User talk:Ram-Man
Note: Contributions made from account are multi-licensed. See Ram-Man for detailed licensing information.
Bot Information
See User:rambot and the FAQ for current bot running information such as tasks and IP address. Before notifying me about any problems, please see the list of known problems on that page. Feel free to post any other important bugs and information below.
Talk
The census bureau has two entries for Mountain Park, Georgia. One is just a census tract with a seemingly arbitrary name in Gwinnett County (see Mountain Park, Gwinnett County, Georgia). The other is the real city, located about 25 milkes or 40km away in Fulton County, Georgia (see Mountain Park, Fulton County, Georgia). Oddly, that entry was originally under Mountain Park, Cherokee County, Georgia, which is incorrect. I'd like to move the real city to the main article, but I'm not sure how Rambot would take this, or if there is a preferred way to disambiguate in this case. Suggestions? – radiojon 01:56, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)
ArbCom elections
Would you be interested in running for an empty ArbCom seat? See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004. --mav 19:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I might consider it if the workload is low. Part of the problem is that I go through phases on inactivity. A few months on, a few months off. As such, I am a bit unreliable. That's part of the reason that, aside from becoming an administrator a long while ago, I have not taken a large role in Wikipedia politics. As the term is for 6 months, I may be unable to serve for such a time in a reliable capacity. I believe I have the skills and would make a good candidate in all areas except a reliable long-term, continuous presence. -- Ram-Man 19:52, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Question on marking dual-licensed edits and/or material
I posed this question on the talk page for Meta:Guide to the CC dual-license, but I thought I might as well put it here as well: (moved) -- Kukkurovaca
- I responded on the meta page. -- Ram-Man 20:21, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Creative Commons
Thank you! Mark Richards 15:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi. I am not sure I know what changes you mean, but if it means making anything I did even more accessible as free information, then I am for it. Danny 19:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hey, as far as I am concerned everything I write on Wikipedia (with the exception of my user page) is public domain. I have no interest in protecting my intellectual property in regards to Wikipedia. In regards to the creative commons license I approve of it as well. Kevin Rector 19:12, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
Hi. I have no problem with dual-licensing my particular dot-map contributions to Wikipedia. I simply used the same method that was/is being used by Seth Ilys. You might want to talk to him and Catbar as well as they are the other two primary contributors of dot-maps to WP. The only issue I worry about is the sheer number of maps that would need to be edited to change the license tags, but I suppose someone could make a bot to do that (you seem quite good with bots ;) . Bumm13 20:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Map licensing
Please see my reply on my talk page. -- The Anome 22:42, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
I trust you. Tell me what to do and it will be done. Danny 23:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm fuzzy, too. The way I understand your note on my page, if I put the dual license template {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} on my User Page, I'll grant the CreativeCommons license to all my work on Wikipedia. I have no problem with that. Should I do something to current (and future) maps? By the way, I'm not using a bot; it's manual. Thanks. Catbar (Brian Rock) 00:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Ok. Done. Thanks. Catbar (Brian Rock) 01:27, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Geographic article licensing
I have released all of the contribution from the Pearle and Beland accounts into the public domain, which should be compatible with any of the popular copyleft licenses. -- Beland 03:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Licensing
- Option 2
- I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. State article, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
Why would user pages be US state articles? I'm not sure the exception here makes sense. Perhaps having a template for this would be better than people typing that directly on their user pages. This way, you could check who had used each option more easily with "what links here". Angela. 14:52, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Yes the exception was a dumb copy and paste error. That exception phrase should be removed. As for the templates, we already use templates, but there are many variations to the each users choice for special exclusions. For instance, I personally limit my dual-licensing to main and main talk namespaces, while leaving the GFDL for all other namespaces. And I permit all minor edits into the public domain. There are so many variations that it would yield for many many templates. Instead it is up to people to check the user pages to look for exceptions. -- Ram-Man 15:16, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
Dual-licensing county maps
I'll have to think about it. A quick perusal of the pros and cons didn't really give me enough incentive to want to dual-license, especially if there is any risk of my contributions becoming incompatible with Wikipedia. But as I said, I'll consider it, and make a decision once I understand a little more about the differences between the GFDL and CC-by-sa licenses. -- Wapcaplet 17:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I agree, the county maps in particular are not likely to be radically improved such that I would wish that the alterations be GFDLed; my concern, I suppose, is that I have released, or plan to release under GFDL, source material that has required a lot of work (for example, if/when I eventually post the blender scene file for my automobile diagrams) - in those cases I would prefer the requirement that further modifications also be subject to the GFDL. I'd be kind of annoyed if, say, hypothetically, an automobile manufacturer used my modified blender model in a car commercial without giving anything back to the community (assuming I understand the terms correctly). Were I to dual-license, it would most likely be for specific contributions, rather than all of my contributions collectively. If that is a possibility, then I would agree to dual-license the county map images. I trust there is a way to do so without adding the dual-license to all 5,000 of them :-) -- Wapcaplet 18:24, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm convinced; after looking into it, it does appear that CC extends free use without compromising the things I was concerned about. I hereby dual-license all my contributions as CC BySA-Dual (1.0/2.0), and will put a note on my user page to that effect. Also, you are right: User:Jdforrester participated in creating the county maps. He and I made the images, and User:The Anomebot uploaded them. The WikiProject U.S. Counties archive has the discussion that occurred at the time. -- Wapcaplet 03:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'll dual license my contributions. I don't consider edits performed by the TNIS to be copyrightable. You may consider those edits to be public domain for all intents and purposes. -- Tim Starling 23:54, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
Rambot problem
In the change from town to CDP (thank you!), some of the articles got screwed up, probably the ones where I changed town to unincorporated area. For instance, Wekiwa Springs, Florida.--SPUI 05:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I have modified the bot to eliminate the error on my end and I will fix it on the next fun. -- Ram-Man 13:30, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
Another Rambot problem
I noticed Rambot is adding municipalities in the state of Georgia to Category:Towns in Georgia; however, the proper category is Category:Towns in Georgia (U.S. state), to distinguish from the nation of the same name. Sarge Baldy 06:48, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will modify the bot accordingly. -- Ram-Man