User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2004 December

Previous · Index · Next

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 13:54, 9 December 2004 (UTC)

1. No wholesale [commercial use|hijacking] of the Wikipedia.
2. Credit directly or indirectly through wikihistory.
3. No real restriction on information which has been digested by sentients.

The GFDL (and CC-by-sa) allow commercial use, otherwise one could not sell printed material, but of course one must always allow free copying. Both supply credit. I'm not sure what you mean about "real restrictions on information", but part of the reason I am seeking multi-licensing from users is because your GFDL edits are restricted so that WikiTravel cannot use them because they use a different open/free license. Both licenses claim to be open and free, but the text of the license makes it clear that they can't be interchanged (without of course multi-licensing, which removes this restriction). – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 15:05, 9 December 2004 (UTC)

Energy Development and Hubbert's Peak Theory

There is a little storm brewing at Hubbert peak concerning, well, many things. But currently concerning how to organize information concerning future development of energy schemes (phrased as "Oil Alternatives" or "Future energy development" depending on whom you ask). As you might guess, Hubbert Peak is an article that might be expected to draw a lot of public interest and heat; Energy development is not. We could use your input regarding how to proceed. Visit Talk:Hubbert Peak to contribute. Thanks for your consideration. Tom - Talk 21:07, 15 December 2004 (UTC)

32,000 megatons of TNT = 133 Exajoules by my calculation

See the math calculations at Talk:2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake#How_much_energy.3F, perhaps you can verify if there's no mistake. -- Curps 21:02, 31 December 2004 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page and at Talk:2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake#How_much_energy.3F Rich Farmbrough 21:38, 31 December 2004 (UTC)