Talk:Main Page

From Wikireligion

Revision as of 10:30, 8 February 2007

why isn't anyone creating articles here?

People are. (sigh) ForestH2 11:36, 31 December 2006 (EST)

• It is new. That is why there is a lack of articles here. --Sir James Paul 13:24, 31 December 2006 (EST)

Project inactive

Is it? ForestH2 19:49, 30 January 2007 (EST)

It seems to be but I do not want it to. Will you promote it for me. --Sir James Paul 07:26, 31 January 2007 (EST)

I would be glad to promote it. I sort of think this has a better chance of becoming a wikimedia project than Wikikids right now. I'll do some editing now. ForestH2 08:17, 31 January 2007 (EST)

Copyvios

You know, I think I'll leave. Because:

1. I am not a jerk.

2. When I was in school, I didn't copy the teacher's things in project.

3. The wiki is a complete mess.

ForestH2 12:13, 3 February 2007 (EST)

Archer7 was talking about the logo and not articles. --Sir James Paul 12:14, 3 February 2007 (EST)

Here.

The license Wikipedia uses grants free access to our content in the same sense as free software is licensed freely. This principle is known as copyleft. That is to say, Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement). Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free forever and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure that freedom.

Read this paragraph and decide if the info you copyed from Wikipedia applies to this. It most certainly does not. You need to mention a direct link back to the articlie, and you need to acknowledge the authors of the Wikipedia article used. ForestH2 12:20, 3 February 2007 (EST)

ForestH2, please do not leave. Of course this place is a mess, but it is not a complete mess. We will test out policies and if they fail we will try new things. I am 100% open to change here if something fails. --Sir James Paul 12:55, 3 February 2007 (EST)

What is the licensing and copyright policy of this site? This needs to be established and published (probably in the footer for each article), especially if you are going to use content cut/pasted from Wikipedia. --Seven of nine 14:38, 4 February 2007 (EST)

We have been under GDFL since early January. --Sir James Paul 14:53, 4 February 2007 (EST)

It does little good if not published and indicated on each article. Is it? --Seven of nine 15:37, 4 February 2007 (EST)

I ask again, where is the licensing and copyright information published? How does an average person who happens upon an article know what the license and copyright is? This is vital, especially since some articles are copies of Wikipedia text. --Seven of nine 20:43, 4 February 2007 (EST)

Still waiting... --Seven of nine 06:50, 5 February 2007 (EST)

I can understand what you want. I'll create a policy for uploaded files. RyGuy 08:48, 5 February 2007 (EST)

More than just a policy on uploaded images, etc, this site needs to establish and publish the terms under which it publishes/licenses its own content. GDFL? Copyleft? Traditional copyright? Creative Commons? --Seven of nine 09:14, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Don't mess around with this, this is serious. You cannot reproduce Wikipedia content without following the license terms, or you'll just end up with a Wikipedian coming over here complaining about violating their copyright, and if you ignored them they'd contact the admin of editthis.info and ask him to remove it. A lot of Wikipedians go around in search of sites that violate their copyright and enforce the GFDL themselves. Archer7 10:18, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Which is precisely my point at Wikireligion:Complaints (which you thrashed for some reason). Sir James states this wiki is under some kind of license, but he neither specifies what that is, no points to any place said license is explicated. I'll start removing content myself if this isn't resolved. --Seven of nine

Don't worry about it, I'm taking care of it myself. Look at and edit my copyright policies and templates if you like! *sighs* I really need to be a sysop to do this correctly RyGuy 10:58, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Remember that the license does need to be compatible with GFDL if you want to copy from Wikipedia, not just similar. Don't start removing content yourself, it'll just cause a massive argument and lead no-where. What do you mean, I 'thrashed' your point? Never heard that before... Archer7 11:10, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Why?

Why does this site exist? Aren't you aware of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Religion ?

• Yes I am aware that wikipedia has a religion portal. If all there is to work on is articles about religion then the articles will be better. Now they are not great because we are new but we will improve. Thanks for bringing up that concern. --Sir James Paul 08:19, 4 February 2007 (EST)

I find it amusing that you think you'll actually create articles of better quality than those on Wikipedia. --Seven of nine 20:49, 4 February 2007 (EST)

Better or equal. --Sir James Paul 04:57, 5 February 2007 (EST)

We can at least try and hope for the best! RyGuy 06:39, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Copyright pages

Ok, so now there's an plethora of copyright-related pages:

• Wikireligion:Copyright: this page is empty, and should probably be deleted
• Wikireligion:Copyright policy: states that all uploaded content must have a copyright tag of some sort
• Wikireligion:Article_Copyright_Policy: suggests that any content copied from any other source is unacceptable. (only 3 words can be copied from other sites - apparently including Wikipedia)

Do these represent conensus? If so, there should be a central page that links to all relevant copyright policy pages, and a link added to either the left-side menus or the page footers. --Seven of nine 16:24, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Ok, so now I see Sir James just decided to delete all these as "not our policy" - I'm not sure who give him such authority to unilaterally decide that. They should be restored and debated, not just deleted. --Seven of nine 16:33, 5 February 2007 (EST)

As the creator of this wiki I do have the authority to decide about how things are to be run here. I am willing though to involve others in policy making. For now we will be under current policies. --Sir James Paul 16:37, 5 February 2007 (EST)

So you are declaring yourself an all-powerful dictator who can delete policies as you see fit, simply becuase you clicked "submit" to start this place? Nice. Welcome to WikiUSSR. (and to think you started the Wikipedia Reform Association or something like that) --Seven of nine 16:40, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Why did you delete my policies? I may be just some kid to you but I know that the policies I made were exactly what we needed in the first place. My article copying policy complies with a real law. Seven of Nine's suggestion of debate should be carried out. Concordia and Esparanza (which you are a member of) would support votes and other such civil solutions. Why not try one? RyGuy 07:55, 6 February 2007 (EST)

GDFL

I see that there is now a copy of the GDFL at Wikireligion:Copyrights. Couple of issues here:

1. You need a more declarative statement regarding how content here is licensed. Just stating "we are under GDFL" is insufficient. Look at how Wikipedia does it: "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License."
2. This page is orphaned, which means it is pretty much meaningless if no one finds it. It should be linked to either in the sidebar or in the footer like in Wikipedia (see example above) so it is visible in every page view.

I'm not a total copyright/licensing expert, so there might be more issues. Perhaps Archer will chime in. --Seven of nine 16:31, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Yeah, you need to link to it in every article, putting in the footer will be fine. You also need to link back to the original article if you copy anything from Wikipedia or any other GFDL source. I'd also steal the "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" as well, it sounds better and safer. Archer7 11:50, 6 February 2007 (EST)

Good suggestion Archer, I'll see if I can do that, since I seem to be doing all that stuff at this time. RyGuy 12:10, 7 February 2007 (EST)

It's too bad I can't do that until I'm a sysop. :-| It's tough to be asked to help with protected things when I am not an admin. RyGuy 12:12, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Sysop Unfair

It's unfair that everyone except me was auto-sysopped. Maybe I could be sysopped, the continue like everyone else is, doing the RfA to maintain status. That would allow me to do what you want me to do here. Sound reasonable? Anyone else, please say your opinion, I'd appreciate it RyGuy 12:17, 7 February 2007 (EST)

So in other words your saying that you would keep doing an RFA just to make sure your popularity, if you will, goes down? That sounds fine. As far as I'm concerned, it looks like Sir James Paul won't edit here anymore if he is desysopped so I would express a lot of greatness if there is another sysop here. (saying I am not desysopped. For all those wondering, I am up on RFA now) Reply, about my orignal question at the top, just to make sure I understand you will continute to do an RFA just to make sure and then you can be sysopped. ForestH2 16:26, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Pretty much, yes. RyGuy 05:30, 8 February 2007 (EST)