User talk:MakeRocketGoNow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Contents

[edit] 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...

  1. ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
  2. ...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 16:25, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:25, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

With 13,004 edits over the course of 1.5 years, you're more than qualified. You should consider a bid for adminship. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:57, Dec. 25, 2005



[edit] Great Username

Hey I just wanted to let you know I love your username- it made me laugh when i saw it. Then I told my sister and she laughed. :) I assume it is from The Simpsons from when Homer joins NASA? That is a funny episode. Regards, --Rachel Cakes 09:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Yep, it's from the "Deep Space Homer" episode. MakeRocketGoNow 23:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I too got a big laugh when I saw it. :D The Wookieepedian 02:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)




[edit] Requested template

I put together something for the template you requested at Wikipedia:Requested_templates#Internet_Book_List. --CBD ☎ ✉ 02:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks! - MakeRocketGoNow 02:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philotics

Most of the reference for the ideas of Card at Philotics will come from the content of the books Xenocide and Children of the Mind. I'd hate to try to delve into it and decipher what all of it means. But should we reference these books there? I always thougt this was just an invention of Card; I've never heard them mentioned anywhere else. In fact, this article might need to be merged into one of the articles on the Enderverse. --ShadowPuppet 03:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I never heard of this, so I have no idea if it's purely Card's brainchild/fancruft, or based on some other real science/philosophical conceit. Either way, this distinction needs to be clearly made, and backed up with references. If it's just Card's, it can go under category:Fictional technology. In any event, Philotics needs to be merged with Philotic Web and most of philote. MakeRocketGoNow 01:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

  1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
  2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
  3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BDAbramson T 04:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

The Original Barnstar
In recognition of your excellent work sorting and categorizing articles relating to older works of literature (particularly those regarding Lost work), I'm awarding you this barnstar. I appreciate that someone is paying attention to this often-neglected area. Regards, Ziggurat 02:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, my first star! Thanks! MakeRocketGoNow 16:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Think we can get a consensus now

Hi, please see Category_talk:Novel_sequences#Thankyou_Mr._Darcy, and see if you approve of the compromise. FrankB 05:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)



[edit] [Year] works categories

I think a better solution than categories such as "1859 works", which consensus on CFD seems to consider too vaguely defined, might be to create "[year] in literature" categories. This could then capture short stories, essays, poems, etc., that aren't included in the narrower [year] books categories, and the book categories would then be a logical subcategory of the [year] in literature categories. There is precedent in this kind of organizing/naming scheme in the [year] in law and [year] in sports categories. Cheers, Postdlf 14:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds good. I deliberately chose "works" for its very vagueness- I imagined the category being able to cover political documents, works of art, buildings, anything human-created. I can see how this is considered TOO vague. Subsequent categories could follow from your idea: [year] in art, [year] in architecture, etc. Should the [year] in literature categories idea be posted here? MakeRocketGoNow 16:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category sorts

By using the * sortkey, all the sub-cats appear on the first page of the category; from what I gather, this makes it easier to find a sub-cat under which to file an article. There was some discussion about it at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Subcategories. If this annoys anyone, please revert it with impunity, and I plead obsessive compulsiveness. Cheers, Her Pegship 22:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the link. I can see some advantage to getting all the subcats up front. But if you're going to do it, go do all the subcats for that category! MakeRocketGoNow 00:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)






[edit] Please join in

Wikipedia:Locations in fiction, fictional locations, and settings is a proposed policy on how to list fictional locations and to differentiate between a physical place and a setting (ie. universe or world). Please join in and give your thoughts. Bring some friends!
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 05:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Works by year

I notice that, along with User:Jpbowen, you were instrumental in creating many of the "Works by year" categories. However, the actual population of these categories has been somewhat erratic, aside from certain specific genres (e.g., film). Has there ever been any discussion in the WP community about what it would take to populate these categories consistently? Or is this something you have moved on from, and haven't been pushing? Marc Shepherd 13:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been no discussion to my knowledge. Yes, category population has been erratic, but that seems endemic to Wikipedia. I also have not been consistently working on it. I welcome your suggestions. MakeRocketGoNow 17:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Works

Since you created Category:Works by year, you may have insight on the purpose of one of its parents, Category:Works. Please comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Category:Works. TimBentley (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] About Random Passage Article

Thank you for Wikifying it and fixing the cats. I'm relatively new here and still learning, I'm the one who started the Random Passage article. So, yeah, just wanted to say thanks, great job!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/k/User_talk%7EMakeRocketGoNow_7b6c.html"