User talk:Zandperl

Zandperl talk guidelines

If you're posting a comment to me, I'd like to request you follow the below guidelines to make it easier for me to read.

• Add new stuff at the bottom
• Use topic headings (two equals signs before and after a topic name).
• Sign with your username and time (four tildes).
• I'll reply to your talk page unless you don't leave a username, request otherwise, your page is protected, or I feel there's reason to post here instead.
• stuff'll be periodically cleaned to User talk:Zandperl/archive

---

Boston meetup

Hallo Zandperl, see Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston for details; proposed meetup in a few weekends. I hope you can make it :) +sj+ 21:55, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 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. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are 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 what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)| talk)

Quoth: If {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-2.0}} is essentially the same as the GFDL, why do we need to do it? And I thought GFDL was the same as public domain, which the attribution part of CC-By-SA is different from. What's the point of it all? Doesn't it make things more confusing if some people have different premissions on how their work can be used? Also, wouldn't some people then start using more restrictive licenses than GFDL, so we couldn't use their contributions in the rest of Wikipedia?

1. Each license specifically states that it is only compatible with itself, even though they have similar purposes and meaning.
2. GFDL is not even close to the same as public domain. Both the GFDL and CC-by-sa require attribution and copyleft, which PD does not.
3. Everyone has the same permission: to use Wikipedia under the GFDL. Not everyone allows CC-by-sa, but that is what we are trying to change.
4. No one can use more restrictive licenses with your contributions without your permission, however because the licenses specifically state exclusivity, the are not interchangeable. (hence the reason we have to ask permission!)

Hope this helps you out! – Ram-Man ^{(comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)) (talk)}[[]] 18:50, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)