Editing Battlestar Wiki:Galactipedians Quorum/Archive4
From the only original and legitimate Battlestar Wiki: the free-as-in-beer, non-corporate, open-content encyclopedia, analytical reference, and episode guide on all things Battlestar Galactica. Accept neither subpar substitutes nor subpar clones.
More actions
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
In any case, I marked their [[Wikipedia:Battlestar|Battlestar]] article as a copyvio as it's almost a direct lift from [[Galactica type battlestar]]. What's to be done, or does anything really need to be done? --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 22:58, 27 September 2006 (CDT) | In any case, I marked their [[Wikipedia:Battlestar|Battlestar]] article as a copyvio as it's almost a direct lift from [[Galactica type battlestar]]. What's to be done, or does anything really need to be done? --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 22:58, 27 September 2006 (CDT) | ||
:You are correct that the GFDL doesn't allow the inclusion of CC-BY-NC-SA content, and thus shouldn't be using our content. From a practical standpoint, however, I'm not particularly interested in pressing the issue. --[[User: | :You are correct that the GFDL doesn't allow the inclusion of CC-BY-NC-SA content, and thus shouldn't be using our content. From a practical standpoint, however, I'm not particularly interested in pressing the issue. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:14, 28 September 2006 (CDT) | ||
:You'll actually find that the [[Battlestar]] article does have some content which has been lifted from BSGWiki, however the majority is unrelated, i've removed the violation text while i rewrite it. I notice in the history youa re the primary contrib to the article for the RDM Galactica, If you wish you ould dual license your text under the GFDL allowing Wikipedia to reproduce any text you created. [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] 03:41, 28 September 2006 (CDT) | :You'll actually find that the [[Battlestar]] article does have some content which has been lifted from BSGWiki, however the majority is unrelated, i've removed the violation text while i rewrite it. I notice in the history youa re the primary contrib to the article for the RDM Galactica, If you wish you ould dual license your text under the GFDL allowing Wikipedia to reproduce any text you created. [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] 03:41, 28 September 2006 (CDT) | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
Seriously thinking about writing our own "essay" about it and why it should be avoid at all cost at Battlestar Wiki. Just something that can be referenced internally. Thoughts? --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 14:46, 1 October 2006 (CDT) | Seriously thinking about writing our own "essay" about it and why it should be avoid at all cost at Battlestar Wiki. Just something that can be referenced internally. Thoughts? --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 14:46, 1 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
: Good idea. Once you're done, dunk it in the Tank. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 15:39, 1 October 2006 (CDT) | : Good idea. Once you're done, dunk it in the Tank. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 15:39, 1 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
:By all means. --[[User: | :By all means. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:16, 1 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
:Huh? --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 22:11, 1 October 2006 (CDT) | :Huh? --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 22:11, 1 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
:: [[w:Fanwank|Here is what Frankie's referring to.]] -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 22:15, 1 October 2006 (CDT) | :: [[w:Fanwank|Here is what Frankie's referring to.]] -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 22:15, 1 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
:::::Here's what I have so far [[User:Gougef/Fanwanking]]. I know it's "harsh." --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 09:09, 2 October 2006 (CDT) | :::::Here's what I have so far [[User:Gougef/Fanwanking]]. I know it's "harsh." --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 09:09, 2 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
::::::Looks great so far, actually. I want to crosslink with this and the [[Battlestar Wiki:Citation Jihad]] subsection on derived content to warn people not to confuse that with fanwankery, which is wholly unsubstantiated. I'll add a bit for that.--[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 16:46, 2 October 2006 (CDT) | ::::::Looks great so far, actually. I want to crosslink with this and the [[Battlestar Wiki:Citation Jihad]] subsection on derived content to warn people not to confuse that with fanwankery, which is wholly unsubstantiated. I'll add a bit for that.--[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 16:46, 2 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
:::::::It's going a little far to say that fanwaking is completely forbidden. A certain amount of speculation is appropriate (take, for example, [[Articles of Colonization]] - the simplest explanation would be that the producers messed up referred to article 21 instead of 23 by mistake. However, the situation was different enough that Tyrol could plausibly have been invoking different rights in each case). It only becomes problematic when we concoct patently inplausible scenarios to excuse what are obviously production errors. --[[User: | :::::::It's going a little far to say that fanwaking is completely forbidden. A certain amount of speculation is appropriate (take, for example, [[Articles of Colonization]] - the simplest explanation would be that the producers messed up referred to article 21 instead of 23 by mistake. However, the situation was different enough that Tyrol could plausibly have been invoking different rights in each case). It only becomes problematic when we concoct patently inplausible scenarios to excuse what are obviously production errors. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:28, 2 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
::::::::Want me to put it in the tink tank has a mutual proposal to be worked on? As a recovering fanwanker ;), I know I was probably being too harsh. Thanks for the great ideas. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 18:40, 2 October 2006 (CDT) | ::::::::Want me to put it in the tink tank has a mutual proposal to be worked on? As a recovering fanwanker ;), I know I was probably being too harsh. Thanks for the great ideas. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 18:40, 2 October 2006 (CDT) | ||