Welcome to Wikipedia, Rishikeshan! I am Mysdaao and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Hmm, doesn't quite say what I thought it would. In any case, please stop indiscriminately spamming admin talk pages with pointers to your noticeboard discussion. You're already discussing it in a prominent place, and if it gains any traction it will get more attention by itself. Honestly though, your proposal has pretty much no chance of passing, at least not in the very near future. Discuss it calmly, try to figure out why people may be opposed to it, but don't start out by campaigning for it, you will only annoy people. Amalthea12:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disparaging statements
You are free to hold an opinion such that someone is selfish, but please do not push this opinion on Wikipedia. Kindly retract your disparaging statements and re-word in a more neutral manner. –xenotalk13:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please say your opinion. I am not spamming... I am trying to change Wikipedia to public domain. see reasons on village pump. Sorry for the spam--I had a fear that the thread will go to archive. Please discuss about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishikeshan (talk • contribs) 13:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)(moved from user talk:xeno)[reply]
Please note I am not messaging you about spamming. I am messaging you about your disparaging statements about a living person and contributor to Wikipedia. Retract your ill-advised statements and do not make further statements of this nature. –xenotalk13:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please reply here, not on my talk page. Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and the discussion looks like it's entirely against your proposal. Even if we set aside the issue of whether we would like to have attribution or not, from a practical standpoint starting to have contributors submit material as public domain is going to make things impossibly complicated. This is not an issue that can be decided on Wikipedia, it's a meta- or Foundation-level issue. –xenotalk13:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again please reply HERE, I am watching your talk page and will see your reply. Ok, if info-en told you to post at the village pump, then we will let the village pump discussion run its course. I think you'll find your suggestion will be handily rejected. –xenotalk13:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Why Reject? I want to make wikipedia more open and not to die copylefted. GFDL is copyleft, right? Its all derivatives must be again in gfdl. Thats why I hate gfdl. BSD with advertising clause do something better.
You are free to your opinion on copyleft licenses...but I think you will find it is not shared by many users here. The suggestion will be rejected because 1) it will make things hopelessly complicated [i.e. determining which articles are public domain and which are still copyleft] 2) it will greatly reduce the number of sources we can import 3) people like attribution, it's one of the few forms of "payment" for contributions 4) we just transitioned our license a year ago. –xenotalk13:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you say I can't do it? There are many public domain sources and I ask only to add upcoming edits under PD. Please help me! Are there any public domain encyclopedia alternatives to Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishikeshan (talk • contribs) 13:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't see why that will make things hopelessly complicated? Some articles will be cc-by-sa, some articles will have portions of public domain, and some will be in the public domain. Anyone wanting to use the content will have to figure out if something is public domain or requires attribution. Good god, no. Is providing attribution so onerous? –xenotalk13:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you say I can't use Wikipedia's content on my books? Are the derivatives of Wikipedia need to be licensed under the sucking gfdl? Sorry for writing bad things, but I give permission myself to write like this in my talk page. Rishikeshan (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Rishikehsan.[reply]
So my works need to be in a sucking copyleft license? OH GOD! RESCUE ME AND THIS WORLD FROM COPYLEFT!
If your books' content is a derivative, then yes. However, it is my impression that you misunderstand what a derivative is. You can of course take information from Wikipedia articles and use them in your book, whichever way you please (although an entry in the "Special Thanks" section would be nice ;)). See Derivative work for the legal definition. Amalthea14:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How to implement public domain in Wikipedia and other projects? Please Give me instructions. Are there any village pump for meta or foundation wikis?
I have mistakenly thought all wikipedians prefer copy left. Thank you again.
Please inform other admins about this village pump threads.
Are village pump threads properly implemented?
Please help me to make Wikipedia public domain.
In reply to your note at my talk page, there is no evidence that the community wishes public domain to be implemented on Wikipedia or other projects. The overwhelming majority of responders to your listing at Village Pump are opposed to your proposal, including me. If you wish to make a meta proposal, you take it to meta:Meta:Requests and proposals. However, your proposal isn't likely to be any better received there than it was here. I would suggest you make your proposal succinct if you wish it to have a chance to succeed and avoid the impassioned rhetoric. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits
Rishikeshan,
Wikipedia cannot be released into the public domain for legal reasons; even if all future edits were released into the public domain, any edited version of an article currently in existence would be a derivative work of that article, and would therefore still be released only under the CC-BY-SA license.
More to the point, if you persist in misrepresenting yourself as an administrator or posting your messages on unrelated pages, you will be blocked from further participation in the project. Kirill[talk][prof]06:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this as a strong warning to stop your disruptive edits. You have been given clear reasons why your permissive-licensing proposal as written cannot possibly happen and why the discussion related to it belongs in certain places (if anywhere) other than where you post it. Yet you persist in (re)starting it in other places where it does not belong. That's a waste of time and resources that could be devoted to building an encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note here that you are being warned again here in terms of pushing this idea. If you really want to discuss this issue openly and honestly, at least you picked a proper forum in terms of the Village Pump. Still, note that the licensing issues and using copyleft concepts for the development of Wikipedia was not something done lightly or without due consideration. There are perhaps some of the most brilliant legal experts in the world who have put considerable effort into weighing all of the alternatives, including releasing the content in the public domain. Besides, it is something that to me is unlikely to ever get approval and would not be supported by a vast majority of the contributors to this website. If you need some education on the topic, I'm sure there are many who could point you to some resources in terms of why the licensing regime is what it is. If you want to convince others about your argument, I'd suggest using something much more persuasive than "copyleft is not always good". --Robert Horning (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
