Template talk:No thanks

I Propose a minor change to the template
To:

This templates should be generic and intended to be minimal and easy to understand, the prosed change is minimal. It can lead not only to a better understanding but also will automatically increase the chance on promoting Wikibooks (if the user does fell that the content is important enough to seek authorization), altering not the intended message but providing a way to address the issue. I also changed the references to sources (as it was incomplete) except the Websites (since Wikibookians may think otherwise), probably someone could reword it better... If no objection arises I will make the change it in a few days. --Panic (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the first problem is that we can't use "content which uses an unacceptable license" with permission - they have to license it appropriately, right? They can't just say "Yes, it is copyrighted, but I give you permission to use it on Wikibooks." That's not OK - it must be GFDL-compatible. I'm sure that's what you intended to mean, but this wording is currently incorrect. Something like this would be better: "... which uses an unacceptable license or is lacking one. You may want to ask the copyright holder(s) for permission to use the content here." This is both accurate and complete. Keep in mind that this is mostly used for egregious copyright violations where there is little to no doubt that they've just ripped it off some corporate website which would never give them permission. Since that's the case, I don't think we need to be overly concerned about covering all the bases like this; they can check out Media if they're interested. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 03:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope the license can be even against the GFDL but if the contributor gets permission from the copyright holder, it constitutes a relicense to you or to Wikimedia (the scope depends on how it is done).
 * They may relicense the work completely or grant you permission to user it (in any way or with limitations) or even limited to the place you intend to add the content to (it may not be limited to Wikibooks). (as for the details the copyright information here covers all that and the proposal I linked to is complete, even overstating the GFDL issue).
 * Well I don't think most do it in bad faith (and we shouldn't aim that low), most do it out of lack of information or misunderstanding of how copyrights work. Does this address your objections ? --Panic (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to say that things like "You can use it only on Wikibooks" or "You can use it for anything noncommercial" are ok? – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 03:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For instance those would be valid limitations a copyright holder can impose (on use, to the publisher, in distribution, etc...), he doesn't have to write a long license to go about it, some licenses can even be only invoked and not aggregate, it all falls down to how the permission was given. In case of wikibooks it is required that they conform to the GFDL (the limitations if any). --Panic (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, but they're not suitable for inclusion on Wikibooks. See here: "The text and images of Wikibooks are covered by the GNU Free Documentation License. Unless an item is covered by the same or a similar license, or is in the public domain, it cannot be used on Wikibooks. So you have to ask the copyright holder of the material to license it under GFDL."
 * So back to the original issue: We need content to be specifically GFDL-compatible for inclusion here (with exceptions that aren't relevant here). The most correct way to impart this would be to say "We can't accept copyrighted content unless it is licensed in a GFDL-compatible way" and then link to a description of what that is (ie Mike.lifeguard ''' &#124; talk 03:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Or see this – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 03:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * reset

Yup, but "unless it is licensed in a GFDL-compatible way" is equal to "unless it is given permission to be used in a GFDL-compatible way" (I didn't remove any reference to the GFDL on the template above). The link to the example request for authorization does address in high detail the GFDL and limitations we use on Wikibooks, a similar valid proposal (but not as informative to the other party would be, "DO you grant permission to use your work XPTO at Wikibooks on the work XPTO123", this is oversimplification but there is no deep need to explain the particular in so much detail for it to be valid. I think that the way the actual example is written can cause an increase on anxiety to the target, and requires a deeper understanding of the GFDL, trouble that most will not get into. But that is another matter. --Panic (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC) That last example is in error or badly phrased. Take for example the UNESCO case...  --Panic (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK; what you meant to say was correct then. Let's try this language on for size:
 * "Hello; welcome to Wikibooks! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as :, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted content which uses an unacceptable license (or is lacking one). This includes using content from most websites. You may wish to ask for appropriate permission from the copyright holders. For more information, please read Media. Thank you; happy editing!"
 * – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 04:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me, all I wanted was a reference to the "get permission and all will be fine" with the involved perks, turning a clearly negative or prohibitive into a surmountable wall. I'm fine with the change and did alter the proposal.  --Panic (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Humm... "You may wish" can be simplified to simply "You may". Do you tag the page as a copyvio at the same time you post the template on the users talk page ? (Since it is missing a time limit or an need to address the subject in any way or whom to contact in particular.) --Panic (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done; time limit added. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 04:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Use
The tag may be use to obligate the provision of information regarding a works copyright license. PD works are considered out of copyright but still acceptable. This has more to do with what is tagged so I'm attempting to make this clear here. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 17:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)