User talk:Frijole

From Conservapedia

Contents 1 Please don't copy articles from Wikipedia 2 a few questions... 3 Uh-oh... 4 You're welcome 5 CWLogo problem 6 accusations of liberalism 7 Liberal Warnings 8 good job frijole 9 Joseph McCarthy

Please don't copy articles from Wikipedia

Thank you for being clear about the origins of the article.

Unfortunately, you can't reuse Wikipedia content on Conservapedia for these reasons:

a) First, Conservapedia has a policy of original material only, no copying (except short, properly attributed quotations, of course).

b) Second, the GFDL license does not allow re-use of GFDL material unless you follow the GFDL rules. Conservapedia itself does not license its material under the GFDL, so re-using it here breaks one of the most important GFDL rules.

There are also issues about preserving article history, but there's no point in worrying about that because of the other two points. Dpbsmith 21:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

a few questions...

I overstated and oversimplified above, because I was trying to give a nice, clear caution that would stop you in your tracks. I was a little alarmed at the number of articles you were copying. I think you assumed in good faith that Conservapedia is or could be a Wikipedia fork.

I probably should have made it even simpler: Don't copy material from Wikipedia into Conservapedia, they really don't like it.

Now for the more complicated version.

I'm just an editor, and I don't speak for Conservapedia or necessarily agree with their approach. I do think it's their site, they can have their rules. And just because it's MediaWiki with the Monobook skin doesn't mean those rules are or should be similar to Wikipedia's.

I don't even know who "runs" Conservapedia. I assume that User:Aschlafly does, but that's purely an assumption.

When I said "has a policy of." I should have said "From Aschlafly's statements and behavior I infer a de facto policy of..."

a) First, Conservapedia has a policy of original material only, no copying (except short, properly attributed quotations, of course).

and where may I have found this "policy"? its not on The Conservapedia Commandments page...

No, it isn't. But on his Talk page and various other places Aschlafly says things like:

"note that we do not copy directly from Wikipedia or other sources, so please do not repeat that approach"

(In response to "the first paragraph of the article on [Marsupial] is a direct copy from Wikipedia ... If conservapedia doesn't subscribe to the GDFL, then this material should be removed.) "Thanks. I removed virtually all of the first paragraph per your comment. We don't want copied material here."

"I'd prefer that we don't copy anything at all!"

"there is little point in wholesale copying of material from another Wiki into Conservapedia. What would that accomplish? Let's try to be original here."

b) Second, the GFDL license does not allow re-use of GFDL material unless you follow the GFDL rules. Conservapedia itself does not license its material under the GFDL, so re-using it here breaks one of the most important GFDL rules.

so if conservapedia does not use the GFDL (which I should have realized, my apologies), and there is not a link to the license in use in the lower-left corner like most mediawiki-based sites have, what license is the content of conservapedia under?

This is an excellent question to which many people have tried to get an answer, without success. Nobody has yet pinned him down.

With regard to re-use, he's said:

There won't be any obnoxious attempts to enforce copyrights by Conservapedia. It's difficult to say that all copying is welcome, however, because there may be rare instances where the copying is a misuse.

There is a draft of a "copyright policy" at User:Geo.plrd/copyr2 and discussion at User_talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2. I assume from Aschlafly's enthusiastic remarks that it may, in fact, be on the way to becoming stated policy. Read it yourself and join the Talk page.

Further questions really should not be addressed to me, but if you do I'll do my best to answer them. But don't be afraid to ask Aschlafly directly on his talk page. Dpbsmith 14:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Uh-oh...

I don't think asserting Creative Common licensing on your material is a good idea, but, hey, do what you like. Dpbsmith 14:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

You're welcome

• Subject line says all. Apologies for my own brusqueness. Dpbsmith 17:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

CWLogo problem

If you're going to vectorize a logo I created, that is fine; however you made an error which I insist you correct. The U.S. flag I had put in the original design was the 1860 Union flag flown during the Civil War, not the current 50-star flag that is there now. And also, the "Civil War" title with dates needs to be put back in. Karajou 14:13, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

But I still like what you did to it! Karajou 14:15, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Ah, good call, I wasn't paying attention to the details of the Union flag. Personally, though, I'm against the text since it becomes illegible at smaller sizes, and isn't easily localizable into other languages, but since I suppose that neither of those are issues here, I'll work on it some more later and update the file I uploaded. --Frijole

Since this design involves heraldry of sorts, perhaps the inclusion of the title as part of a ribbon design, similar to a coat of arms. I'll probably work on similar logos for other periods of miltary action, such as WWII, War of 1812, etc, upload them, and have you .png them for better resolution. I'm not that good at .pgn'ing!Karajou 12:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

accusations of liberalism

Richard, I'm taken aback at your accusation that I may be a liberal! Never before have I heard such patent nonsense!

While I do realize that many supporters of the "copyleft" movement, Creative Commons included, are far to the left, I view it more as a way to retain my individual rights to my work and ensure that if others wish to use that which I have made, they do it under my terms.

I hope this clears things up a bit.

You might also be interested in Category:Warned Users and my Liberal Edit Warning

This comment was left by frijole. This, as well as all contributions by this user, is covered by a Creative Commons Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share-Alike US license. This has important ramifications for your use or reuse of this material. See the license page for more information.

18:55, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Frijole I'm moving your comment to your own page as I do not want it to potentially infect my whole talk page with a leftist license. Doesn't that license infect MY edits to a page it is applied to? I'm concerned that I might be roped into some red scheme. Richard 19:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Richard... I understand your concern. However, the license only covers content that I have added or changed. Your content and that of other users, remains separately licensed, by default, all rights reserved to you. --Frijole

Okay I will remove you from the liberal list. Thank you for educating me. Richard 19:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Warnings

Warning! If you continue to warn others that they may be blocked from editing, or banned, as you did here, you may be blocked from editing for a period of time, or banned.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tsumetai (talk • contribs)

good job frijole

I really liked your McCarthy work. An excellent article on conservapedia. I'm sorry I maligned you for your liberal copyright views. Richard 20:46, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Joseph McCarthy

Come on. This edit is so obviously parodic that I'm shocked that it wasn't reverted on sight. It was quite amusing, though. Liπus the Turbogeek^{(contact me)} 09:25, 31 March 2007 (EDT)