User talk:Pioneer-12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Previous discussions can be found here:

User talk:Pioneer-12/Archive0000001

I may take up to several days to respond to messages, as Wikipedia is just one of many things that I do in my free time.

Contents

[edit] patterns of semantic heuristics in conglomerate milieus

The patterns are everywhere.... you know this. Why? Have you fancied an idea to gravitate them into globular clusters, or just search the endless galexy for inteligent life? Then what? TTLightningRod 21:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow, 6 projects! Scattered across wikipedia or scattered across the net? Drawing them together sounds like a great idea. Even if the different projects want to retain their independence, there's no good reason for them not to want to coordinate with each other. - Pioneer-12 20:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I like that signature, you should use it more often. Nice selections too. TTLightningRod

[edit] A touch overwhelming, but that's why I'm here.

Your input has been fantastic. TTLightningRod

Editing other people's comments is not proper. However, you have the right to edit your own comments. The good thing about wikis is: if you make a mistake, you can go back and change it. The bad thing about wikis is: your mistakes usually persist in the edit history.
And I consider that site to be more of an "idea bakery" then "half baked". :-)
- Pioneer-12 19:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Advantages... or abilites

I have implemented your Advantages... or abilites suggestion just for categories. A synergy section has also been started. I am requesting your participation in the conversion of the categories sections to an abilities format. As well as helping to develop the synergy section. I am referring to the blue box at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes. -- John Gohde 04:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's a good start, but, for fairness and consistency, the perspective of abilities needs to be applied to all three tools simultaneously. I adjusted the section titles, but the entire box needs to be revaluated using the perspective of abilities. Maybe we need a new box. - Pioneer-12 20:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use on the Commons

Hi - I added a comment to commons:Commons_talk:Licensing#Fair_Use - have a look, I hope I was able to clarify this. -- G. Gearloose (?!) 21:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you Duesentrieb on the commons? Yes, the feedback has been very helpful. Now if we could just update the software to make integration bewteen the commons image archives and wikipedia image archives seamless. Currently, image linking is seamless, but uploading and searching for images on two seperate archives is a pain in the a**. - Pioneer-12 22:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Theft

That's pretty funny. In fact, when I registered I was surprised that it wasn't already taken. You should have gotten here five months ago. It describes me perfectly. Although "Pioneer-12" is a great idea for a name too. Well, I'm sure I'll be seeing you around again. Happy editing! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was here on occasion five months ago; I just didn't bother to log in till recently. Rats! I should have reserved the name in case I needed it later. That's ok. You deserve it.
And happy editing to you too. - Pioneer-12 08:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bloopers ; references

Please do go ahead and re-add those that have references back in. Be careful to explicitly tie a list member to a reference (like on the movie page) and we'll get this page kept (albeit with different name and content, but its the thought that counts) yet despite all those trigger-happy deleters. Pcb21| Pete 23:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I want to donate photos

If you have a few moments, might you help me bring some photos into an article. I shot some quick images of Sible Edmonds this morning at the DC federal court house. Her articale is only a single line or two, but it will be growing quite a bit this summer. Thought I might be able to prime the pump. Let me know... TTLightningRod 05:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to help. What sort of help do you need? - Pioneer-12 01:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AIW

Not that I know of. What is the page? I will read it and vote. --Merovingian (t) (c) 03:37, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Never mind; I've voted. --Merovingian (t) (c) 04:14, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The commentary

To me your commentary is absolutely right and, to an extent, I think what you are saying should be quite clear to everyone who has any workable definition of NPOV. There are so many new users though that it is really hard to indoctrinate them all! What I find odd is why VfD is so popular. Much of the stuff on there is such obvious crap that goodness why people bother to vote on it. Other stuff people spend much more time and energy trying to force a topic deleted rather than patching it up! Odd way to spend your free time on Wikipedia. I will try to find some more examples of where a page move solved apparent "inherently POV" problems. Pcb21| Pete 10:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it was pretty obvious once you read the NPOV policy. Maybe people don't read it? It seems ridiculous to claim something is "POV" without knowing the policy on such things. But then again, people are ridiculous. Maybe users should have to pass a "policy knowledge test" before they are allowed to vote on Vfd. That would at least make sure the voters are educated. (Hey, folks. Become a "licensed deleter" today!) I'll bet many people would take the quiz just so they achieve some sort of "rank" on Wikipedia. If we give them a badge graphic to put on their home pages then people will be falling over each other to take the test.
And, you're right; people do spend way too much time on Vfd. I want to scream "Stop wasting your time trying to delete this and go do something useful!" Of all the various ways to make Wikipedia better, deleting articles is not high on the priority list. Is the encyclopedia or reader really hurt by having a few obscure "unencyclopedic" articles floating around? Oh, look, I found some extra information on Wikipedia. How dare Wikipedia have too much information! - Pioneer-12 15:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Working Dog Photo

Thanks for your kind comments on my 'working dog' photo. I have to say I was pretty disappointed with the general reception of it, so thanks. --Fir0002 00:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of the Great Boners of all time

Do not, under any circumstances, remove other people's votes. RickK 06:17, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. No votes were removed, nor was there any intention of removing votes. But there needs to be a revote, as the article has been renamed and completely rewritten. I have no intention of deleting votes, but want to indicate when votes are referring to the old version of the article. Can I put a mark through obsolete votes until they are revoted? - Pioneer-12 06:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No. It's the same as a normal rewrite — each voter should do that him/herself (that's what happens on most "saves" after rewrites). If it weren't that way, anyone could keep an article from being deleted by simply declaring it had been rewritten. --cesarb 14:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the information. - Pioneer-12 14:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just spotted your message on user talk:GRider. Just so you're aware, GRider is currently banned from editing deletion related pages by an Abritration committee injunction. Thryduulf 10:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How odd. I guess he is a controversial figure. - Pioneer-12 23:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] roadgeek

It's a pretty common word (has appeared in newspaper articles profiling specific roadgeeks, etc). There's a short article at roadgeek. --SPUI (talk) 20:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess it would depend. If you collect them for the collecting, it makes you a collector. If you collect them to see how roads used to go, you're a roadgeek. --SPUI (talk) 20:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Very annoyed at the "re-vote" nonsense

I'm guessing that Master Thief Garrett is an innocent victim, and that Wikipedia:Revotes_on_Vfd was intended to be a good-faith effort to create policy, but between the two of you, you went way out of line.

In my opinion, anyway.

I strongly suggest that you just accept whatever the community opinion both on the article (even though I personally think it's keepable in present form) and on the "re-vote" concept. Just let it sting, shake it off, and go on to something else. Win a few, lose a few.

Just try to stay cool. The deletion of the "list of blunders" may be an unfair, but it's not worth fussing about. You made your case about as clearly as you could; you've convinced anyone who's going to be convinced; all you can do at this point is annoy people.

If you concede graciously nobody's going to hold anything about the incident against you. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was all a big misunderstanding. I've done my "concession speech", if you can call it that. - Pioneer-12 23:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: speedy deletions

Dude, you were my roommate? And all this time I never knew...we should have hung out more... — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Online misunderstandings

Yep, it is amazingly easy for misunderstandings to occur in real life.

And, for reasons that I don't completely understand, it is even easier for them to occur online. It is necessary to be extremely careful about phrasing anything online. I've been doing it since CompuServe days (the 1980s) and I still haven't got it down.

The audience is huge. People don't read all your remarks carefully. You have the illusion that you're in a group of friends when in fact you're in a huge group of people many of whom you don't know.

You have to be really careful about jokes, especially irony, double meanings, and kidding. My guess is that your crack about "pesky deletionists" was probably intended to be good-humored. My own rule is that when I'm tempted to make a joke I always add in so many words "that's a joke." And then, when I see myself typing the words 'that's a joke,' I usually go back and decide the easiest thing is just not to say it.

Unfortunately, with the Wikipedia "history" mechanism,

The moving finger writes, and having writ
Moves on; nor all they piety and wit
Can lure it back to cancel half a line
Nor all thy tears wash out of word of it.

To an amazing extent, this is true of everything on line. Google, and before it Deja News, preserves everything in USENET forums, even though participants always think of it as short-term conversation. archive.org attempts to preserve the entire Web. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I'm sorry for assuming bad faith on your part. Looks like Dpbsmith was right after all, and it was all just a big misunderstanding. --cesarb 21:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the message.

I'm certainly in favor of keeping the blunders article, and it looks like there's currently more than 1/3 support for it. Nickptar 00:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletionism redir

See my argument at WP:RFD, but there are essentially two reasons. First of all, it doesn't work--if you click on the link, you aren't taken to the meta page. Second of all, it's self-referential and inappropriate to have a redirect for a wikipedia-specific term in the main namespace. Please direct further comments to wp:rfd. Best, Meelar (talk) 01:02, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Great blunders

I'm abstaining on that vote; I think that sort of list would be very difficult to make encyclopedic, but I'm not strongly against it. I don't see how to make it good, but I'm willing to accept that someone else does. Since I can't put my money where my mouth is there, I abstain. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clover Park High School vote

Thank you for voting and commenting on Clover Park High School. I think it's a very important case, because it's obviously not specially "notable" for a school, but it's still extremely important to cover this kind of thing. As you may know school articles are often very hotly contested on Vfd, I'm hoping we can persuade enough people to stop voting on notability and switch to article quality, then perhaps we can get consensus to "merge/unmerge" schools. Kappa 22:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thryduulf's subpage

Yes, he nominated it himself. I didn't see any reason not to carry it out, since no one else objected. No, one person is not a consensus, but since it was in his userspace and no one else saw fit to comment on why it shouldn't be deleted, I applied my best administrative judgment and nuked it. Note that the link to the VfD is in the deletion log as the reason for deleting the page, as well. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Usually, yes, you can put your own pages up for speedy, but Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Thryduulf/Internet/Self-destructive subcultures (proposed) states the reason why he didn't, as quoted from Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_delete_my_user_subpages: "Pages which have formerly been in a different namespace and moved to a subpage of the user namespace may not be deleted in this way. These must be listed at Votes for deletion." In many cases this is a formality, but it is useful for more contentious pages in case anyone has objections. In this case no one did. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Makes sense. Ah there's the Vfd... having that link makes everything clear. Thanks. - Pioneer-12 04:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi, "roomie". I think the reason for that rule (about not speeding moved pages) is that if it were allowed, you could take an article you didn't like, move it to a subpage of yours, and then ask for it to be speedied. Especially if you blanked the content. In fact, a user recently tricked an administrator this way; he didn't check the history but tried to delete the article—only to be stopped by the compression bug since the article was so old. Regarding your comment that the First Amendment "freedom of opinion"/"freedom of expression" should apply, I disagree. The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." It does not prohibit state governments from making such laws, it does not prohibit schools from barring offensive clothing, and it does not force web sites run by private organizations to post all text that anyone desires. Wikipedia is quite liberal, but it is not constitutionally mandated to do so. Try telling CNN.com that they are violating your First Amendment rights by not posting a story or idea of yours. I don't intend to sound patronizing or harsh, just wanted to clarify—it bothers me when people take advantage of Wikipedia's openness and demand more, as it is their right.— Knowledge Seeker দ 05:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Organizations always have the right to set certain rules of conduct. However, these rights are not absolute. For example, an organization cannot, under current law, deny entrance to people based on the color of their skin. Now, most likely Wikipedia COULD censor personal pages if it choose to, but it would be highly hypocritical to do so. If Wikipedia advocates censorship / suppression of opinion then I advocate taking the GFDL content, building a counter project based on honest values and openness, and blowing Wikipedia to hell. - Pioneer-12 05:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
p.s. I think Wikipedia as a whole does not advocate censorship. The NPOV policy, for example, is nost impressive. So I have no plans to blow Wikipedia to hell.
Well, the only reason I commented was to object to the notion that Wikipedia was obligated to allow something as mandated by the First Amendment. I actually don't think that it would be hypocritical to censor pages (actually, there are limits to what can go on user pages—there's one (and subpages) we're discussing on AN that will likely be deleted soon); in fact, I think it's a bonus that they even offer personal pages. However, as this is all hypothetical, I should probably stop talking now. =) — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilocal

Hi there! In responding to Kappa's talk page I found your comments about a 'LocalWiki' project. I think this is a very good idea, and would be happy to lend my support to creating it. Radiant_* 07:51, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Ford or a Chevy - CHOOSE NOW!

I absolutely agree! Nader for life! You know, I bet I'm the only registered Green in Arizona (yuck). Your comment made me happy; I couldn't in good conscience register and vote Democrat, but I am getting tired of others dismissing me as some young idealist who'll "come around" after a while. Not only IRV is needed, but also abolition of the electoral college. How is it that Clinton in '92 failed to get even half of the popular vote and Perot got 20%, and yet Clinton gets 70% of the electoral college vote and Perot gets 0? The electoral college and popular vote almost never correspond, and in some cases (2000!), even the winners don't correspond. It only serves to distort the will of the people and exclude third-parties and independents. As you can see I get worked up about this, so thanks for caring. (I'd been searching around for a good quote when I found that in the book I'm reading, Thompson's Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail of '72, hilarious and insightful). --Dmcdevit 22:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pandeism vfd

You, sir, are my hero. -- 8^D BD2412gab 16:20, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

  • I think it's about right. Problem is, the meaning of pandeism has evolved since then, and the modern meaning (although only used by a handful of people, as indicated by the low google count) is the one the vfd'ers won't accept. The key difference between Toland's use and Higgins' use seems not to be with the theism vs. deism, but with Toland using Pan- to mean all and -theism to mean God, while Higgins flips it and uses Pan- to refer to this family of gods, and deism as a sort of tag on the end to let you know it's an "ism". Now I wish I'd said exactly that in the article! -- 8^D BD2412gab 16:42, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

[edit] Good edit

Hi Pioneer, I liked your edit to Wikipedia:No original research: it's an important point and you expressed it very clearly. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:55, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! - Pioneer-12 19:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blunders resurrected

Hi, Pioneer. I have been away for nearly two weeks due to a bad back. Congrats on the efforts on the blunders page. Sorry I haven't been able to help. Things still look iffy on the Vfd page. I added a bit on the Ford Edsel, which got publicity in its time comparable to the New Coke. --Blainster 05:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goddess of Democracy

Well, "rant" may have been a poor choice of words, but I still find the whole thing irrelevant. Adam Bishop 04:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

*Shrugs* One can't please everybody. I do think it's ironic how people don't appreciate a commentary about appreciating freedom.
- Pioneer-12 04:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] == Question on VfD policy ==

Hi, I just asked Adraeus this, but haven't heard back from him yet: Isn't there some policy on discounting votes cast before a complete rewrite? The Pandeism article was rewritten as of 13:28, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC). By my count, there have been 8 votes to Delete and 9 votes to Keep since then (including votes cast before that date and later reaffirmed). Holistically, there have been 20 votes to Delete (12 cast before the rewrite) and 11 to Keep (2 cast before the rewrite). -- BDAbramson thimk 04:50, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

  • Well, thanks for the info. On that note, I'm off for the next eight hours or so. Cheers. -- BDAbramson thimk 05:21, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

[edit] Intellectual Property

    • Ah, you've caught me up well past my bedtime. Well, since I'm up... frankly, I don't know how to answer your question, because no GFDL or Creative Commons type license has yet been challenged in court, so no one yet knows what effect they would really be given as to anything posted on this site. In theory, I could write a tract of text and post it on the internet (including on Wikipedia) under any "license" you can imagine, or even run around in the streets handing out free copies and declaring that it's in the public domain, and then turn around and sue the first person who copies it. There is a strong presumption of copyright for all original work under American law, and even if you license your work to someone else, it springs back to you after 35 years (or to your heirs if you die before the renewal period). Furthermore, short of contractually licensing your work in exchange for something received in return, no "gift" of your work to the public domain (or for others to use under any kind of license) can be enforced. I'm sure the people who came up with GFDL had good legal advice - it's well written and covers all the bases - it just might be lacking in any legal effect, and we won't know until a judge bangs a gavel on it. However, if you want to be sure that a particular piece of work on your part is, in fact copyrighted, a © will do it. -- BDAbramson thimk 07:03, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

[edit] Nader

I absolutely agree with you. In fact, I'm already on the OpenDebates email newsletter even. I'm inclined to believe the system would be better if there weren't any parties at all, and we all just voted for whoever's best, not voting based on some kind of strategy. I remember during the last Democratic primaries I supported Kucinich and Al Sharpton. So many times people who had essentially the same views as me were baffled that I didn't support Kerry or even Dean because they were the only "electable" ones. But her's the thing: if voters en masse decide not to vote for a candidate because that candidate can't win, then they have just fulfilled their own prophecy. There was a little-known poll done on the eve of the 2004 election that still makes me frustrated with the voters in general. It went somethng like this (paraphrasing): If Nader had the same chance of winning as either of the major candidates, would you vote for him? And 30% said yes, they would. If only they had, then maybe we wouldn't still be stuck in the same two-party, no-change mess we are now. Political parties exist only for self-preservation, not ideals, and I wish the so many party sheep would see that, just as Washington did. Some day, maybe... (when the system collapses in on itself) --Dmcdevit 22:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC) (Geez, I'm depressing)

[edit] Blunders VfD

Yep, that would be my opinion. --Merovingian (t) (c) 00:35, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. --Merovingian (t) (c) 17:50, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

The reason I didn't vote was twofold: first, the vote is a complete mess, having turned around halfway (these things almost never get consensus then, so there's no need for me to add more to it), and second, I commented only on the talk page to say the article was (and still is) duplicating the lists in flop. Obviously such lists are already in the encyclopedia, so it's a bit pointless to go vote on a separate article on blunders (whatever the subtle difference between a flop and a blunder may be). I hope you realize by now, incidentally, that Wikipedia has no sense of humor. Starting it off as "List of the Great Boners of all time" was, shall we say, not very prudent. :-) JRM · Talk 20:03, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

I'm everywhere. :-) And shiny metal derrières or not, we're still a tad more serious than creating articles with titles based on comic book jokes. "I think my main mistake was expecting a higher level of maturity, open-mindedness, and understanding on Wikipedia then exists." No, your main mistake was assuming a greater amount of patience than exists. Mind you, you would have gotten away with this easily in the early days; someone would have just moved the page at a convenient time, we'd all have a good laugh, drinks all around. These days everything you create that smacks of dubiousness is tagged for VfD, because there are many more eyeballs around, and people have less time to give every entry its due. Wikipedia has become more curt and businesslike as it has grown, for good or for bad.
Finally, the flop vs. blunder discussion I haven't seen, possibly because I didn't wade through the whole VfD to find out. The comment you added to the talk page clears things up ("every blunder is a flop, not all flops are blunders") and the list has criteria, so it seems to be on its way. JRM · Talk 20:55, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

Loved the questions, thanks! My reply is here.

Cheers!

Sam Spade 17:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] If I've assumed correctly

There is no spork, either. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

Ah, that's the beauty of copyright - all you have to do is append the symbol, and boom!, you have the presumption of the law on your side (that will over-ride any considerations based on where you post things as well). Technically you don't even need the symbol, but it operates to notify others that they can't copy your work, so that saves you from having to prove that they were not mistaken. Bear in mind, of course, that even copyrighted work is subject to fair use, so what you write can be quoted in part, so long as the quote is attributed. But that would apply to something you published in a book as well. -- BDAbramson thimk 22:32, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Hi, Pioneer-12, BD. Pardon my butting in to the conversation. :)

I was just wondering, what specific aims are you hoping to achieve with the copyright notice on your user page? Are you concerned that someone will edit your comments and misrepresent you, or is there something else? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

  • In reality, it's kind of a mixed bag. A copyright logo will secure your rights, but what exactly will you do if someone does cut, splice, and mangle your words? Sue them? It's hard enough to track down people you only know via an internet site (who may not even be in the U.S.). -- BDAbramson thimk 02:21, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, any edits, including to non-article pages, are released under the GFDL. --SPUI (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space - "Contributions must be licensed under the GFDL, just as articles are." --SPUI (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's just wrong. It's totally illogical. So that means anyone go around to talk pages and edit *your* comments to whatever they feel like and pretend that you said them. It just makes no sense.
I object. I refuse. I deny. I shall not, will not GFDL my comments. And I've got copyright law on my side. Anyone who disagrees can eat a law book.
Now if you want to get technical, you could say that people have author's rights to their comments, but the document they add them to has GFDL attributes (version history and such). I'll go for that, as long as my rights are protected. My words are my own. And no one, no matter what the license says, can come in and magically claim control of my words and thoughts against my will.
- Pioneer-12 04:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Whoa...I don't think anyone wants to try to put words in your mouth. Although the GFDL doesn't provide you with a lot of formal protection there, Wikipedia policy certainly does. It is considered extremely bad form for editors to modify user pages that are not their own, and even worse to modify other editors' signed comments. Any editor who did such a thing would be censured, usually swiftly, and probably quite sharply. Their changes can and would be reverted--you're even welcome to do so yourself. Editors who ignore policy on this point can and will be blocked or banned from Wikipedia.
With respect to editors misrepresenting what you've said, it's very straightforward to check the edit history of a page to verify that the signed comments haven't been created or altered by any but their owner. In practice, I have seen very few inappropriate edits to signed user comments. When they do take place, they're usually the work of (almost immediately blocked) vandals or technical hiccups in the database.
I guess what I'm saying is that even though all the pages on Wikipedia are GFDL licensed, contributors are bound by further restrictions on how and what they may edit. There are terms and conditions by which editors of Wikipedia must abide.
It would help if you could outline some specific concerns that you have about how your words might be misused or altered; perhaps its possible to set your mind at ease without trying to unlicense your contributions...? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I think what I'm doing is making explicit what is the fundamental law. People automatically own their creative works unless they willfully give them away. I am very happy to give away my contributions to the encyclopedia and to any collaborative documents on Wikimedia. But my signed comments are my own, under both U.S. and international law, and no license can change that. Licenses can set alot of restrictions, but they can't break the law. The whole idea of applying the GFDL to talk pages is idiotic anyway.
- Pioneer-12 05:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
The idea is that by posting them here, you are licensing them under the GFDL. They remain your "property" in that others must credit you as the GFDL requires. --SPUI (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
To elaborate a bit further on what SPUI has written, you do indeed retain copyright on all of the text that you add to Wikipedia. You may further license that text however you see fit, or not at all. However, in contributing it to Wikipedia, you are consenting to license the material under the GFDL as well. It says so right under the edit box. Per BD2412's concerns about a lack of consideration being exchanged, it can be argued that Wikipedia is providing a venue in which to publish your remarks. The value of the server space and bandwidth which Wikipedia gives you, though small, is certainly non-zero. Even in the absence of consideration, the clear conditions regarding GFDL licensing that appear under the edit window would likely lend Wikipedia (and subsequent users of the apparently GFDL-licensed material) a defence based on promissory estoppel.
Of course, I am not a lawyer, and the above should not be construed as legal advice.
I'm still not entirely clear on the specific nature of your concerns, though. Are you worried that you will be misquoted outside of Wikipedia, or that your remarks will be misrepresented on this site? It may not even be necessary to drag copyright and licensing issues into the matter. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 09:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I am worried about being misquoted, and also about someone reproducing or modifying my signed comments without my authorization. (If someone wants to quote me that's fine; I love fair use.)
The GFDL can't override my copyright if I don't agree to it. You seem to be saying basically the same thing with "you do indeed retain copyright on all of the text that you add to Wikipedia". So it's just a matter of what the licensing says people can do with my text (and your text). If someone takes the wiki encyclopedia content that I've added and reproduces it and makes money off it, more power to them, more power to the encyclopedia. But if someone wants to publish a collection of original writings that I've posted in the Wikipedia talk space and try to make money of it, that's not gonna fly. They can claim GFDL, but I'll take them to court to protect what's mine. Who will win? We don't know--as BD2412 said above, the law hasn't officially ruled on this issue--but I'm betting that they'll rule in favor of the Author(s), and the copyright notice on my user page is there to help ensure that that happens.
- Pioneer-12 13:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You have agreed to the GFDL

Open an edit page. Look down.

  • All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Project:Copyrights for details).

Now, if you can read Project:Copyrights and tell me that it says that your talk page comments are excluded from the GFDL, I'll side with you. But it doesn't. All your contributions have been released under the GFDL, assuming they were yours to release, upon your implicit agreement upon their submission. If your contents were NOT allowed to be licensed under the GFDL you'd be in violation of our copyright policies and you'd need to be blocked. As a matter of fact, I'd ask that you please remove that copyright notice from your userpage posthaste, lest you be blocked for gross license violations. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 14:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It says at the bottom of the edit screen that I'm looking at right now: "All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Project:Copyrights for details)". By hitting "Save page" you agreed to license your contributions to Wikipedia -- regardless of name space -- under that license. Under the terms of the license you've set forth on your user page, it is illegal for Wikimedia to publish your contributions outside of article space. Of course, by submitting them you gave them an implicit license to publish them (license implied by author's conduct). So what you've really done is made contradictory licensing statements. I would imagine that a court, when faced with such incomprehensible behavior, would rule in favor of whoever you are trying to confuse. But that's just my impression as a former law student -- I obviously know nothing about the law. Kelly Martin 14:34, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Right, and since he already has demonstrated that he understands that contributions are released under the GFDL by the site's submission agreement, that's another strike against his case. Seriously, if you have read the submission agreement for a site, you don't get to say "I'm submitting this material, except the submission agreement does not apply". If you do, it's either a) if it's your own content then your submission, particularly since you've invoked the agreement, is implicitly under the rules of the agreement whether you say it is or not, or b) if it's someone else's copyrighted content, the agreement doesn't apply and you're doing something illegal. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 14:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
And from another perspective: People aren't going to mangle your comments! You're being a little paranoid here. We're not out to get you. And if someone does mangle your comments to misrepresent you, and that is found out, they will lose all the credibility that they may or may not have had, and may additionally be committing slander. Use that to deal with people mangling your comments; don't invoke copyright laws. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 14:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
"All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License". But is a talk page Wikipedia? I don't think it is. It's part of the foundation servers, but it's not Wikipedia. It's treated fundamentally different. And even trying to apply the GFDL to it seems ridiculous.
As it is now, the statement I made changes nothing. All my talk contributions are meant to follow policy.... but, at the same time, all creative endeavors are automatically copyright by the authors. I am trying to make this fact clear to avoid trouble down the road. (And trust me, there will be trouble from alot more people then me if people start stretching the GFDL regarding talk pages. No one's tried exploiting the talk pages yet, but it's a ticking time bomb.) I have the notice, not just for me, but for every talk poster who's comments are potentially open to exploitation against their will. It comes down to this: Wikipedia pages are one thing; talk pages are something else. Just because I know my rights doesn't mean that you have to give me a hard time about it. Now, before we go any further, I want to know who's idea it was to try to apply the GFDL on talk pages. What were they thinking? What's the point? It seems totally counterproductive to me and just a BAD idea, but it is necessary to hear what reasoning there was. Perhaps there was no good reason and it just happened because people didn't know any better. Lets find out. I think it's time to take this discussion to the village pump.
And lets try to be polite and remember that everyone here has good intentions. We can figure this out peacefully.
- Pioneer-12 15:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

← moving back to left margin ← Okay; with respect to (mis)quotation, the GFDL doesn't hurt you. If someone edits your remarks and republishes them, they have to say that the text has been modified from its original form. (Heck, the GFDL requires that complete and accurate authorship information be maintained.) If someone maliciously alters your words and misrepresents them as your own, then the fact that the text is GFDL licensed doesn't affect your legal right to redress. If they try to do it here on Wikipedia, the admins will...I believe the correct term is "lay the smack down on them".

With respect to republication of your contributions to Wikipedia's talk space, I would first ask from a practical standpoint—is there really anything in the Talk and User pages that you expect someone would want to sell? For most Wikipedians, the Talk pages are just discussion about article or policy content.

If you're planning on posting a lot of personal poetry, original writing, a new screenplay, or what have you in your User space, you might want to consider carefully. For one thing, the Wikipedia servers are here for encyclopedia building; they're not meant as personal web hosting. For another, there's still the notice that shows up every time you edit a page, informing you that your contributions are released under GFDL. If you'd like to refer to personal writings from User or Talk spaces without licensing the contents under GFDL, I'd suggest posting them using a free hosting service somewhere and linking them from Wikipedia.

Does that help? I hope it doesn't seem like I trying to pick on you; I just don't want to see an avoidable legal mess arise a few years down the road. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 15:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You couldn't pick on me if you tried. You could just try to hassle me. The problem is that I post alot of things which amount to mini essays, and they are mine first, and Wikipedia's second. They are appropriate here, but at the same time I may wish to reproduce them elsewhere if I choose to.... and I don't want to be handcuffed by the GFDL. It seems I will have to take additional steps to ensure that there is no chance of me being robbed of my rights. I guess I must make sure that any significant posts to talk pages are published elsewhere online and merely quoted here.
Trying to push the GFDL onto talk pages ultimately stifles contributions. Will someone try to steal my writings from me? The mailing lists don't have that; the IRC channels don't have that; no other forums have that. Thus it is natural to believe that the talk pages do not by nature have that... and should not have that. Lets get rid of the claim now, before a court tosses it out.
- Pioneer-12 16:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
As I understand it, the GFDL does aply and always has applied to all the namespaces used on Wikipedia - inlcuding talk: user: user talk: wikipedia: wikipedia talk: image: and image talk: etc. (althoguh the actual images may have a different liscence, I beleive that the image description page is GFDL). Thryduulf 16:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Oh! I think we may have spilled a lot of ink/bytes unnecessarily here. As the original author of the material, you definitely still hold the copyright. Even though your contribution to Wikipedia is GFDL licensed, you—as the original author and holder of the copyright—are completely free to distribute your writings however and to whomever you wish, under whatever licenses you see fit. The GFDL doesn't restrict you; it only regulates how other people may distribute your work.
With respect to people "steal[ing]" your contributions, that falls out of the free nature of Wikipedia. In order to reproduce your GFDL licensed contributions, they must preserve the associated authorship information; you still receive credit for the work, or else the GFDL is violated and it is an infringement of your copyright. I'm afraid that GFDL licensing of all the pages on Wikipedia is the standard, and likely to remain that way. You're welcome to ask for further clarification or comment via the Village Pump or elsewhere, of course.
For what it's worth, I'm not trying to hassle you, either. :) Cheers, --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I would like to point out that in your copyright notice you reserve to yourself the right to republish your comments. If so, WMF is obliged to disable access to your user page and to any talk page where you have left comments. Is this what you really want? It seems that you actually do want to grant to WMF the right to republish your comments (and it can be argued that you did so merely by posting them here). If you don't intend to grant republication rights to WMF, I believe that WMF is obliged to purge all traces of your existence from Wikipedia, lest it commit copyright infringement by republishing one of your copyrighted works without your permission. Kelly Martin 17:01, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Hold your horses... I'm fixing everything... I didn't ask for anyone to purge anything... All will be made clear in time...
- Pioneer-12 17:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Solution

Here:
http://pioneer-12.blogspot.com
There. I am posting all important comments elsewhere and letting Wikipedia have a copy of them through fair use. Up yours, talk page GFDL! Dual posting is a pain in the ass, but it seems to be a necessary precaution till a judge decides to bang a gavel on this talk page horseshit... or until the wiki-community comes to it's senses and officially tosses out the talk page GFDL like the illogical contraption it is.
It will take me few days to find, copy, and explicitly tag everything that needs explicit copyright protection--I've got other things to do beside track down every save-worthy comment I've posted here in the last few months--but patience, they will be tagged.
Oh, well--at least I get a nice blog out of all this.
- Pioneer-12 20:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
The comment display page reads: "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details)." Not "article content", not "everything but your comments", but "all text". You must know that to submit text here, it will be displayed here with that license notice at the bottom. If you insist on going back and tagging all your items with your own copyright, I would warn you that it is more than likely that some pedantic user will soon insist on having you blocked for failure to agree to copyright terms. I can only imagine the administrative mess you're trying to create, unintentionally. Wikimedia doesn't want your comments under "fair use" because these projects are too important to permit individual users to build a web of proprietary information within, and to me, it's pretty obvious you've already licensed them GFDL to Wikimedia. You can license your comments under other terms in other places, but you can't "unlicense" something GFDL: that's what GFDL is specifically designed to prevent!--Unfocused 21:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
If some pedantic uses tries to harass me, all he/she will do is turn a user who likes Wikipedia into one who doesn't like Wikipedia. Does that sound like a smart thing to do?
You can be irritated over what I choose to do with MY WORDS, but you can't change the fact that they are mine by law, and I can release them under any licensing scheme that I desire. I have decided to post them elsewhere and then allow copies on Wikipedia under fair use. This is consistent with copyright law, and consistent with Wikipedia policy. (Wikipedia accepts fair use.) Thus, there is no problem except a lack of understanding of my actions.
Remember that this is about signed comments on talk pages--for which the GFDL just makes no sense anyway; I am very happy to GFDL contributions to articles. Furthermore, all the objectors have yet to give a single reason *why* the GFDL was stuck into the talk pages. There seems to be no advantage to it whatsoever. People are so eager to defend "policy", but no one seems to have stopped and asked themselves "what's the point?"
- Pioneer-12 00:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
p.s. I'm not violating the GFDL... unless the GFDL is worded wrong. Wikipedia uses quotes frequently... obviously these quotes aren't GFDLed by appearing on Wikipedia.
You can release your words under any licensing you want. By submitting them here, you've already chosen to release them GFDL. Once you've GFDL'd your work, you cannot un-license it. It's the explicit purpose of the GFDL to prevent that.
Fair use is NOT a licensing method. Fair use is a legal defense against copyright infringement charges. It is a copyer's legal defense against an offended content creator and nothing more. As the creator, you cannot claim "fair use" of your own content unless you've created it for hire for someone else (like a Disney animator), or licensed it to someone else under a license that would not otherwise allow you to use it (such as a novelist who's sold exclusive rights to his book after it was written). You cannot sue yourself for infringement, so you cannot obtain nor grant "fair use" protection of content you own. You CAN accept someone ELSE's assertion of "fair use" for content you own, thereby relinquishing the right to sue that other person. Wikipedia does not request fair use of its submitters' original content, it demands a GFDL license.
Fair use is appropriate for incorporating content obtained elsewhere without a license, but as both the author and the poster, by placing content under GFDL, you've eliminated that possibility.
I hope this sufficiently explains why you cannot plausibly assert that the content of your posts here are only available to Wikipedia as "fair use".
Regarding the policy, I would say you're welcome to start a motion to change it, and I might even choose to support it, but keep in mind that in doing so HERE, on Wikipedia's message boards, you're releasing additional material under the GFDL every time you post. To change the policy without releasing further work under the GFDL, you'll have to host the discussions and policy change votes somewhere else.
Finally, regarding whether the "talk" pages are Wikipedia content, the instructions clearly state that user pages are used for content generation (and no hosting, etc.). It's content. It's on Wikipedia's servers. It's accessable through the Wikipedia interface. It is therefore Wikipedia content. Further, the contribution licensing warning is there, too, just as in the articles. --Unfocused 02:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
It seems that due to an edit conflict, Unfocused has largely taken the words right out of my mouth. My (now somewhat redundant) two cents follow, anyway.
Nobody is challenging your right to your own words and ideas, nor should anyone argue with your right to release them under whatever license you desire. However, the Wikimedia Foundation is entitled to operate their web site as they see fit, no? They're providing the bandwidth, the server space, and the opportunity for you to display your work publically completely free of charge. In exchange for that privilege, they apply the condition that your contributions must be GFDL licensed.
With respect to works which you do not wish to release under GFDL, you can include quotations of short passages on Wikipedia. Remember that fair use does not entitle Wikipedia to reproduce unreleased works in their entirety, so please don't add more than an illustrative sample of the externally linked work. Wikipedia does not and cannot include entire works except those which are GFDL licensed or public domain. TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 03:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
If fair use is problematic, then I'll just use a copyright system which makes my words free for nonprofit and educational use. (I was going to add that anyway, just in case.) There's also the concept of "If I own it, and I give explicit permission, then it's ok". Obviously I don't have a problem with the words that I've posted here been posted on this site, or I wouldn't be putting them here. I have a problem with other places reusing those words for profit (unlikely but possible), and with me being bound and gagged by the GFDL everywhere I go because I decided to post a copy of things to here. That's just wrong. The act of posting may be a GFDL act, but if the words are mine and a quotation (which they are), then the words are clearly not GFDLed.
I'll read up more on copyright law and find expert opinion to verify things. Right now, the only legal expert who has commented is BD2412. Even though you two are not lawyers, I appreciate your analysis.
- Pioneer-12 07:25, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
p.s. And the Wikipedia policy of "don't edit other people's comments" is, quite frankly, worthless if the GFDL is ruled to apply fully to talk pages. Then someone can copy the talk pages from Wikipedia, change the words to anything that they feel like, and that's that. That's just wrong, too.


<---reset the indent

Here's the core of what you're dancing around. Except as I explained above, you own what you author. With that in mind:

  1. If you post a copy of something you own here, it is under the GFDL now, forever, and irrevocably, even if licensed differently somewhere else since you own it and chose to put it here, where GFDL applies.
  2. If your friend posts a whole copy of something you wrote here with your explicit permission, it is under the GFDL now, forever, and irrevocably because you've given permission to place it under the GFDL.
  3. If your friend posts a whole copy of something you wrote here without your explicit permission, you are legally obligated to defend your copyright immediately upon discovery by asking that it be removed (to stop further damages), otherwise you've relinquished it to the GFDL in effect here, or, depending on court interpretation, into the "public domain" where anyone can use your work for any purpose without attibution or compensation.
  4. If you quote a small portion of someone else's work here, their work remains under their control, because quoting a brief representative portion is allowed under "fair use" without permission.
  5. If you quote more than small portion here of your own essay that you've licensed under other terms elsewhere, then, as the owner and controller of your essay, you've also put the whole work under the GFDL now, forever, and irrevocably.
  6. If you quote a small portion of your own work here that you've licensed under other terms elsewhere, then your submission surrounding the quote is GFDL, and the quoted portion may or may not remain under the other license; at minimum, the quoted portion is avaiable to any other user under the same protections of "fair use", however, that portion of your other licensed work may be fully GFDL because you are the owner of the work, submitting it here where GFDL is demanded of all original work submitted. Since you own the license of the work, and can relicense it at will, submitting it here is probably a case of you relicensing it.


If you don't want to accept the terms of the license here, then you should:

  • 1. Never post anything else here. (What you've already submitted is already irrevocably under the GFDL.)
OR
  • 2. Negotiate your own licensing terms directly with the Wikimedia Foundation prior to posting anything else here.

Other points: Other companies are already using your work for profit without your control, take for example, answers.com. They use the entire Wikipedia database as part of their sources. But look carefully and you'll note that they properly attribute the source, as required as part of the GFDL. The GFDL applies in full here, including the attribution of the exactly what words come from what author.

Finally, it is true that I am not an attorney. However, I am both a semi-professional author and a semi-professional photographer, and my understanding and proper application of my intellectual property rights is central to my ability to generate income from my work. (By semi-professional, I mean that I get paid for part of my work, but do not use these as my primary source of income.) Should you choose to have this professionally reviewed, I would welcome a summary of your findings, but remember that if you post them here, you release them under the GFDL. --Unfocused 15:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC) I forgot to post my signature earlier. --Unfocused 15:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Answers.com, and almost every other mirror, uses the encyclopedia. They don't (to my knowledge) use the talk pages. I am happy if they take my contributions to the encyclopedia and make money off of it. I am not happy if they use my personal words and make money off it. Do you understand?
"What you've already submitted is already irrevocably under the GFDL." Wrong! That's like saying "If you walk into this room, you've agreed to the fine print of the contract we had folded up lying on the floor. We now own your house."
I don't think so. And I know the law won't think so, either. Furthermore, Wikipedia POLICY doesn't think so; people put non-GFDL stuff on Wikipedia all the time by accident. It is either removed or kept under another license.
I've had enough of the veiled threats and pompous and ignorant "You have agreed to the GFDL" statements. Send me someone who is polite and civil and actually knows what they are talking about. We will discuss if my talk page posts can stay under a sensible license, or if they have to be deleted. I actually will agree to license SOME of them under the GFDL, if necessary.
- Pioneer-12 15:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
p.s. I never agreed to the GFDL for talk pages--I was always under the assumption that my signed posts are my own--I was not even aware that the GFDL was supposed to apply to talk pages until recently--and as soon as I became aware I publicly declared that my comments are my own and that I do not agree to GFDL my words on talk pages. So it makes no sense to keep saying "You agreed to the GFDL. We tricked you. Hahaha!" Contract law is on my side. Furthermore, courts don't take kindly to groups trying to steal intellectual properly from someone against their will. It would be especially ironic if Wikipedia, an "open content" group to tried to do that. If Wikipedia wants to look REALLY BAD, people can continue to make absurd statements which won't hold up in a court of law. (Don't worry, I have no plans to go to court.... and I don't think anyone else wants to, either.) If Wikipedia wants to be sensible, then some INFORMED person can talk to me and we can figure this out.
What's most annoying is: I want to talk, and almost everyone who's come in here looks like they want to fight.
  • Hi. I'm technically not an attorney either (until I pass the Bar Exam), but IP is my field. All I can say about this is that a) the effect of the GFDL has never been settled (or even raised) in court; however b) an explicit notice of copyright attached to a particular chunk of text will most definitely trump the general GFDL on this site; and c) copyright litigation is veeeery expansive (can only be brought in a Federal Court, so it's doubtful that it would be worth it to actually enforce those rights. Bear in mind, the traditional defenses (non-authorship, non-originality, fair use, etc.) still apply, so anyone is free to quote your copyrighted works (even out of context), so long as they attribute. The preceding statement is intended as general advice (since I'm now in the gray area between student and lawyer, and can not "practice" law) ;-)  BD2412 thimkact 15:24, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
Thank you for the informed advice. "An explicit notice of copyright attached to a particular chunk of text will most definitely trump the general GFDL on this site." Yes! That settles it. I simply have to add explicit copyright notices to all of my statements. (and to my signature so that all further posts by me are guaranteed copyrighted. But I am happy to let all of my copyrighted posts be copied for non-profit and educational uses. Since the Wikimedia foundation is non-profit, I am happy to let the Wikimedia foundation have a copy of my words.
Yay! Peace through wisdom.
© Pioneer-12 15:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


Pioneer-12, it's not my intention to threaten you or anger you in any way. You don't seem to be able to or willing to understand agreement to the "click-through" license at the bottom of the page, so I was trying to make it as clear as possible. I'm sorry if my attempts to be more clear seemed like incivility to you. I think if you re-read what I wrote, you will see that I was trying to be instructional.
Regarding BD2412's second point, I doubt that such a copyright notice would be effective or valid if applied after submission. I further doubt that the Wikimedia Foundation would choose to accept any of your content under your terms. The administrative overhead of tracking what you release and don't release would be too much for a volunteer project like this. No one person's submissions would be worth the effort.
Second, although "click-through" licenses have not been tested in court, entire businesses have been built on them, and traditionally conservative institutions such as banks and insurance companies now rely on them routinely. Why? Because new laws are in effect that give your electronic signature, in any form, the same binding force that your written signature gives. The only test required is intent: as long as it is intended to serve as your signature, it has the legal force of your signature. That is why it has been stated that you've already agreed to the GFDL.
Finally, this is an issue that I think has the potential to escalate far beyond discussions between you, me, and other other users. This is not something you can have your way on by unilateral declaration. I would recommend contacting the Wikimedia Foundation directly, since you seem to want to participate here under terms other than what is offered to everyone else.--Unfocused 15:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


Excuse me? Are you a lawyer? A (future) lawyer has spoken, and I am following his advice. There is no problem. There is no conflict. I own my contributions and Wikipedia has a copy. Also, there is no additional effort for Wikipedia. The only people who have to worry are people who copy and re-publish the talk pages, or portions of the talk pages, in order to make a profit off of them. Too bad! If they're for profit, then they already have to edit what they copy to remove fair use. (I think. And I don't think anyone has copied and reposted the talk pages yet anyway.) So, this doesn't affect them any more then they are already affected.

Peace has come. It's a win-win situation. And it's a legal and fair one. No need to start trouble. Better to celebrate!

© Pioneer-12 16:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I am a lawyer (already) and, although I don't do IP law, I have some experience with contract law. I think Wikipedia offers you a contract: You can have free use of the Wikipedia servers to store and disseminate your words, and in return you agree to license them under the GFDL. You can accept this contract by submitting your work. The maxim of contract law is: "The offeror is master of his offer." (Many legal maxims are still in non-gender-neutral language.) You don't have the right to accept a different offer, no matter how many copyright notices you append. It has no more legal effect than if you appended a notice saying, "Any mirror or fork that copies this post agrees to send one dollar (U.S.) to my PayPal account." Wikipedia has never agreed to be the vehicle for dissemination of non-GFDL material. (Of course, as others have pointed out, you do retain the copyright on all your submissions, whether you put a copyright notice on them or not.)
If you post text on Wikipedia, you license it under the GFDL, but that doesn't apply to posting a link to text. Your use of a blog to comment will work if you post a comment on your blog and then post something on a talk page like, "For my views on why the article should refer to 'Gdansk' rather than 'Danzig', see my blog." In that case, you've licensed only the one sentence on the talk page. The fuller exposition of your views, found only on your blog, would not be licensed under the GFDL. If you cut and paste the blog contents to the Wikipedia article talk page, though, then you've licensed whatever you cut and pasted.
You raise a valid question about why the GFDL should apply to talk pages. My answer is that the talk page is part of the overall content. In a Slashdot thread some months ago, in response to the usual clichés about how no one could gauge the reliability of a Wikipedia article, I responded that the talk page (and the edit history) could frequently be helpful. A reader can see where the editors disagreed, why an alternative version of a particular passage was rejected, etc. You're right that all or virtually all the mirrors and forks don't copy the talk pages. Nevertheless, they could do so, and one that did would be more valuable to the reader. Anyway, regardless of whether you agree with that rationale, the fact is that the licensing notice appears on the edit window of talk pages as well as articles. Wikipedia could choose to allow users to post non-GFDL material to talk pages -- but it hasn't done so, and you can't unilaterally impose that revised version of the contract.
I agree with you that people shouldn't change your comments so as to distort them. I find it irritating when someone else edits a comment of mine to change straight quotes into smart quotes, let alone make a real content change. Nothing in the GFDL gives up your rights against defamation. If someone were to alter your talk page comments so as to make it seem that you had endorsed some view that's actually abhorrent to you, you could sue that user for defamation. As a practical matter, of course, that's about as likely to occur as is a commercial publication of a book consisting of your talk page comments. Your real protection against distortion of your comments is the community's antipathy to such editing. JamesMLane 10:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the intelligent replay. (Wow, no threats for once!) I agree with you for the most part. But what do you make of this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
You say "If you post text on Wikipedia, you license it under the GFDL". So now I've just GFDLed the Declaration of Independence? That doesn't make sense. I think I feel like GFDLing some Ray Bradbury novels so I don't have to pay for them. I'll just quote them here, and lala-lalala. :-)
© Pioneer-12 11:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words, although I don't think other editors meant to come across as threatening or hostile. As for your example, your posting Ray Bradbury's novels is like my giving you a deed to Ray Bradbury's house. It's ineffective, because you can't convey rights you don't have. Bradbury owns the copyright to The Martian Chronicles (assuming he hasn't assigned it to someone). His ownership of the copyright gives him the power to prohibit others from reproducing his words. If you were to reproduce them anyway, your action wouldn't impair his rights (though of course it would expose you to liability). As the copyright owner, however, he himself has the power to license the use of the text. If he were to post all or part of the novel here, the text he posted would thereby become licensed under the GFDL. JamesMLane 12:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
That makes sense up to "If he were to post all or part of the novel here, the text he posted would thereby become licensed under the GFDL." So someone else can quote me here and it's not GFDLed, but if I quote myself here it's GFDLed. That makes no sense. I have the right to quote myself, and to license my words in any manner that I choose. It is impossible for the GFDL to apply to quotes. That's simply illegal.
© Pioneer-12 12:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Licensing dispute

I think Unfocussed is wrong to say that you must "defend your copyright" immediately if someone quotes your words elsewhere. If you don't put the words here, they definitely don't come under GFDL, whether you make a fuss about it or not.

At present you seem to be disagreeing with the notion that Wikipedia can treat your act of putting your words on its talk pages as assent to the GFDL. Well that's a licensing dispute between you and Wikipedia. Wikipedia's interpretation is that by contributing you've licensed all contributions. Your interpretation seems to be that you haven't. But unless you intend to sue someone at some point (for instance, if I put a copy of this talk page on my website and you sued me) it isn't going anywhere. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Village Pump discussion

Since this is a question that is likely to be of broader interest to the Wikipedia community at large, I've posted a comment on the Village Pump. I think it's important that the policy be clarified. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User page notice

Perhaps this was mentioned above; I don't have time to read it: the notice on your user page is partially unnecessary and self-contradictory - it says that you accept the GFDL but:

  1. As mentioned above, "All contributions to any page on Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Project:Copyrights for details)."
  2. It then goes on to specify conditions that contradict the GFDL. Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 05:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

However, all signed contributions are Copyright © myself, aka Pioneer-12, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

  1. A copyright notice for "myself, aka Pioneer-12" doesn't mean much. Shouldn't you state who you are?
  2. The notice is unnecessary: everyone retains copyright for all their contributions if all they do is agree to the GFDL. Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 09:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brandenn Bremmer

Thanks for the kind comment Pioneer! Not that I expect what I wrote to make any difference to the vote. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 04:25, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why I blocked you even though you're not doing anything wrong

You've continued to contribute disputed material to talk space, which puts Wikipedia in a difficult position. To limit any potential damage, I have blocked you. You can appeal to another admin who may unblock you (though I hope this would only be done after discussion of the legal implications). Please email me or subscribe to Wikien-L where I have mailed a brief description of this highly unusual reason for blocking you. Hopefully this can be settled off Wikipedia.

My email address is minorityreport@bluebottle.com

The web page for subscribing to Wikien-L is here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Wikilocal

We discussed this a while ago. Your input would be welcomed at Wikipedia:Schools. Radiant_* 11:14, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just let it go...

I haven't been following the ins and outs, but, for gosh sakes, it says at the bottom of this very page, as I type this, in, "All contributions to any page on Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Project:Copyrights for details)."

Until someone jiggers the software so that that notice does not appear on Talk pages, I'm agreeing to license my comments in Talk when I press that Save Page button.

What you're doing, then, is agreeing to license, under GFDL, material that contains a notice in which you rescind that agreement.

Thus creating a totally messed-up, ambiguous, endlessly arguable situation.

Since copyright is all about money, none of this really matters until the following things happen:

1) you write something in Wikipedia;

2) someone takes what you wrote, and sells it—sells it.

3) Sells it for a lot of money.

4) Sells it for so much money that it's worth your while to hire a lawyer at $300 an hour to sue them. Even after the lawyer tells you that you've created such a tangled legal mess that nobody can even begin to guess what will happen in court.

Just let it go. It's not important.

Please continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It *IS* important. They are my words. I own the copyright to them under U.S. law. No license can override U.S. law.

Try to take my words from me against my will, and you are fighting a loosing battle. You think I'm gonna let an injustice against me fly? Then you don't know me very well. :-) Remember that quotes CANNOT be GFDLed. If you doubt that statement, talk to BD2412. He is a copyright lawyer, and knows a heck of a lot more about this stuff then I do. Heck, he probably knows more about it then the rest of Wikipedia put together.

Don't worry, Dpbsmith, I *will* continue to contribute to Wikipedia, despite the efforts of some people to try to silence the whistleblower. (Ever hear the term "white hat hacker"? Ever meet one? Ever try to lock one out of a library? :-) But it would be alot easier to continue to contribute if I wasn't blocked.

© 2005, Pioneer-12

[edit] Template:Flag4

I think I've settled on code for Template:Flag (actually the code is in Template:country_flag). I point it out in case that code is of use in Template:Flag4. Flag is for general usage, some specialized versions are in Template:country_flagIOC and Template:country_flagISO. I haven't seen any recent activity there; would it be appropriate for the section heading on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Flag_Template#Template:Flag4 to label it as an "old proposal", or are you aware of usage? (SEWilco 03:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC))

  • Note that another incantation which may be useful is {{flagicon|USA}}, which only displays the (aliased) flag icon with no text label, making it easy to make a template which shows the flag with other text. (SEWilco 04:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Sorry about that

I never saw you post before...accept my apologies...the time stamp just looked very different...nice to have you contribute.--MONGO 07:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ha, I enjoyed your message on Snowspinner's talk page, that's good, there are those of us around who like to see somebody who'll fight a good fight. Everyking 05:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrights

Hello, Pioneer-12. I noticed you putting copyright symbols after your comments; it looks like you have some confusion over copyrights. Yes, you retain the copyright to everything you write: both comments and article edits. This is true of everyone: what I write is copyrighted by me as well. Under U.S. law, works which one creates are automatically copyrighted by that person, regardless of the presence of a copyright symbol. In fact, if I understand matters correctly, technically one cannot place his work into the public domain: you cannot give up your copyright. What you can decide, is how others may use your work. In most creative works you will see something like "Copyright © 2005, 2001, 1998 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved." That is, no rights are granted to reuse the work. However, one can release his work under various terms, while always retaining the copyright. For instance, anyone who submits work to Wikipedia, whether on talk pages or article pages, agrees to release his work under the terms of the GDFL. The sentences I am writing here are copyrighted by me, but I have agreed to release them under the GDFL. Anyone may reuse them provided they follow the provisions of the GDFL. I could put copyright symbols by all my contributions, but it would be irrelevant, since they are already copyrighted by me. The copyright symbols you are placing after your comments are meaningless: not because you are not allowed to copyright your work, but rather, because they are automatically copyrighted whether or not you put the symbol there. Does this make sense? Feel free to reply via e-mail if you wish. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for the thoughtful response, but you are mistaken. Quotes CANNOT be GFDLed. (Otherwise you'd be able to steal people's works from them simply by quoting them on Wikipedia.) Everything I post in the talk pages is a quote. Thus, I license it how I want to license it. And that is NOT the GFDL.
It's time Wikipedia gave up it's misguided attempt to shoehorn the GFDL into talk pages before the courts make them do it. (And suck up alot of the donation money in the process.)
© 2005, Pioneer-12 (left by User:210.8.252.2)
Can you steal works by quoting them here? No, of course not; see our discussion of Ray Bradbury, above. Nor can I see the slightest legal basis for your assertion that the courts might "make" Wikipedia adopt your view of how to organize the project. For example, suppose that the process of posting anything to Wikipedia, on a talk page or anywhere else, had a step similar to a typical freeware license, where you must click on "I agree" or some such to accept the EULA before you can proceed. In other words, suppose, for every single post, you clicked on "Save page", and that produced a GFDL-type notice, and you had to click on a box saying "I agree to license this contribution under the GFDL." If you don't click, your changes aren't saved. Is that somehow illegal? I don't see how. No one is forcing you to contribute to Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation can offer you whatever terms it wants, and you can accept them or decline, as you please. Now, returning to the real world, the legal effect of the notice that appears whenever you open an edit window is exactly the same. Even without clicking on a separate little box, you're accepting the terms that are offered, because you click on "Save page".
You apparently want to contribute to a project in which edits to articles are licensed under the GFDL, but edits to each article's associated talk page are not. Fine, go ahead and start that project. Or persuade the Wikimedia Foundation board to change how this one operates (a change that would, of necessity, be prospective only). You cannot, however, force the Wikimedia Foundation to make its servers available to you for the dissemination of your words on terms that you unilaterally dictate but that the Foundation has never accepted.
Of course, for the reason KnowledgeSeeker states, your inclusion of a copyright notice on each post isn't improper. I don't agree with Netoholic's comment below that your assertion conflicts with the GFDL. It's perfectly consistent for me (or anyone else) to assert that I own the copyright to this brilliant paragraph I'm writing right now, but that I've agreed to license it under the GFDL. Here's how these different principles would be applied: (1) If some Wikipedia mirror were to copy talk pages as well as articles, and you were to sue that mirror demanding that it stop reproducing your comments without your permission, and the mirror were in all other respects fully compliant with the GFDL, then you would lose, because you granted a GFDL license. (2) If you were to collect some of your talk page posts into a book and sell it for money, and the Wikimedia Foundation were to sue you to seek to enjoin the sale of material that's supposed to be freely available to everyone, then the Foundation would lose, because you retain the copyright and therefore the right to do whatever you want with your work. The only limitation is that some of the rights of a copyright owner, such as the right to prohibit re-use by a GFDL-compliant mirror, are no longer available to you, because you voluntarily surrendered those rights by posting here. JamesMLane 21:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
My understanding is, works created in certain countries are copyrighted by default. If something is posted to Wikipedia from a different country, it may not be copyrighted. Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 08:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification

Just a request for clarification on whether the large copyright notice that Pioneer-12 has placed on his user page is in contradiction to wikipedia copyright policy and if so whether it should be removed and have a history link pointed here as to comply with copyright policies while at the same time complying with the GFDL and allowing a copy to be viewed for discussion purposes. Jtkiefer 19:15, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

No matter what his assertion, all of his contributions are now GFDL. That being said, his copyright notice's validity is somewhat challenged, but not strictly against policy to post. He does hold copyright on his contributions and I'd prefer not to remove the notice against his will, even if his assertion conflicts with the agreement he made to license under the GFDL every time he hit "Save". -- Netoholic @

[edit] Request to delete User:Pioneer-12/demos/page concatenation

Your page User:Pioneer-12/demos/page concatenation is appearing in the categories of each article it concatenates. User pages aren't supposed to appear in the article namespace categories. Please delete this page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/i/o/User_talk%7EPioneer-12_64f5.html"