Wikipedia edit

Hello, I would like to remind you that we can not copy paste from Wikipedia, as they are GFDL and we are public domain, unless the Wikipedia authour will release their work into PD. --Cspurrier 00:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Wow, you're kidding, that's a major shame. BryceHarrington 00:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree, unless we pick GFDL as our final license, we are stuck with this rule --Cspurrier 00:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
Seems like a good argument in favor of picking the GFDL then. I would also presume that if something other than GFDL was selected, then Wikipedia would likewise be prohibited from incorporating WikiNews material, which would make it a double shame. Does this cover linked images, too? BryceHarrington 00:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
This is one of the top reasons. IIRC none of the licenses we are looking at would prohibit from incorporating Wikinews stories into GFDL text. I am in favour of keeping Wikinews under PD or almost pd license. I think our best bet is to encourge Wikipedia users to relase their work into PD. Images are a different story, GFDL images can go on commons and most fair use images can go on Wikinews directly. --Cspurrier 01:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if the licensing could be done on an article-by-article basis? I.e., in general articles are done as PD, but one would have the option of making it GFDL if one wished to incorporate Wikipedia material. Of course, this would add a complexity to the process, but it would enable us to produce much better news articles in much less time by leveraging the work of the parent project. Perhaps if the included text was marked as from Wikipedia, then someone could go back and rewrite it to be PD, later. BryceHarrington 01:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I think licensing done on an article-by-article basis is a bad idea, it makes thing confusing and can very quickly force everything into GFDL. BTW If you want to read more about the inital debate see [1], there is another page about it somewhere ,that I can not find. --Cspurrier 01:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
While some derivative content may be used from Wikipedia, it cannot be the primary source for a given article unless it is a current events article. Even then, it would probably be better to find laternative sources. Any Wikipedia article which covers a news story can be linked to using {{wikipedia}}, {{wikipedia2}}, or {{wikipediapar}}, depending on the circumstances. - Amgine/talk 06:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Here's yer badge... edit

The Medal of Persistence is awarded to users who have dealt with a large amount of vandalism

Wear it with pride! And, of course, thanks for cleaning up, and telling me to look. - Amgine/talk 19:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Page blanking edit


I notice you blanked an editorial submitted by an IP. It's generally considered rude to blank pages or mess around in a user's "personal" space. Since this is an IP, it's a bit different.... No harm done, I think, but I thought I'd just drop you a note. --Chiacomo (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Uhh, it's my *own* IP. I just hadn't been logged on when I first edited the article. And again, I did not submit the original piece. The original submission was a copyvio and I didn't think it was acceptable as submitted, so I rewrote it. I'm frustrated that my simple attempt to help is being met so harshly. BryceHarrington 22:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry if I've come across as being harsh! I'd not meant to be... I didn't know it was your IP -- I just noticed the page blanking and thought I'd point it out if it was an error. Thanks for your help and your contributions to Wikinews! Again, apologies if I sounded harsh in some way above. --Chiacomo (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I wanted to delete the page first because it wasn't "my" editorial - it was someone elses that I was just trying to help clean up. Second, because it was attached to my IP address instead of my account, which is silly. And third because there's no purpose to having it attached there; no one else would be likely to read it anyway so it's as good as being deleted (without any review process I'll note!) anyway.
I have to say, this has been extremely frustrating. I have long been a fan of wikinews, and helped a bit at the very beginning, and read it on a weekly basis but generally haven't had time to contribute lately. But I had a couple hours today and decided to help. I looked at all the articles in development, and the article in question was the most interesting one to me, so decided to help there, by de-copyvio'ing it. I thought it was an interesting article well worth having on Wikinews. The fact that it was from a US Army captain rather than from some random person, made it seem newsworthy to me. Certainly the article could use from some work to make it less NPOV but I am surprised that instead of letting people work on continuing to improve it, that it got brushed aside so quickly and harshly.
Needless to say, I will think twice about contributing to Wikinews in the future. BryceHarrington 22:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your account will be renamed edit

23:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)