User talk:Wnt

From WikiAlpha
Jump to: navigation, search


I went ahead and added that tag to all the articles I could find that I copied from my deleted pages that were once on Wikipedia. Of course the majority of those articles don't exist there any more, so the Wikipedia links may not help much for attribution, but that's their problem for deleting them, not mine. One funny one is the article Antagony. It was an article about a comic book villain that Wikipedia deleted. Then they put up an article about a band with the same name since my article was deleted, so if you go to Wikipedia the article you see has nothing to do with a comic book villain. Mathewignash (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2011 (MSD)


Just wanted to leave a quick thank you note. I have appreciated all you work over at Wikipedia. But I really need to thank you for your comments and insight at strategy:Talk:March 2011 Update and strategy:Talk:May 2011 Update. I felt your input was very thoughtful and to the point. You had a lot of good observations and your ideas made a lot of sense, so I wanted to thank you for taking the time to provide your input. It was very much appreciated by me and I expect by many others as well. Thanks for everything. Web (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2011 (MSD)


Hi. :) I corrected one point about Wikipedia's licensing situation. We don't use CC-By-SA entirely; we co-license content. GFDL is still a valid license for the vast majority of Wikipedia's content. That said, some content on Wikipedia is licensed under CC-By-SA solely, so it's still a valid focus.

Otherwise, I will not be able to involve myself in the essay because I disagree strongly with your conclusion that a link to a deleted article is sufficient attribution. I can't endorse that view. :) Contributors to Wikimedia projects designate three acceptable forms of attribution in accordance with Terms of Use. While the first form is a link, the link ceases to provide attribution when the article is deleted. So long as that is the case, the requirement of a list of authors (the third option) or a stable version of the article with a list of authors (option 2) holds sway, in my interpretation. (My opinion merely; I've never asked our attorneys about this one.)

That said, I do appreciate your pointing out that authors have the right to opt out. :) I think the essay is a fabulous idea; it's just that we have such a fundamental difference of interpretation that makes collaboration on it challenging. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2011 (MSD)

I think that we could present them as different perspectives, pro and anti or something, maybe use subsections. Not being a lawyer, I certainly can't guarantee I would be found right in a court - the point is, WikiAlpha should consider the issue and decide one way or another. I am very concerned, however, that if deleting a Wikipedia article retroactively turns the text based on it into a copyright violation, that Wikipedia would not be a free encyclopedia, at least not as 99.9% of people use it. That isn't a tolerable situation from either end of this. Wnt (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2011 (MSD)

Just ignore him

Everyone else does. Mathewignash (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2011 (MSD)

Enforcement rarely works, but if you can get a troll to realize just how little attention he's really getting, well, the truth hurts. Wnt (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2011 (MSD)
Do not add spam to external sites. That will look like I see spam, and I will remove them. Cheers. CityOfSilver 03:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)