User talk:Ram-Man/archive4

ArbCom elections

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 might consider it if the workload is low. Part of the problem is that I go through phases on inactivity. A few months on, a few months off. As such, I am a bit unreliable. That's part of the reason that, aside from becoming an administrator a long while ago, I have not taken a large role in Wikipedia politics. As the term is for 6 months, I may be unable to serve for such a time in a reliable capacity. I believe I have the skills and would make a good candidate in all areas except a reliable long-term, continuous presence. -- Ram-Man 19:52, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Question on marking dual-licensed edits and/or material

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

I responded on the meta page. -- Ram-Man 20:21, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Creative Commons

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)

Map licensing

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)

Ok. Done. Thanks. Catbar (Brian Rock) 01:27, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Licensing

Option 2

I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. State article, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

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)

Yes the exception was a dumb copy and paste error. That exception phrase should be removed. As for the templates, we already use templates, but there are many variations to the each users choice for special exclusions. For instance, I personally limit my dual-licensing to main and main talk namespaces, while leaving the GFDL for all other namespaces. And I permit all minor edits into the public domain. There are so many variations that it would yield for many many templates. Instead it is up to people to check the user pages to look for exceptions. -- Ram-Man 15:16, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Dual-licensing county maps

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)

Thanks for the clarification. I agree, the county maps in particular are not likely to be radically improved such that I would wish that the alterations be GFDLed; my concern, I suppose, is that I have released, or plan to release under GFDL, source material that has required a lot of work (for example, if/when I eventually post the blender scene file for my automobile diagrams) - in those cases I would prefer the requirement that further modifications also be subject to the GFDL. I'd be kind of annoyed if, say, hypothetically, an automobile manufacturer used my modified blender model in a car commercial without giving anything back to the community (assuming I understand the terms correctly). Were I to dual-license, it would most likely be for specific contributions, rather than all of my contributions collectively. If that is a possibility, then I would agree to dual-license the county map images. I trust there is a way to do so without adding the dual-license to all 5,000 of them :-) -- Wapcaplet 18:24, 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)

Rambot problem

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 have modified the bot to eliminate the error on my end and I will fix it on the next fun. -- Ram-Man 13:30, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Another Rambot problem

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)

Thank you. I will modify the bot accordingly. -- Ram-Man

We have a problem

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)

I'll have the rambot fix the "Charter Township" vs. "Charter township" problem. Unfortunately the well populated "Charter Townships" version does not match with standard naming practices, as it is not a proper name. So now that I think about it, I believe the rambot has chosen the correct choice and the other one should be phased out. So until this is resolved, I will do nothing, as I can fix it either way.

Ok, so the other problem is fairly straightforward. It seems that there is a Grosse Ile, Michigan (a CDP) and Grosse Ile Township, Michigan. The former was redirected to the latter because they are the same place. So there is a CDP and a Township which are exactly the same and I don't know why the census bureau chose to do it that way. But it is not inaccurate to call it a "...census-designated place and township...". What is wrong is the "CDPship", which is easy enough to fix in the next run over with the bot. This should be good enough to fix this problem. -- Ram-Man 02:17, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

If the CDP is identical to a legal municipality, I see little point to keeping the CDP label. I mean the CDPs are an artificial Census construct to begin with. They have little meaning to general readers except as they represent something real, like a community or municipality. If they are identical, I see little point to keeping both labels. older≠wiser 04:06, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

It is not trivial to know when two entities are identical because users have merged articles and the like and I don't have any way of tracking that. In the case where "town" was changed to something else, both the something else and CDP are used together, which is not offensive. If someone doesn't like it, they can remove it, but CDP should probably stay with the statistics if that is what those statistics represent. We shouldn't just not use CDP because we don't like it if it matches the statistics associated with it. In the cases where the article still said town, see my comment below. -- Ram-Man 04:36, 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)

I'll respond to both of you in general. When the rambot created all of the articles it converted CDP to town. Now town has a specific legal meaning that may or may not be valid. However, CDP is always going to be accurate. It was a mistake to do it that way, but it happened and it had to be fixed. Now in order to fix it, all town references (correct or wrong) had to be turned into CDP. Now this may put us back a little, but where it stands now is that we have to take all of the articles where the correct wording IS town, and change it back. The rambot will never again change town to CDP, as it has done this completely and the fix is done forever. It is unfortunate and there are over 5,000 CDPs, but I can't think of another solution. -- Ram-Man 04:28, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Two things. First, the edits to change "CDPship" back to "township" actually removed a space so it changed them to say "thetownship" (I think I manually editted one, but figured it might be better if I left the bot fix these). Second, in cases where the CDP is identical to an existing municipality, I think it is confusing for general readers to place CDP terminology in a prominent place like the intro. Perhaps an unobtrusive note somewhere, but just not so prominent as in the first sentence. older≠wiser 13:30, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Also, Rambot has been adding a few township articles in Michigan to Category:Unincorporated communities in Michigan--I do not think this is appropriate. The townships are not unincorporated although they may contain unincorporated communities. older≠wiser 13:39, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Also, despite what the Census Bureau says, De Witt County, Illinois is known locally as DeWitt County, Illinois. older≠wiser 13:48, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Alas, I'll fix the "thetownship" to "the township". You think after so many attempts I would stop doing stupid little mistakes. At least they are easy to fix. The only case where the rambot would add Category:Unincorporated communities in Michigan would be if the article already contained " is an unincorporated community in " in the article itself. It's attempting to auto-categorize and put in missing categories. In these cases I don't see how that would be wrong, however, give me an example and I'll see what went wrong. -- Ram-Man 16:25, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

For example, see Alcona Township, Michigan or Bunker Hill Township, Michigan. I have added lists of communities to townships, which often include unincorporated communities. older≠wiser 16:57, Nov 20, 2004

Ok, i've modified the bot to be more restrictive in the auto-categorization attempts. If it makes any more changes in Michigan, I'll have to check them all (although I'm almost done). Hopefully this will fix the problems. -- Ram-Man 17:18, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Errata

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)

If the rambot sees "is a city", it will think it is a city because the article said it was a city! Since you changed it to "was a city", the rambot will not add the city category because it is not a city anymore, it was a city. Your changes to the article are sufficient to cause the rambot to skip over it, and this should be done in the future. The rambot will still maintain the two old articles, but it shouldn't interfere with the categories or the new city name. You are absolutely correct in thinking the updated phrasing would fix it. Besides, the updating phrasing is much prefered anyway. BTW, thanks for all your help in checking the rambot's accuracy. Sometimes it takes weeks or months to find little tiny errors. At least we don't have to do anything major like the town -> CDP fix again. -- Ram-Man 18:05, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Springfield, Mo Poverty Edit

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)

Bartlesville OK

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)

Geographic references

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)

Yes, that page is in my watchlist and I noticed you changing it. The bot has already performed updates in that nature and is done! Thanks for thinking of doing that. -- Ram-Man 01:09, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know -- ABCD | Talk 21:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee

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)

Image copyright tags

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)

Extremely inaccurate geographical statistics

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

What about this map? It looks like the city is going into the water by quite a bit. I know that's not the best map, but perhaps this is how area is calculated in census area calculations. -- Ilya 00:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Bot in New Jersey.

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)

The rambot changing incorrect town into CDP would inevitably cause this type of problem. There was no way around this. The fact of the matter is that Lyndhurst, New Jersey is a CDP. The bot changed the incorrect town into CDP. If it should have been township, that is hardly the fault of the bot! The fact of the matter is that around 5,000 or so CDP entries were incorrectly orginally created to say "town", when in fact town has a specific legal meaning depending on the state. It is not a generic term, as I mistakenly assumed. As such, it was agreed that the town had to be changed to CDP. Now it is possible that some of the mistakenly labeled towns are actually towns and not some other designation. The important thing is not to change CDP to town unless we specifically know that it is a legally designated town, or else we will be introducing a factual error into Wikipedia. -- Ram-Man 00:49, Nov 29, 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)

If I might interject here, the problem arises because the Census Bureau created essentially duplicate entries for many townships (and CT, NY, and WI towns for that matter as well). So in many of these cases Rambot created two articles, one for the township and one for the CDP. You can see this in the deleted page history of Lyndhurst Township, New Jersey (unfortunately, it seems that the content of the CDP article was kept and merged rather than the township article). So Lyndhurst is defined by the Census Bureau as a CDP, that happens to be identical to Lyndhurst Township. Rambot orginally described the CDPs as towns, leading to the present confusion. I suggest moving the reference to the CDP under the demographics section heading something like Waterford Township, Michigan. BTW, the situation is analogous with Stratford. The Census data is in Stratford, Fairfield County, Connecticut. older≠wiser 02:01, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Mountain Park, Georgia

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)

Geographic article licensing

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)

Formatting of "External links"

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)

Follow-up on Rambot and Canadian cities

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)

Thanks, I'll file this information away for the potential to do more with it later! -- Ram-Man 01:56, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

FishBase & ITIS

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)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fishes

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)

Hawaiian CDPs

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)

CC-by-sa

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)

Thanks for reminding me - I had been meaning to use the template, but I don't treat my user page as a high priority. It's done now. --rbrwr ^± 18:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rambot errors, 11/19/04

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)

"Town" does have a particular legal meaning in Massachusetts, and I'm certainly aware that the rambot originally (mis)labeled all CDPs as towns. That's why I spent a couple of months going through all the Massachusetts CDP articles by hand and removing "town" from all of them, usually relabeling them as "village" if I found a reference to them as such (see Onset, Massachusetts, for example). And that's why I found it frustrating to see the rambot come in and do the same to several actual towns. Now, as for knowing that they are actual towns, I admit I've been making an assumption, and that's that the census releases data for every incorporated municipality—and that therefore if there's only one rambot article under the name of a particular town it's actually referring to the incorporated town itself. (In the event that there are two rambot articles under the name of the town, such as Spencer (town), Massachusetts and Spencer (CDP), Massachusetts, there's clearly no problem.) I can go and verify these one at a time with the demographic data for each town to be found at mass.gov, but I have no doubt that they'll all be correct for the towns. Also, why did the rambot only relabel some two dozen actual towns as CDPs? There are plenty of other towns (such as Ashby, Massachusetts) that it didn't touch. AJD 17:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note I made a comment related to AJD's original note on User_talk:Ajd#rambot.

NYC Meetup

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)

Fishes

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)

Article licensing

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)

Ok, well, if I had any objections to people freely using my work I wouldn't be here, so I put the message on my user page. Everyking 22:24, 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)

PS should I change the tags on the handful of city-related pics and maps I've contributed? Niteowlneils 02:48, 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)

I have basically the same thing to say as MPF - I don't have any idea what you're talking about or what you want me to do :) But I will stick the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template on my page, I guess. Adam Bishop 20:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Does that help to explain it?" - not really! But I'm happy to change to whichever is best! - MPF 22:00, 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 like for more than just the rambot articles to be multi-licensed, it is just that I want to focus my attention on the first goal while always striving for the second."

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)

FWIW, on the User:rambot page all of those who specifically restrict their license to just the state/county/city articles are listed with an "*". I am fully aware of the problems with Public Domain, the problem is that a good number of people choose it, even though I warn them of it and suggest in all the examples that they use the CC license. In the end people can do what they want with their copyright. I personally don't use PD for my contributions (except certain minor edits). Wikipedia cannot stop people from releasing their own copyrighted material into the PD, even if it goes against what Wikipedia stands for. Any multi-licensing at all is controversial to a number of people, so they opt out, which is fully within their rights. I've found that some people are just plain uncomfortable with licensing all of their edits, but they don't have a problem licensing the state/county/city articles. Opening a general drive runs the risk of stepping on too many toes too soon. If we had 95% of users multi-licensed, then it would make sense to discuss an open drive to multi-license all of Wikipedia, but even that has major problems. In the end, I state my case for why I want the rambot articles multi-licensed. If they feel comfortable giving more than that, fine. I don't see a need for a more concentrated effort to multi-license all of Wikipedia's edits, but nothing is stopping other people from attempting this. You should note that this is JUST the english Wikipedia, so it will be next to impossible to ever change Wikipedia to a different license. -- Ram-Man 22:39, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. IMHO, its important to (at least in your own mind) keep that firewall between the two—maybe that will help you in the first goal —regardless of your eye toward the second. It should also keep your wikistress level down. :) I hope my comments have not added any, and may help you refine your approach. (The mailer you sent out was way too long...) Regards -==S V 19:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've now done this. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:34, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I think the GFDL is sufficient. Anything else is overcomplication, and I think will not work. Dunc|☺ 23:06, 30 Nov 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)

You don't have to do anything. Multi-licensing is somewhat passive on your part in that it is up to the person wanting to use your contributions to figure out what is eligible. -- Ram-Man 01:40, Dec 1, 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)

No problem. If the project gets far enough I'll ask again, but not before.--Ram-Man 20:32, Dec 1, 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)

Thanks for your explanation. I will of course multi-license the whole thing. Best regards, muriel@pt 15:12, 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'm with Sam on this one. What is the difference? If GFDL is free and open, then the Travel group cannot use because...it is commercial? - Marshman 17:46, 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)

That's a good point. You know the templates are really supposed to be for textual contributions only. When images are uploaded, it is Wikipedia policy to always add a licensing tag to every image, thus they must be done on a case-by-case basis. I will work on the templates to make them more specific to NOT include media files. Many people explicitly state which namespaces apply, which eliminates this problem (e.g. in Option #1 and #2 of the spam message). I've modified the templates to clarify them. I am never ADDING anything to the templates. At worst I would not be including their full wishes, but this is not a serious problem I think. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 18:52, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

BTW you should add exclusions and narrowly specify exactly what you want before the template itself. All these templates are protected so only someone with sysop access can edit them. So far I have been editing them a number of times, but the licensing goal should not have changed, only been clarified. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 19:02, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I've added User:Dori/Copyrights Dori | Talk 07:20, Dec 4, 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)

Re: your posting on my talk: See my talk (User talk:Leonard G.) for my last words on the subject, at least until it is addressed at a higher level. Leonard G. 20:45, 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)

No, public domain releases your copyright and says that anyone can do anything with your contributions and release it under any license. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 20:32, Dec 6, 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 contributions, except for user pages and images with CC-by-SA 2.0. --timc | Talk 03:27, 9 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 again! muriel@pt 14:23, 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)

Feel free to make a mockup of a replacement or suggest something on the template's talk page. I couldn't possibly know exactly what you'd like! -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 03:36, Dec 8, 2004 (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)

That is correct. But in reality so long as only some people use public domain, the risk of a Wikipedia fork is relatively non-existant because most articles will be edited by at least one person using CC-by-sa (or the GFDL only). – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 20:10, 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 concur. - Omegatron 21:01, Dec 9, 2004 (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)

I've done the same. ugen64 21:42, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Me too. Fuelbottle | Talk 00:21, 9 Dec 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)

Hey, thanks for your advice, but it seems to be that the entire idea of multi-licensing under GFDL and public domain is outright silly. Once I have released something into the public domain, I hold no rights or control over it; put another way, multi-licensing under two licenses imposes only the restrictions imposed by both, and PD imposes none. Also, the {{MultiLicensePDMinor}} template doesn't exist. Should I take this complaint to some project page? Thanks. Deco 21:11, 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)

Further to what I've written above I've now read the FAQ and am quite happy to take the risk of other sites or individuals re-licencing my PD pics. So, unless you can persuade me otherwise, I'll keep my PD tag. Thanks - Adrian Pingstone 14:13, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is non-trivial. I would like a combination of things.

No wholesale [commercial use|hijacking] of the Wikipedia.
Credit directly or indirectly through wikihistory.
No real restriction on information which has been digested by sentients.
Er... thats it.

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)

Thanks for your suggestion. I should've thought of that. All the licensing stuff has now been appropriately ghettoized to User:JamesMLane/Licensing, with a brief reference and link on my main user page. JamesMLane 18:42, 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)

Option 1: I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages,
—wwoods 00: 51, 10 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)

More Licensing Talk

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)

If it's PD no one else can copyright it, right? - Omegatron 19:13, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Not exactly. If someone, such as myself, takes your contribution in the public domain and I want to use it somewhere else (like WikiTravel), then when I copy it into a new location and possibly make some changes to it, I have made a derivative work, which I would then own the copyright to and would release it under the CC-by-sa (which is required by WikiTravel). On the other hand, nothing is stopping me from ALSO releasing that change into the public domain if I choose, and then I would not own the copyright, but that becomes my choice. This is, of course, the biggest tradeoff with using the public domain. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 19:37, Dec 9, 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

Your user page states that your edits are in the public domain. Many users agree with you and choose to do that instead of multi-licensing with the CC-by-sa, which is perfectly acceptable. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 21:51, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

All of my edits are in the public domain. I go beyond GFDL. I don't wish to complicate legal and licensing issues here at Wikipedia. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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)

License (U.S.) and Licence (British) are both perfectly fine to use. I probably use both of them interchangeably. I don't want to touch that issue with a ten foot pole though. Be my guest! – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 22:30, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

While I do some original writing from my personal knowledge and recollection, most of what I write for Wikipedia is compiled from multiple sources, including other Wikipedia articles, books, magazines and periodicals, special collections, information including some special collections held by organizations such as Virginia Historical Society, Library of Virginia, West Virginia Historical Society, Virginia Tech, University of Virginia, and many others. I also do a lot of web searches looking for specific information. Depending upon my perception of the veracity of the information source, I try to verify something from more than a single source before including it in an article. I also look further when I find conflicting information, which usually amounts to misspelling or incorrect dates, particularly on older subjects and sources. I am grateful for the access I have to the writing of others.

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)

I am going to go a little wide here. I am not an attorney, but have worked with many on many issues, especially liability ones. I suspect that the wording on the header page is part of an attempt by WP to establish public domain status. By agreeing to adding additional in our users pages, we will help WP and our work survive legal challenges which perhaps have not even surfaced yet. I think it is wise to try to be on as firm ground as possible in such matters, as those would would challenge will weigh the situatioin before attacking or deciding that they can make a buck by attacking. I feel sure that most us can agree taking the high ground before an attack. Vaoverland 01:10, 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)

Translations

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)

CC-SA

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)

Re: Article Licensing

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)

Soliciting, surveys

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)

Fair enough. I'll add a question about it, at least, with a link to your description of your current push. +sj +

Multi-licensing minor edits

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)

Not now

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)

Liscensing my edits

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)

Licensing

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)

creative commons

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)

Gone Dual.

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)

copyright

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)

Dual Licence

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.

WikiTravel is warning about the problems with Multi-licensing because it is inherently one-way. It does not hinder collaboration in one direction, but works on a form of an honor system. I personally believe that it is more important that we collaborate with others than that they collaborate with us. I'm not going to wait for them to make the first step, I'm going to make it and hope that they follow.

They are, however, incorrect that articles with multiple contributors cannot be multi-licensed. I could go into a long confusing explanation if you want, but since you own the copyright to your individual contributions, you can license them however you want and if all of the individual contributions are under the same multi-license, they are available under that multi-license. It is the same concept that we would have if we wanted to change Wikipedia's license.

There is lots of benefit! For instance, now that many of the rambot articles are multi-licensed, I can use the information in those articles to improve the WikiTravel articles on various U.S. places. And you could do it too. Sure, the WikiTravel articles will be CC-by-sa v.1.0, but you can choose at WikiTravel to multi-license back to Wikipedia, thus ensuring full colaboration. And there is a small chance that Wikipedia might some day be CC-by-sa or at least an improved GFDL, thus improving collaboration some more. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 14:33, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

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.

Wikipedia policy mandates that you add those templates to the image anyway, but you can add a quick sentence on your user page that explicitly includes images as well as text articles in your multi-licensing. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 14:33, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your comments on this. -- Chris j wood 14:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

dual liscence

I have dual liscenced all of my contributions. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 15:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Multi licensing

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)

Multi-licensing

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)

Well even Jimbo Wales has himself worked to try and get the FSF to improve the GFDL, but so far without success. If that fails, we may be forced to change our license from GFDL to CC-by-sa, although right now the probability of this is very low. Strictly speaking that would be an incompatible fork, but not really so badly if most users agree to change their license. In any case, would an incompatible fork be so bad? Is it such a crime if people want to try and share their knowledge but use a different license of their choice? Who are we to say that if you want to have a truely open and free encyclopedia that you have to use the GFDL? In reality it is unlikely that another encyclopedia could become more popular than Wikipedia, but if it did, it would probably be because the CC-by-sa has less problems than the GFDL. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 16:58, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely don't want to tell anybody what license to use (in fact I think GFDL is not the best choice), but I would like to see things being kept compatible. We should be very careful not to provoke a split or fork if at all possible. Every fork jeopardizes the quality of our work, because "given enough eyeballs..." works only if there are enough eyeballs. I personally would not much care if my contributions were taken and used under an incompatible license. However, the one scenario that looks seriously unpleasant is that some dual-licensed content is improved under a CC license with no dual-license provisions - as I understand it we would not be able to make further use of it under the GFDL. I know that Jimbo has approached the FSF to discuss the compatibility issues, but am not aware of the outcome. If the FSF made it clear that there will not be a compatible version of the GFDL, I would not hesitate and try everything to get rid of it, but as long as that question is not decided, I think it would be best to keep things simple and stick with the GFDL. I might change my mind in the future, but would prefer to know more about the state of negotiations before I do. Regards, Kosebamse 19:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good. You are not alone in the desire for an improved GFDL. If I hear of some change in status, I'll let you know. Maybe I'll ask Jimbo myself at the WikiMeet on Sunday in NYC. Thanks for your thoughts on this matter. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 19:36, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Much the same for me. I've no objections with CCbySA per-se but as Wikipedia uses GFDL, I'll keep my contributions within that domain for now - it makes things much simpler. I would indeed like to see Wikipedia's licensing change (and more rigidly enforce/declare author attribution requirements), but of course, I think on Wikipedia only subsequent GFDL versions can be retroactively applied. zoney ♣ talk 16:54, 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)

OK - I have added MultiLicensePD to my UserPage Jeff Knaggs 22:36, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Requesting more detail

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)