Talk:Miss Foozie

Creation
Hello, everyone, I created this article today and hereby dual-license it under both Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and the following license: The copyright holder of this file, Taric Alani, allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted. Link back to http://taric25.livejournal.com, Taric Alani's blog. Permission is not required, however, as a courtesy, Taric Alani would appreciate it. You may select the license of your choice, however, I cannot guarantee future versions will be under the same license.

Please let me know what you think of the article! Taric25 (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for creating the article! Dual licensing is often a mess (well known in the open-source software world). Your alternative license appears to be basically the same as the general Wikipedia license (the CC-Sharealike you link). What purpose does dual-licensing serve, apart from creating confusion? Remember, most of the world is still trying to figure out what open really means - we need to make things easy for them :-) GyroMagician (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! I allow people to use the article under the other license, because the CC-BY-SA license contains the nasty clause that if a person creates a derivative work form the original work, the author of the original work can force the person who created the derivative work to remove their attribution, which is directly incompatible with other licenses, such as the GFDL, which strictly forbit this. In addition, the Share-alike requirement is too restrictive, since if all redistributions must be shared under the same free license, then as soon as the author distributes the first copy, it effectively fixes the price at zero, since no one would pay for additional copies. Why would you buy a copy from the author when distributions can legally be copied? In essence, the CC licenses try to be simple licenses, but they basically force all redistributions under restrictive clauses from whom no one can ever profit. The license I use does not have any of those restrictions. Taric25 (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is a mess
I don't even know where to start.

Wikipedia isn't meant to be an all-encompassing database for all the available information about a public figure. Most of this is not really encyclopedic info, but rather things that belong on a blog or website.

Miss Foozie's portrayer should have HIS name listed in the beginning, and then identify Lucy Foozie as his alter ego. As it stands now, it appears that the unnamed portrayer has his birthdate listed as hers.

Foozie is a notable figure in Chicagos gay community and her years in Chicago merit an article, for sure. But a much shorter and better constructed one than this press release. This is just a mess. 2603:8001:2A00:7428:DD84:EF43:664B:8F20 (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: Of course, a Wikipedia editor deleted my info and wants to keep the non-encyclopedic info. This is why I never edit. 2603:8001:2A00:7428:DD84:EF43:664B:8F20 (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)