Archives
Article Licensing
Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...
- ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
- ...all articles...
using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public ___domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. So far over 90% of people who have responded have done this.
- Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public ___domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
- Option 1
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
- Option 2
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public ___domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. It's important to know, even if you choose to do anything so I don't keep asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 14:38, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
"Proprietary" games
Please don't take this as an attack, but can I ask why there is a category "proprietary games" that you are putting listings into? Presuming it means non-open source, that's going to be an enormous category (i.e. nearly every game ever released), and I think that's a bad idea.
If that's not what it means, could you explain it? Thanks! --Tubedogg 05:29, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry for not replying sooner. You have the right idea with respect to the purpose of the category. I have temporarily stopped putting articles into this category because you brought up this point. However, enormous categories are not necessarily bad; for example see Category:People. Thank you for being especially polite. --Ellmist 05:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- True, though in Category:People, they are sorted into sub-categories...maybe instead of assigning games directly to Category:Proprietary software games we should assign game genre categories to it. The only problem with that is it doesn't (presently) differentiate between proprietary and open source, but are there really that many open-source games? I can't think of any off the top of my head. --Tubedogg 06:15, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Genre subcategories are a great idea when there is an obvious genre. --Ellmist 06:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Could you please direct your efforts on Open Source/Proprietary SW somewhere else but Games? There is no specific purpose towards categorising games in these two specific ones, other than Open Source/Proprietary. This would mean that 99.9% of all games would enter into Proprietary games. It might make more sense to only have a specific category of Open Source games.BFunk 08:48, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
My own suggestion
I also noticed the category. Aside from being a lot of work, it's terribly inspecific. Games such as Monopoly or Risk are also proprietary. If you wish to continue categorizing computer games by their licence, I would suggest using a category named Category:Proprietary software games as an analogue to Category:Free software games. Just my thoughts. Otherwise, you should consider putting the category up for deletion.
- --Alexwcovington 05:55, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You have convinced me to rename the category to Category:Proprietary software games. --Ellmist 05:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I still think the category does not belong at all because it is almost entirely, if I may be so frank, useless. Moreover, the very definition of a "proprietary game" is unclear. For example, Doom is both open-source and proprietary! It is open-source because the code to the engine is released under the GPL, which is for all intents and purposes the entire code of the game, yet Doom is proprietary because the WAD file that contains the game content is protected by copyright under a non-free license. What exactly do you hope to accomplish by making a category of proprietary computer games? For example, why not just make a category of video games, period? 99.9% of the games there would be proprietary, making a separate category for proprietary games seem rather silly. Moreover, who would benefit from this category? Nobody I can think of. So why bother? - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:31, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sorry that it took so long to reply. I agree that this category should be deleted because the response has been overwhelmingly negative and the viewpoints respectable. --Ellmist 06:14, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My suggestion too
I think that it would make more sense to have the general category Category:Computer games have a subcategory Category:Open-source computer games. Information that a particular game is proprietary is simply not very useful, while information that the game is OSS can be useful. Paranoid 16:30, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Without reply from Ellmist I propose reverting all his edits and removing the proprietary games category. BFunk 13:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Swedish County maps
Hi! I just noticed your comment on my talk page about the map of Gävleborg county. Your concerns are quite apt but seem to have been already acted upon. Wikipedia copyright policy has been satisfactory clarified since I uploaded these images (which was some year ago, and they were never really used anywhere), so they are now utterly useless to the project and should be deleted. As far as I can see, this has also been done. -- Jao 10:07, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Jao. --Ellmist 02:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hey there! Can I just check if you intend to work more images into this category or if have just set things in motion for other editors to contribute? It was just a bit weird for me to see my photo so near to the President! –– Constafrequent (talk page) 02:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, both. I will add images in the future, and others may as well. --Ellmist 21:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi Ellmist. I've just reverted your addition of category "Images of people" to a picture of a dog, which shows a small part of a person in the background. Firstly I wonder if it would be better to restrict the category to pictures where people is the main subject (that would still probably be an enormous number of pictures) but failing that at least the fact of a person is shown. DJ Clayworth
I'm sorry about that. I agree with your reversion. Thank you. --Ellmist 22:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
software-screenshot
I see on Image:Awb.jpg you changed the copyright from screenshot to software-screenshot. Nice! I did not even know that existed. Where did that come from? It is not even listed in the list of copyright tags. AlexTheMartian 01:06, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
I just made that tag. I have added it to the list you mentioned. Have a nice day. --Ellmist 01:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Return of the Untagged Image project
You were kind enough to contribute to the Wikipedia:Untagged images project; I beg to draw your attention to part 2 of the project - there are about 12,000 more images in need of tagging. Any assistance you could provide would be most welcome. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk)
I have removed the link of the image from the page as I am not very sure whether the use of the image falls under fair use.I added the image when I was relatively new to wikipedia. But the concept of fair use is still not very clear to me. Gaurav1146 11:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It is a photo of the concert hall in Gray Chapel at Ohio Wesleyan University taken with a person digital camera a few years ago. Rananim 02:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Screen shoot !
Hello, Im fr:Utilisateur:Bayo
i just add interwiki FR in Category:Screenshots of computer and video games, i would like to understand something ! why your template { { game-screenshoot } } is not in the Category:Screenshots of computer and video games because we v got this problèm !
- Screen shoot template fr:Modèle:Capture d'écran de jeu vidéo
- all screen shoot catégory fr:Catégorie:Capture d'écran de jeu vidéo
thanks a lot 80.9.94.151 18:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I put a link to the Newcastle Knights website, the image's source, is that enough? Please reply here or at my talk page. Thanks mate. BigDan 08:05, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)