Wikipedia talk:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License/Archive 1

Congratulations!

 * Section title added. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations Wikimedia licensing team! Shii (tock) 05:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * They are to be congratulated for making Wikipedia's licensing terms ten times more complicated? Gurch (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter if it's more complicated for us-- it's now infinitely simple for other producers of free content. Shii (tock) 18:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on wasting people's time with irrelevant attributions. Just release it all public domain please. 71.243.28.6 (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC) It was David COhan and merry terrry.

Awady TBM

Are the long strings of all caps really necessary? Splargo (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * IIRC they're the legal equiBold textvalent of speaking to someone with a stern look on your face Gurch (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But the internet standard is that it's shouting. Surely Lessig, Stallman, Wales, and the boards of both the Wiki-media and Free Software foundations would all prefer legibility to following a tradition which has zero case law or statute or anything but tradition from an earlier era behind it.  Is there any reason to doubt that? Splargo (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not tradition, the Uniform Commercial Code requires that certain contract clauses be rendered "conspicuous", particularly when their effect is to negate or limit rights that one would normally have in a similar situation. Though not the only means of generating "conspicuous" text, writing in ALL CAPS is a means that has a well-defined body of case law behind it and so is the usual choice.  The formatting is deliberate and well-motivated, and should not be removed.  Dragons flight (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Under the Uniform Commercial Code, 'A term or clause is conspicuous when it is so written that a reasonable person against whom it is to operate ought to have noticed it'; whether a term is conspicuous is a legal question. (U.C.C. Section 400.1-201(10), RSMo 1994.... courts examining the question of the conspicuousness of exculpatory clauses have adopted the U.C.C. definition as authoritative.) Methods for making a language conspicuous include, but are not limited to, rendering language in all capital letters, in larger type, or in other contrasting type or color." Warren v. Paragon (1997) [Boldface added as a self-referential example.] There are no reasons that legibility ought to decrease the probability of notice. Splargo (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are other approaches to creating conspicuous text, but they wouldn't be Creative Common's choice. Because such stylings have legal meaning behind them, I don't believe we should change them without their permission.  Dragons flight (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the choice of valid conspicuous styling is insignificant, but we owe a duty to readers to enhance legibility when possible. Splargo (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It really isn't insignificant. Almost everyone adopts the ALL CAPS convention because there is substantial case law built up around that style.  It's a legal question and not an issue I support changing on our own.  Dragons flight (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest changing the text to normal case and displaying it with "text-transform:uppercase". This also makes it easier to read with text-to-speech systems. --Ysangkok (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Human readable version?
yes sir! It would be nice if we had the human readable version of this license up front, rather than simply giving all of the lawyerese text from the start... Mike Peel (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Since Creative Commons prefers to link to the more human readable version at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ then we should certainly include that text in an article message box on this project page, like the  below. Splargo (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. But where did you get the passage at the bottom from? "Think of it as the user-friendly interface to the Legal Code beneath." etc. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I clicked on "Disclaimer" at the bottom right of http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ - I've un-bolded the other pop-ups, which I don't think we support including, because of problems with printing. Splargo (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of including the deed conceptually, but I'm not sure about the current formatting. If the legal code and deed appear on the same page, I think the separation should be clearer.  Perhaps given the box it's own title and move the disclaimer immediately below that?  Also, not sure I like the icon in this case.  Dragons flight (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the disclaimer. Was it really needed? I agree that the formatting could be improved. It would be nice if it could look more like http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ with the separate icons for each section. But this is a reasonable version to implement now I think. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I already had removed part of the disclaimer, but you're right, the part you took out was also redundant. Is the Creative Commons logo better, as changed above? Either image is fine with me. I would also be fine with re-using the separate icons, but that would probably violate the ombox conventions.  Splargo (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the kind of header I had in mind, and placed the disclaimer at the front of the box. Dragons flight (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As a secondary question, would hyperlinking terms be better?

I prefer the hyperlinked version. Splargo (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Like the wikilinking. I don't like the long URL at the bottom. Could this be shortened or removed somehow? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's actually fairly short as URLs go. I like the idea of spelling it out, since that would continue working even if someone prints the license.  Dragons flight (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that this is a good idea. Even looking at WP:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License you'll note that it is just the license (no box at the top explaining the license).  I think this page should just be the text of the license.  Of course it is going to be  legalese but that's the point, really. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well yes, but unlike FSF and the GFDL, Creative Commons provides their own summary and actually recommends it as the page people link to, so I don't think the situations are entirely comparable. I do think if we include the summary it needs to be clear that it is not itself part of the license.  Dragons flight (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. So long as there is a clear distinction as to where the license text actually beings, that should be fine. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki
Please add a link to ca:Viquipèdia:Text de la llicència de Creative Commons Reconeixement-Compartir Igual 3.0 No adaptada. Thanks. --Vriullop (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 16:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

“Unported”
For those confused by the term “unported”, it is Creative Commons’s term for “generic, referring to international treaties, not localized (‘ported’) to a given country’s laws”, as per this explanation: I.e., it is the ur-license on which particular national (properly, jurisdictional) licenses are based.
 * Creative Commons Version 3.0 Licenses — A Brief Explanation
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This explanation really belongs to the article itself. 88.148.208.105 (talk) 07:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Interwikis
Please add links to Thanks, Holder (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * als:Wikipedia:Lizenzbestimmungen_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported
 * de:Wikipedia:Lizenzbestimmungen Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
 * ✅--Aervanath (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

interwiki +ko
Please add ko:위키백과:Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Thanks.--Kwj2772 (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 09:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Add Thai Interwiki
Please adding Thai Interwiki th:วิกิพีเดีย:ข้อความในสัญญาอนุญาตครีเอทีฟคอมมอนส์. Thanks. --Harley Hartwell (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Add HE inerwiki
editprotected please add he:ויקיפדיה:רישיון Creative Commons ייחוס-שיתוף זהה 3.0 לא מותאם interwiki. Thanks, Yonidebest Ω Talk ‏ 20:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 21:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

policy?
About the June 18 edit, which promoted this page to policy ... was there any discussion? Are there any other policy pages that are permanently full-protected? - Dank (push to talk) 23:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Lots of discussion and a vote, across all wiki-projects, which resolved to migrate GFDL to CC-BY-SA. For full details see Licensing update and m:Wikipedia:Licensing update. —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 06:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I know about that, it's hard not to :) I mean: read WP:POLICY, and you'll see that there are certain processes commonly used for promoting a particular page to policy status, and certain things that policy pages have in common ... for instance, they're not permanently full-protected.  So ... should this page be a policy page?  Probably not, I think it would make more sense to link it from a policy page. Although it's not a "disclaimer", exactly, the closest match I can find for this type of page is the "disclaimer" subcat of Category:Wikipedia legal policies. - Dank (push to talk) 12:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dank is right that this page is not exactly the same as other policies, but it and WP:GFDL can be considered exceptions to the rule; most policies are promulgated from inside the en.wiki community and promoted "bottom-up"; the copyright notices are "top-down" policies, in that they've been implemented by the Foundation across all the Foundation wikis. The reason it's fully protected is that, unlike other policies, it's a legal document, and it needs to be a faithful reproduction of the official CC-BY-SA text on the Creative Commons website, and it's not negotiable like other policies are.  This is a somewhat unique case not covered by WP:POLICY.--Aervanath (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right ... they're not even similar to the disclaimers, because we occasionally edit the disclaimers. They should be on meta along with the other pages that shouldn't be edited by Wikipedians.  We can link them from a policy page and say that our policy is to follow them. - Dank (push to talk) 12:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * GFDL is already on meta, although they don't appear to have a copy of CC-BY-SA; all the references they have are direct links to the copy on the Creative Commons website itself. I think it is better to have a local copy that is protected; it makes it easier to link to, for one thing.--Aervanath (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, but are we agreed that permanently full-protecting policy pages is a bad idea? Let's at least remove the policy cat. - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree that permanent full-protection of other policy pages isn't good, as long as we're clear that this page and WP:GFDL stand as exceptions to that rule. And I would object to removing the policy cat. A lot of policy is based on our copyright documents, it seems odd not to include this. I would hope that people looking at that category would see this page, since it is one of the two completely non-negotiable policies we have.--Aervanath (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent) I just stumbled across Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines, which leads me to believe you're trying to straighten out the structure of the policy and guideline cats. I think I'd suggest that we work on straightening out the general structure of those categories first, and then we can figure out where to place this page and WP:GFDL in that structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aervanath (talk • contribs)
 * Personally, I'm inclined to agree that the licenses are something other than "policy" in the usual sense, and I don't mind if they are removed from the category or added to some other category. That said, I don't see it as a big deal either way.  Dragons flight (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

←Has anyone made the necessary changes to policies, guidelines, essays, and other pages yet?
 * WP:POLICY: "Essays and how-to pages may be marked as such by any editor. Guidelines and policies, however, should be presented to the community for review and feedback, except for WP:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and WP:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License, which didn't need any review and can't be edited."
 * WP:IAR: "If a rule other than WP:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and WP:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."
 * WP:EP: "edits ... may be made by any editor at any time any page, except to WP:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and WP:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License"

And we'll need to change several sections of WP:PROTECT explaining that these two pages are exceptions to the rules for how to request and make changes to protected pages. - Dank (push to talk) 12:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC) tweaked 12:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I expect you're making these proposals somewhat facetiously, but I'll bite. The changes aren't necessary; see POLICY, which already states that one of the sources of Wikipedia policy is "Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load." This would certainly fall under that category.--Aervanath (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * More light-heartedly than facetiously, and yes, if the WMF board says that something needs to be a policy page, then we can adapt to their wishes, despite the fact that "policy" and "legal document" are more opposite concepts than similar concepts. Did the WMF request that we make this a policy page? - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, there is no requirement that it be labeled as policy per se. Obviously it has to be treated as the official law of the land, but how one chooses to label and categorize it is a local decision.  I'm pretty sure this was marked as policy primarily because the GFDL page had been so flagged for years.  Dragons flight (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is probably the reason why it was added to the category in the first place. Also, I would be hesitant to exclude our copyrights from the policy category just because they didn't carry a policy tag; unless there's a better way to categorize them to make them easier to find, I think that a policy category is where people would look for them.--Aervanath (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But yes, I agree with Dragons flight that the WMF has not made a statement that this should be labeled as policy; they haven't really addressed the issue, as it doesn't really matter what we call it, as long as we follow it. So I guess I've talked myself into not caring where its categorized, as long as the categorization makes clear that it's not to be messed with.  Perhaps Category:Stuff that should absolutely not be messed with, and if you do we'll beat you up? :)--Aervanath (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I agree that it's okay to transclude this material into a policy page, as long as the policy page is something solid, more than just this transclusion. And that sounds like a good cat to put the license page in, Aervanath! - Dank (push to talk) 19:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictures as bullets
editprotected Can we replace the two plain bullets with the two small (15px) images that the website uses to symbolize the rights? --Ipatrol (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are these available on Wikimedia Commons somewhere? (if so, could you point to them?) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * commons:Category:Creative Commons icons. I don't really see what value these would add, though. --- RockMFR 16:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which two bullets are you talking about? And I agree with RockMFR. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The result (if the formatting can be fixed):

--Ipatrol (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm inclined to think those tiny icons are more distracting than illuminating. Dragons flight (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Proper name
The CC website calls it "Attribution-Share Alike" and "Attribution-ShareAlike" (note the space or lack of space in ShareAlike). This page uses "Attribution-ShareAlike" in its title. Various system messages, including the footer, use "Attribution/Share-Alike". We should be consistent. --- RockMFR 18:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to "Attribution-ShareAlike" in all the system messages I could find it in. --- RockMFR 23:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

interlang ja
Please add ja:Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.--aokomoriuta (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

vi interwiki
Please add interwiki to vi:Wikipedia:Nguyên văn Giấy phép Creative Commons Ghi công-Chia sẻ tương tự phiên bản 3.0 Chưa chuyển đổi. Thank you. Tân (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

✅  Horologium  (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding microformat to copyright footer
See my proposal for microformat in the copyright footer: MediaWiki_talk:Wikimedia-copyright —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 00:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Typos
There are a couple of typos in the license. The two that jumped out at me are in section 1(b), where it refers the reader to section 1(f) but it clearly means to send them to 1(h), and where it refers the reader to view the adaptations "defined below", even though the definition of them is above. The typos are original to the license from Creative Commons, and I've told them, but of course it cannot be changed since it is a legal document. I just thought I'd point them out here. kmccoy (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

es interwiki
Please, add es-interwiki link: es:Wikipedia:Texto de la Licencia Creative Commons Atribución/Compartir-Igual 3.0. Thanks. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. — RockMFR 02:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Something weird going on in section titles?
Maybe it's just my browser, but the section titles are not coming out right. For example, section 1 title code is

==1. Definitions==

and renders as

(((2 |}}} 1. Definitions

All the section titles seem to have the problem. Is it the template? Is it just me? &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nevermind; I found it. Somebody edited the "section" template to put it in a non-English language.  I reverted the edit and now all is well.  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Category discussion
This page might get a new policy category; the discussion is at WP:VPP. - Dank (push to talk) 23:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Now done. Please see discussions at WT:POLICY and WT:Terms of use.  The "policy" label moved to WP:Wikimedia policy, which now links this page. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont think u should get information from this site because people change it as they please. Well anyway you should go to periodic table.com to research elements. It gives pics and everything. Hydrogen is very pretty. weel bye. SINcerey sam the girl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.56.137 (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Linking
Shouldn't "licensor" link to the WMF wiki or the WMF page on Wikipedia? 76.117.247.55 (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Commercial
I wonder if it should be clear with big bold flushing letters that this license allows commercial exploitation (if its conditions are met). It may be very unclear at first (to a non-lawyer). --Leladax (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I second this concern. The text that exists doesn't use the word "commercial" at all. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Question
I bought a book from Pediapress. It is a collection of articles from Wikipedia. If I qoute from the book, do I cite the book as the source or do I cite the original Wiki article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prsaucer1958 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Originalpatidar, 8 June 2010
The facts mentioned at present about "Satpanth" are not factually correct. The present details are of imamshahi sect (a breakaway group from Satpanth) and not the original Satpanth sect

Correct facts are mentioned in the site "satpanth.com" and "contents.satpanth.com" The encyclopedia of satpanth, researched by Russian Waldamir Iwanow in 1948 gives true and correct picture of Satpanth.

More details can be found on www.ismaili.net

Originalpatidar (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This request does not seem to relate to this page. Please post at the relevant place, thanks. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Help Croatian grammar
Who and why is deleted Croatian grammar? Please return page Croatian grammar!


 * Croatian grammar 1604. (Croat Bartol Kašić, Croatian island Pag - city Dubrovnik form Croatia)
 * Croatian grammar 1997. Dragutin Raguž for Zagreb, Croatia
 * New Croatian grammar 2010. Stjepan Babić, Zagreb Croatia
 * Croatian language family
 * Croatian language code

who was born on NOvember 21st, 1940 at 6:30 PM???? ( ujuj) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujuj (talk • contribs) 14:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

a little typo
i'm noticing a typo in Section 4(c) : it says "Ssection" instead of "Section" at some place. --1904.CC (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

+ ru
ru:Википедия:Текст лицензии Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
 * ✅ HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Diatomaceous earth
Diatomaceous earth Application range of the product:

1、 Diatomite Filter-aid:

Condiment: monosodium glutamate, sauce, vinegar, corn salad oil, rapeseed oil, etc. Beverage industry: beer, spirit, fruit wine, glutinous rice wine, fruit juice, wine, beverage syrup, beverage magma, etc. Sugar refining: high fructose syrup, glucose, starch sugar, cane sugar, etc. Medicine industry: antibiotics, vitamins, purification of Chinese traditional medicine, packing of dental material, cosmetics, etc. Chemicals: organic acid, inorganic acid, alkyd, sodium thiocyanate, oil paint, synthetic resin, etc. Industrial oil: lubricating oil, lubricating oil additive, metal plate roll oil, transformer oil, petroleum additive, coal tar, etc. Wastewater treatment: domestic sewage, industrial wastewater, sewage disposal, water in swimming pool Other materials: enzyme preparation, algal gums, citric acid, glutin, electrolyte solution, plating solution, coating material, washing liquid, soap liquid

2、 Diatomite Stuffing & Carrier

Series of Diatomite Stuffing & Carrier Mainly used in some industries such as pesticide, fertilizer,paint, plastic, rubber, toothpaste, grinding material, cosmetics, pottery, centrifugal pipe-casting parting agent and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.225.61.70 (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sammcdon, 30 September 2010
Request the following be deleted as irrelevant to the court's decision:

Sammcdon (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)British pathologist Professor Keith Simpson was invited by the Canadian government to review the forensic evidence.[5] On May 4, 1967, the Supreme Court (Hall J. dissenting) held that, if Truscott's appeal had been heard by the court, it would have been dismissed.[4]

Professor Keith Simpson's testimony was irrelevant to any decision about the case. There is no evidence that the Supreme Court held that if Truscott's appeal had been heard by the court, it would have been dismissed.[4]

Request the following be inserted: 1967, May 4: New forensic evidence was presented on his behalf, and Truscott testified before the Supreme Court of Canada and got a chance to tell his story for the first time. Truscott and 25 other witnesses testified before the Court, telling their story to the best of their abilities. After a two week hearing before the Supreme Court, Canada’s top judges ruled 8-1 against Truscott getting a new trial and he was returned to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence. Those eight judges watched and listened carefully to Steven Truscott as he gave his testimony and it was clear to them that his testimony was vague and confused. The Supreme Court stated that “There were many incredibilities inherent in the evidence given by Truscott before us and we do not believe his testimony” The Joint opinion of Canada’s Supreme Court Justices: “The verdict of the jury, read in the light of the charge of the trial judge, makes it clear that they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts, which they found to be established by the evidence which they accepted, were not only consistent with the guilt of Truscott but were inconsistent with any rational conclusion other than that Steven Truscott was the guilty person.” (12)

Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada Re: Steven Murray Truscott, [1967] S.C.R. 309 Date: 1967-05-04


 * I suspect you are on the wrong page. Which article are you referring to? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 216.156.122.234, 14 October 2010
Please remove the name of Camron Gorguinpour as Executive Director of Scientists and Engineers for America with Tom Price. Camron officially left the position two weeks ago and I, Tom Price, have taken this position of Executive Director.

Please contact me at tom.price@sefora.org or 914 805 0602 should you have any questions.

216.156.122.234 (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * think you are on the wrong page as I cannot find this name on Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

TLDR
This article/tutorial is far too long and needs abbreviating —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.11.149 (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from AzertyFab, 4 December 2010
edit protected

Please add an interlang link to the french language version by adding this line in the end of the article : fr:Wikipédia:Licence Creative Commons Paternité-Partage des Conditions Initiales à l'Identique 3.0 Unported

Thanks!

AzertyFab (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅  (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Amazon.com Hosting of Wikipedia information for profit
Is this legal under the current license? Perhaps we can make a change to prevent this kind of abuse since it is intended to draw internet traffic away from Wikipedia proper and into a format that cannot be freely edited by the community. This loss of potential editors and contributors hurts wikipedia as a whole while Amazon.com profits from our collective work.


 * Here's an article discussing what Amazon is doing: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-20024297-36.html


 * Hers's what the Amazonized wikipedia pages look like: http://www.amazon.com/wiki/International_Space_Station/ref=wp_la_5


 * And this is Google's current policy on rating of sites that duplicate information: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66359

Lets please do something about this I want my wikipedia contributions to be for the benefit of everybody ... not just Amazon.com, and not in a way that directs traffic & new editors away from wikipedia.

EDIT: I got most of this information from a Slashdot article here: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/04/1538250/Wikipedia-Pages-Now-On-Amazon-mdash-With-Product-Links

Zuchinni one (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Misrendering of section 3e
The items in the list of section 3e start off with ii and go to iv. The original Creative Commons document has items i to iii. I see this with Chromium and Iceweasel, and it appears to be because of a spurious &lt;li&gt; tag. It would be great if this could be fixed. Bk2204 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.193.79.249, 11 April 2011
76.193.79.249 (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) (Shout!) 05:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Crazymonkey1123, 11 April 2011
I noticed a small typo under section 4c. It says Ssection somewhere in there which is an obvious typo that needs to be changed to section.

Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) (Shout!) 05:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. JohnCD (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.112.37.69, 19 May 2011
The use of the calender denotation of BCE is of one very specific religeon, and changes the agreed upon, commonly accepted history of mankind that Christ did indeed live.!-- End request --> 76.112.37.69 (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a specific request--Jac 16888 Talk 17:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Missing "Wikipedia copyright" navigation template
Wikipedia copyright

Shouldn't this page transclude Template:Wikipedia copyright? It's listed in the navigation box thus produced (also shown to the right of this text), and it's kind of confusing when those don't appear on each page listed.
 * &mdash;SamB 19:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

In particular, I'm proposing that: be inserted above: at the beginning of the page.
 * &mdash;SamB 19:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No opposition, so ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Question
Wouldn't it be better to make the Deed ombox a self-sufficient individual template? — James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:06pm • 07:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps. Would you like to create the template? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

SHOUTING
What's with the ALL CAPS? Sentence case seems like it would be more appropriate here. See: The issue is present in sections 1 ("License"), 1.5 5. ("Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer"), and 1.6 6. ("Limitation on Liability").  — Demonic Party Hat  talk  17:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CAPSLOCK — "Typing in all caps ("TYPING IN ALL CAPS") on Wikipedia, in line with most internet resources, is perceived as "shouting" and can come across as aggressive. Please do not do it."
 * WP:SHOUT — "Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate."
 * WP:ALLCAPS — "Avoid writing with all capitals. Reduce them to one of the other title cases."


 * Writing in ALL CAPS is a legally accepted mechanism for drawing emphasis to conditions that might be unexpected or surprising, and thus avoiding claims that the clauses of the contract constitute unfair surprise. It isn't an arbitrary thing.  As a legal document we should follow the styling as it appears in the original, which includes the CAPS writing.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Caps should definitely be removed. It makes the article tough to read and the appearance confusing. Also, we have no duty to follow their warnings systems by using all-caps. Legal disclaimer --ɱ (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand that writing in all caps is a legal way to show emphasis, however, reading all caps text seriously feels like the text is screaming at my face, and is quite painful to read. I suggest emboldening and underlining the text instead; it would serve well for emphasis. 85.154.86.5 (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request from JFHJr, 24 September 2011
This request affects no content. Please insert

ahead of line 4,, for display purposes (OSX/10.5.8, Firefox displays the copyright template over other text). JFHJr (㊟) 02:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

JFHJr (㊟) 02:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ - & it did work on FF just fine. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 05:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Attribution of material copy-pasted from one wp article into another wp article
Hi. The opinions, on the below questions, of those licensed to practice in a State within the U.S. would be especially appreciated. Under our license:

1) When an editor copies-and-pastes material from 1 wp article into another, does the editor have to attribute it in some manner (or reflect attribution history somehow)?

2) Assume a copy-and-paste has been made, as indicated above, and at a later point in time the original article is deleted at AfD. Is there any obligation at that point in time to attribute the formerly copy-and-pasted material in the new article (or reflect attribution history somehow)?

3) If the answer to 2 is "yes", what investigation is or should be made by wp or its closing admin or other editors -- as to articles deleted under the AFD process -- to see if any material exists in other articles that is a prior copy-paste of material in the deleted article (so that attribution can be given, perhaps by reflecting attribution history?

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A similar discussion is undergoing at User_talk:Graham87/Import since Copying within Wikipedia states that a link is enough. mabdul 12:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If a person copies text between two Wikipedia articles, they should really note this by putting the copied template on both talk pages, and the admin closing a deletion discussion should really check the talk page for such a template before deleting the article. Or they should *try* to skim-read the article history, checking for clues that they may be about to delete important edits for attribution. But I've encountered (and corrected) many other situations where vital history for attribution has gone missing, often due to deletions to make way for a page move. Graham 87 15:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your responses. Three thoughts.  First, I'm guessing that this view is not understood/followed broadly in the Project (as Graham's comment suggests), either by admins or non-admins.


 * Second, if a sentence from article x was copied into article y, and article x is deleted, there is nothing in the article history of article x to suggest to a skim-reading admin closing an AFD that he is about to delete edits he should attribute. I whether a rule that we can anticipate will create near-automatic violations at the Project may be a problem (there may of course be other ways to address the problem the rule is meant to protect against).  If people who copy a sentence from article x to article y don't presumably typically leave a "copied" template on the articles (due to ignorance of this view, or not sharing it), and there is no reasonable way otherwise for a closing admin to be aware that he is about to delete information that he would (in this view) be violating our license by deleting, we can anticipate that our rule will lead to near-automatic violations, as we don't have a process in place to protect adequately against violations of the rule or "check" compliance with our rule.  I'm hoping that is not the case. But -- perhaps I'm being overly sensitive here, and we take some level of risk in many areas at the project, though not with this level of likelihood of not being able to catch the error.


 * Finally, I assume that where the language at issue is language that the copying editor wrote himself in the first place, there is not such need for him to apply the copied template, and that copies of one's own work would be an automatic exception to this view. Does this make sense to you?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In terms of your final, you're absolutely correct: Copying within Wikipedia notes that one need not attribute oneself. It suggests at Copying within Wikipedia the use of copied at the talk page. If we make it mandatory, that would if not eliminate at least cut down on the likelihood of inadvertent deletion. But I'm not sure that this talk page is the best place for the discussion, as there's nothing we can do to this page. :)


 * I agree with you that attribution requirements are not widely understood - and in fact I'm recently becoming aware that some admins regard rev-deletion as breaking attribution even when it retains the username of the contributor if the precise edit cannot be seen. I've got a query in to our attorneys about this, but they are all insanely busy right now and only one of them is even in the country. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, add SR interwiki
sr:Википедија:Текст слободне лиценце Ауторство-Делити под истим условима 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Thanks!--Maduixa (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki
Please update Arabic (ar) interwiki to  --Meno25 (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Anomie⚔ 18:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

suggested revision to license
I suggest that a clause be added to the license to prohibit commercial republishers from using deceptive marketing practices, and to prohibit online republishers (mirror sites) from distributing malware. It is perfectly legitimate if you want to create a Wikipedia mirror that aggregates knowledge from other sources, or to create an encyclopædia that improves on Wikipedia, but please do not use misleading tactics to sell Wikipedia articles. Allowing commercial use encourages people to add value to Wikipedia articles, or to use material from Wikipedia as a start to produce something better, but if you are going to package Wikipedia articles into a printed book which you will then sell online, then the description page at the online merchant ought to mention this is what you are doing. 96.255.150.61 (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What you are asking to do is for Wikipedia to be re-licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 1.0 Generic License or a newer version, which will not be done. --Stranger195 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; guestbook) 09:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

edit request
May edit this page per section 15 of the creative commons licence. The attribution comitee has already given me an okay. I just need your final approval — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberalufp (talk • contribs) 20:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What page are you talking about? Do you want to edit Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License? this talk page? Some other page that you meant to link to but forgot? --Thnidu (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I need to download it. Abubakar Abba (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about removing the license tag from article
Hi whoever is in charge of the policy. I know that I'm new here. So, let me explain the reason why I want to have this conversation. The reason why I'm talking to this person is that I just had a big concern. You see there is a particular article that is attached, which I don't know if you're aware of this, but I think it goes by the name of Harold Finch (Person of Interest). I know that the content in the article is categorized as plagiarism and it was considered to be a copyright violation. It is on there as a reminder to change the basis of the content in the article to make sure that it is not going to be nominated for deletion. The question is how do I remove the license from the article? Sherlock502 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The short answer is that that licensing tag shouldn't ever be removed from the article unless it is rewritten entirely and thoroughly from scratch. So long as the Person of Interest Wikia is appropriately credited (via the tag you're asking about, for example), then there's no copyright violation and the article shouldn't be in danger of deletion for that reason. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay. Where do you think I should begin? Sherlock502 (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If you're asking where you should begin in rewriting the article (if the tag bothers you that much), then I'll direct you to Teahouse where some volunteers can help you with that since I personally am not much of an article writer. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not much of an article writer either. Sherlock502 (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello VernoWhitney. As you can see in Harold Finch (Person of Interest), everyone who volunteered to reformat the content of the article, including myself, have been doing the best they can to make sure the article is not at the risk for deletion. I know there's content from Pedia of Interest Wikia that has been adding to the article, but I managed to modified the text as much as I can do. What do you think about the content so far? Sherlock502 (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Has there been any progress within the article? Sherlock502 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello VernoWhitney. I know you had not respond to my message for so long, but I am going to tell the truth. As mention in Talk:Harold Finch (Person of Interest), the way that I can redeem myself is by telling the absolute truth about what I did and making a sacrifice to save the article. I rewrote some of the material thoroughly from scratch in Harold Finch (Person of Interest) by going into the List of Person of Interest episodes, John Reese (Person of Interest), and Person of Interest (TV series), as well as watching some of the videos containing the character as a way to find the right words that I choose and copying the articles within Wikipedia, but only in a good way. You can go ahead and take a look, but I'm telling you, there has been progress. Please and thank you. Sherlock502 (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 April 2014
Hi, I'm trying to add the following translation to Wikidata: w:cy:Wicipedia:Testun y drwydded Comin Creu Priodoliad-RhannuTebyg (heb ei gludo) 3.0. It won't allow me as the page is protected. Marc (Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol) (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Go to Q3910767 to make the edit. It's not affected by the fact that it's protected here (and if it's protected there as well, it's a coincidence, and you need to ask for help there). Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Query - Collections
Section 1 (b) says

"Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) ...

Section 1 (f) says

"Licensor" means the individual, individuals, entity or entities that offer(s) the Work under the terms of this License.

And has nothing to do with listing works in the sense of 1 (b). The wording is the same as at creative commons.org.

Am I missing something here? Or is this a major glitch in out most widely used license?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC).

Protected edit request on 8 October 2014
This is in all caps And should not be per the manual of style

CREATIVE COMMONS CORPORATION IS NOT A LAW FIRM AND DOES NOT PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES. DISTRIBUTION OF THIS LICENSE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. CREATIVE COMMONS PROVIDES THIS INFORMATION ON AN "AS-IS" BASIS. CREATIVE COMMONS MAKES NO WARRANTIES REGARDING THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, AND DISCLAIMS LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ITS USE. THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE ("CCPL" OR "LICENSE"). THE WORK IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY USE OF THE WORK OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS PROHIBITED.

BY EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS TO THE WORK PROVIDED HERE, YOU ACCEPT AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. TO THE EXTENT THIS LICENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED TO BE A CONTRACT, THE LICENSOR GRANTS YOU THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HERE IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS

65.175.250.58 (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It's copied verbatim from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode - we cannot alter it, whether because of MOS or for any other reason. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Bogus edit requests
Hopefully Template:Editnotices/Protection/Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License stops them. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Where is the manner of attribution specified?
From the license page: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor ..."


 * Where do I find the specifications for attribution by the author?
 * Where do I find the specifications for attribution by the licensor?
 * If neither of this exists, in which manner do I have to give attribution to, say, a Wikipedia article?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.223.2 (talk • contribs)

Licence differs slightly from the one at creativecommons.org
Text differs slightly from the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported licence at creativecommons.org:

Wikipedia:
 * Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

Creative Commons:
 * ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

Critically, Wikipedia says licence can be same or similar, whereas Creative Common says licence must be the same. I brought it up because the Freemen on the land article claims to be using material from Rational Wiki. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikisource
I only want to note that it exists the Wikisource Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 April 2018
Please change the two links to the Creative Commons websites to HTTPS, thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Protected Edit Request 24/01/2019
Hi. Can a WP:Short description please be added to this page? I suggest the wikidata Wikipedia page explaining the terms under which contributions are licensed. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * isn't this already pulling that from Q3910767? — xaosflux  Talk 03:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I thought that we were trying to move away from relying on the wikidata item and towards using the template here on enwiki --DannyS712 (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 04:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Can a WP:Short description please be added to this page? I suggest the wikidata Wikipedia page explaining the terms under which contributions are licensed. High Zone Shkoder (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Yes, but I thought that we were trying to move away from relying on the wikidata item and towards using the template here on enwiki --DannyS712 (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Link?
Fine. I agree to all this. I am just curious about something I read when I was a child. But "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply" doesn't link to the text. The search is worthless and returns me to the wikipedia article I was looking at. If it's still under copyright, why have a non-existent link to the text? If it's not, ditto. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric

Protected edit request on 23 September 2021
Hi, I want to request that, in the summary, be changed to  since moral rights (copyright law) currently links to moral rights anyway, so I don't think a piped link is now necessary here.  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 01:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 11:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

How to complain to another web site?
In searching for additional material for an article I recently wrote, I discovered a blog run by a professional book author which had lifted chunks of my text to use in their site. That's perfectly fine, except that they failed to provide the attribution that CC-BY-SA requires, and also placed it under their own restrictive copyright ("Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author/owner is strictly prohibited"). Do we have some standard text that I could use to communicate to this author the need to comply with our license? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @RoySmith: Standard license violation letter. Just make sure that the website is using text wrote.  Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 22:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

2022-01-12 edit request
 Please change:

This removes a spurious newline, which breaks the last part of the list item out of the list. Thanks. Tol (talk &#124; contribs) @ 23:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * while it is "out of the list" the source material () for this summary does actually keep that third line as a separate list item (they do use li's for all of it) - not having that phrase part of list item number two. — xaosflux  Talk 23:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The source: — xaosflux  Talk 23:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Xaosflux: It looks like this page doesn't quite follow the source in other areas, too. I'll try to figure out what's going on and open another edit request after I work on synchronising this page to the source. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 23:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * sounds good, I expect there to be slightly different markup due to the underlying systems - but the verbiage itself should be in sync; in this case it may be important if that third clause is attached to the second clause, or not - I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure but didn't want to guess. — xaosflux  Talk 23:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 1 April 2022
(No, not an April Fools joke, although this would be a clever unorthodox page to make one on...)

Please change  to

Side-by-side comparsion. Should be identical on almost all browsers. However the former markup is deprecated and will eventually not be supported. See WP:HTML5 for more information. Thanks. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 23:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Substed, crap trimmed

Creative Commons Deed This is a human-readable summary of the full license below.
 * — xaosflux  Talk 14:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅-ish, don't love dragging more needless templates in, so substed and trimmed it. — xaosflux  Talk 14:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)