound though, because removing a link from that page would amount to pulling the changes out of the public domain, which is not possible. What's your advice? Thanks. Deco 00:29, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi Ram Man. Thank you for your note on my page. It was nice of you to consider me on this thing yo-u have in mind.
I prefer to stay under GFDL, because I like the fact that everyone can enjoy my articles, and hopefully someone could translate them into other languages soon too.
Thanks and God bless you!
Sincerely yours, " Antonio Margaritas and Senoritas Martin"
I'm going with {{MultiLicensePD}}. Filiocht 14:53, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
Hi! I've read your proposal and I don't think it applies to my way of licencing photos. So far I've put (very approx) 1200 pics on WP and about 95 percent of those are taken with my own camera so I simply put the {{PD}} template on the Image Description Page and make them all PD. Of the remaining five percent most are from US Government sources so those are PD as well. So are your proposals relevant to me? Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 14:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is non-trivial. I would like a combination of things.
I think GFDL covers it? Rich Farmbrough 14:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I chose Option 2. -- Daniel C. Boyer 16:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is surprisingly complicated in its implications, but I decided to dual-license, and decided against plain-jane public-domain. Thanks for taking this on. Antandrus 16:29, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Chose option 1 - CC is a great licensing scheme. -- Zappaz 16:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Chose option 2. -- Zigger 18:51, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
I understand your reason for adding the various multi-licensing categories to my user page, but I think that barrage of category links at the top looks a little distracting. Is there a way to retain the categorizations but not have them displayed, or to move them to the bottom? If not, I can live with them the way they are now. JamesMLane 18:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't consider anything I do on wikipedia to be my own private property, so if your proposal is just about making it available more broadly I can't object! Slrubenstein 18:21, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for informing me. Arvindn 21:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've added a message to my user page giving my licensing information. -- [[User:Djinn112| Djinn112 ♠♥♣♦,]] 01:44, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
I've done dual CC/GFDL, but only with Option #2 for US cities/towns/counties for the moment. I want to see what happens with this limited experiment before going the whole way. -- Lexor| Talk 14:24, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
I took option 1. Sortior 18:23, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
I'm still confused about the difference between the three. Can you make a short summary of PD, GFDL, and CC and put them in this FAQ. I'm thinking of PD, but I don't really understand the implications. - Omegatron 18:33, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
I have dual-licensed all my contributions, per your request. Good luck with your drive, and feel free to delete this message. Nohat 18:37, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ram-Man, would you kindly hop over to User:Arpingstone and see if I've done the PD licencing for text correctly. Thanks - Adrian Pingstone 18:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I hereby agree to {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}. I put the notice on my user page.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:52, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
I prefer using PD because I do not want to place any restrictions on further use. -- AlainV 19:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I will not release my work with less than GFDL. I'm not getting paid for the stuff I write, and I don't want someone else to profit from it while claiming they wrote it. I also don't want people to restrict the rights of the downstream users of the work you have done, but I wonder why you contributed it without understanding the implications of the GFDL. Christopher Mahan 19:32, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for the note. I have done the {{MultiLicensePD}} option. I am no longer here, so I am keen for people to have the best possible access. Regards,
Nevilley 21:11, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
from BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC): All due respect, this is what I have to say: Template:NoMultiLicense
As a proud member of "the 1000", I chose the PD option. Thanks all your hard work in this area. Ellsworth 21:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me a kick on this one- I'd seen the templates but never understood the significance. One request: any chance of an officially-sanctioned International English template that knows the difference between licence and license? adamsan 21:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described: Template:DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual. Vaoverland 22:11, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm all for this, Ram-Man. I had no idea I was in the top 1,000. Anyway, count me in for Option 1. Stombs 22:25, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. Unfortunately, somehow I just can’t get rid of the impression that all of those other licences are a restriction in some sense compared to the current one. Also, I think that if e.g. Wikitravel wants to use whole articles from the Wikipedia - why they just do not make a link to the Wikipedia then ? , and if they want to use only some of the Wikipedia information - such a copyright "infringement" is conducted every second in the world and is no real copyright infringement... Juro 22:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. I'll go for the dual license. See my user page :) Pakaran (ark a pan) 22:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your message, but I think I'll stick with the GFDL at this time. I wish you the best with your endeavors! -[[User:Frazzydee| Frazzydee| ✍]] 23:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hiya.. just dropping a line to let you know that I am perfectly cool with this dual-licensing project and have added the appropriate notices to my user page, and added myself to the List of supporters. Cheers! — Stormie 23:08, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
I have released all my text contributions into the public domain. DCEdwards1966 23:37, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
I release all changes I have made to Rambot-originated articles into the public domain. silsor 23:43, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
I'd prefer GFDL myself. One question, too. Does "Articles" in this context include the images within them? Because I gove all my photos the "nocommercial|provided" tag, and have used other photos from the Wikipedia image archive which are not public domain. If photos are part of articles, I cannot grant those articles CC-by-sa status. [[User:Grutness|
Grutness
talk
]] 23:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
____
Hi there! I just saw your note on my talk page. Now I'm confused. Every article contains this notice at the bottom: All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Wikipedia:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. I've always taken that to mean that by default, I do not own the copyright on anything I write, and that it is all PD. Am I wrong? If so, I have no objection at all to licensing my work as you suggest. I'll spend some time studying the options and will get back to you. David Cannon 23:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, Ram-Man. However, I only look at articles on Canadian cities and towns. Denelson83 00:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have only edited a few city articles, so that is not much of an issue for me. However, I have released all of my contributions into the public domain. I don't think that I or anyone else on Wikipedia will get anything more than an ego boost from having their material copyrighted, especially since I and many other contributors do not use our real names on Wikipedia. Anyone who really cares who wrote my articles can go to Wikipedia and check their version. Academic Challenger 00:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
All of my contributions are fully in the public domain. I do not reserve any rights. -- Sesel 00:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For now at least, I prefer to keep my contributions under the GFDL. I believe it is well enough established at this point that similar, interested projects can be expected to find a way to handle content that has been released under it. Even free and open approaches need standards. Thanks! Rdikeman 01:13, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Dual licensing is fine by me; I've agreed to dual-license all of my contributions. (I'm still not convinced how practical this drive is, given the number of contributors to Wikipedia, but oh well.) —Steven G. Johnson 02:50, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the extra note Ram-Man: I've put my licence in. Stombs 04:01, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
What if I translate something from another Wikipedia? Multilicensing would be misleading since the only appliable license would be that of the other-language article. -- Error 02:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There are no provisions for multilicensing with CC-SA, are there? I may like it for articles, not for pics. -- Error 02:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I want my work to be credited and everyone can use them for free, but not release them in other more restrict license (which means anyone who uses my work should guarantee the derived copies can be used for free), is that called “CC-by-SA”? I will think about again that later. But actually, I don’t think there are any articles completely written by me. So we’d better ask other contributors. -- Yacht (talk) 03:38, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep my contributions under the GFDL for the time being, although I would be willing to consider a change at some point in the future. CJCurrie 03:52, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No
Solicitation
Thanks to your notice regarding article licensing, I have been motivated to add a new template which I have applied to my talk page, which I will include here. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 04:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In response to your poke, I've decided to multi-license minor edits as PD and other edits as CC-by-sa. (I considered going to PD but am not sure whether I want to make my contributions to Wikipedia that open just yet.) -- pne 14:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi there! Yes, I'm going to be to the meetup in new york. I hope you are, too. See my user page for a phone # where you can reach me this weekend...
I'm also writing to a lot of wikipedia users to see if they are interested in taking a survey about how and when and why they wikipedialize :) I see you are very active these days, and sending around notices about licensing which would be well-suited to part of the survey; would you like to coordinate our outreach efforts? +sj + 05:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your invitation to multi-license my work. The only licensing change I'm willing to make is to release into the public domain all of my minor edits. How do I do this? — Vespristiano 05:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The only work I've done to geographic articles has been minor edits, which aren't copyrightable. The other stuff I am not prepared to make any decisions on right now. Maurreen 06:05, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have decided to multi-liscense my edits both in the GFDL and the Public Domain. I think this is probably the most suitable course of action for me. →Iñgólemo← (talk) 06:12, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
I'm setting all my contributions, with a couple of exceptions (my user page and my images), as public domain. Thanks for bringing the issue to my attention; I had been wondering about it. - Branddobbe 06:21, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Seems fine to me, I added the dual-license notice on my user page. I added however the notice that some of my contributions are copied from other GFDL sources, such as [2]. This means I cannot change the license of these contributions.
Donar Reiskoffer 07:44, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've read Cretive Commons a bit more thoroughly, and have gone dual. Rich Farmbrough 13:03, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Me too; may go public domain later. TOttenville8 14:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I like the GFDL. It's a simple straightforward system. The multi-licensing probably has some merits but it looks too complicated. I feel in my gut there must be a simpler way.
-- wayland 13:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi.
My first reaction to this was that it is a great idea, after all I came to Wikipedia via Wikitravel and I'm still an ocassional contributor there. I have added the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template to my user page.
However I have also just read both Wikipedia:Multi-licensing and the Wikitraval equivalent article ( Dual licensing) and I'm no longer so sure. Wikitravel seems to be discouraging dual licencing on the grounds it hinders collaboration, and they seem to reckon that a derivative work (ie. any article with more than one contributor) cannot be dual-licenced anyway. The Wikipedia version is more upbeat, but there still seems to be so many barriers that I wonder if dual-licencing will ever bring any practical benefit.
A further thought is that the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template only seems to apply to text. If I have also contributed images (that I own the copyright on), I guess I also need to dual licence these too. As far as I can see the only way of doing this is to add all three of {{GFDL}}, {{cc-by-sa}} and {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} to the image page.
I'd appreciate your comments on this. -- Chris j wood 14:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have dual liscenced all of my contributions. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 15:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi Ram-man, I added the option 1 template to my user page. Alfio 15:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've added the dual licence template to my user page. I would like clarification on images - I contribute a lot, what do I need to do about those?
Theresa Knott
(The snott rake) 15:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your invitation, but I am afraid I have to decline. My reason is the unresolved " incompatible fork" problem. Much as I admire your effort, I can't see how the situation can be cleanly resolved other than by a modification of the GFDL to make it compatible with CC-By-SA. Thanks again, Kosebamse 15:53, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for replying to my query about the spelling. I've linked to from the Templates page to a nascent list of alternative spellings I'm working on. adamsan 19:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I had no idea I was in the top 2000. I still don't think I am. Regardless... Can you explain to me what exactly is the incompatibility between GFDL and CC-BY-SA?
The idea of having to multi-license works foretells a nightmare of having to release everything we do with a veritable cluttered patchwork of licenses.
Besides, if GFDL and CC-BY-SA are incompatible, isn't there then a conflict between using two licenses? Does it truly imply the freedom of both, or does it imply the restrictions of both?
Furthermore... Why would it not be enough for me to singly license everything with CC-BY or CC-BY-SA? Lastly, would it be possible simply to draw up a new license that was compatible with both, and just use that?
Thanks, [[User:KeithTyler| Keith D. Tyler [ flame]] 00:42, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)