Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance/Archives/2011/October

Protect a page
Could someone fully protect Wikijunior:Solar System/Copyright Notice as a copyright page. It shouldn't be edited at all really. Ebe123 (discuss • contribs) 10:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Protection of copyright pages is certainly allowed under the policy.
 * I wonder, though, is there any need here? Like all Wikijunior pages, it's protected by flaggedrevs.  Ordinarily, unsighted edits to it are only visible by default to those trusted to recognize and revert vandalism.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The history of that copyright notice is a bit concerning. First it was a GFDL only copyright notice, which was from back when Wikibooks used only the GFDL license. One person attempted to updated it to indicate dual license, presumably to reflect Wikibooks' switch to a dual license module, but for whatever reason reversed back to GFDL only. Another person switched it to CC-BY-SA only which is where it had stood for slightly over a year now. I just added back in the GFDL to make it clear that it is dual licensed, because there doesn't appear to have been any discussion by the book contributors to restrict licensing to CC-BY-SA only. --dark lama  13:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is why I changed it then changed it back... QU TalkQu 10:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw Darklama edit and at some level didn't particularly agreed with it (the edit comment part). The issue here is simple, as book are hosted on Wikibooks they will conform without need for specification to the dual license scheme, this is not a point of contention. Changing copyright terms of attributions or declarations included in works should not be done by anyone not having rights over the work and Wikibookians (especially admins or those doing patrol) should prevent people that aren't included on whatever definition of author they support (this is a point of contention) to add these type of pages to books or make change to the terms on the pages or even add themselves to the list of authors (if evidently they have not done any work).
 * The new terms of service (unstable) text whose discussion was recently announced on Wikibooks, in the text version I saw seemed to provide some more clarifications (especially regards to the definition of author and right). I haven't fallowed the discussion after reading it at the time...
 * In regards to Darklama change I do not agree with the motivation or rational as provided in the comment but intrinsically see no issue with it by the reasons pointed in regards to the history of the edits and because the book does not provide a direct print version (adding the GFDL requires a copy of the license to be included in that specific case) and the PDF that exists only mentions the GFDL. In any case because the Wikibooks project hosts works under dual license it doesn't require or impose that authors may chose one license over the other even more problematic would be importing a work under the CC-BY-SA and then relicense it under the GFDL (principal problem here is that the "created compatibility" was restricted in time) and only copyright holders can relicense works.
 * I was waiting for Ebe123 to respond to the query of Pi zero, I do not understand why the user has a particular interest on this page.
 * In any case I don't think that theses types of pages should be edit protected (they could be restricted to registered users without any negative impact) or temporarily to avoid vandalism. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 10:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Darklama's edit and it's what I should have done the first time, but I was confused by the relicensing myself at the time. The print versions don't have to have the GFDL included if we are using the built-in license notices applied to the output that state content is available under the CC-BY-SA, which doesn't require the full text of the license to be included. The license change is not something text contributors have any input on and per-book notices are superseded by the site's notice.  The current terms of use, which are already in effect, state that new content can only be imported if it is CC-BY-SA-3.0 licensed and "any page which does not incorporate text that is exclusively available under CC-BY-SA or a CC-BY-SA-compatible license is also available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" (this would be content published before June 15th, 2009). – Adrignola discuss 13:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Any work that uses the GFDL requires a copy of the license, even if it states to be dual licensed. The GFDL has had some alterations but that requirement wasn't removed "To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of the License in the document.." / "In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version - H Include an unaltered copy of this License". (this is why historically we never used the GFDL for images). In any case in this work this is not a problem as I stated above.
 * Any change to a page declaring licensing terms is an alteration of copyright attributions and constitutes always a relicensing. Only copyright holders my change the terms they agreed to license any work. (The change to CC-BY-SA used a compatibility time-frame, possible since the GFDL could be changed without necessitating the licensors agreement).
 * The change by Darklama may (didn't check) literally violate the provision "depending on whether or not any content was added and not removed since July 15" on the use of the GFDL. I doubt that anyone will create an issue about it especially by the reason already expressed above but these considerations are only valid in this (or other very similar) cases.
 * No, the per book licenses aren't superseded by the site licenses they must only be compatible (Uim/License). In fact IIRC Pi zero before the dual license scheme was adopted was the first to defend this point on Wikibooks. Per-book licenses (not notices) are of extreme importance to identify authors (right holders), these are the only ones that can legally enforce the licenses and in both our licenses they have the express right of attribution, this is also important when using other external content (not directly contributed).
 * This without getting in more deeper issues, being for instance the date we executed the license conversion one more reason to give special consideration to what books state on their local copyright licenses... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Internet Technologies/Web hosting
User:DickDetering added what seems to me to be a spamlink, in that it is an advert for one particular web hosting site, rather than (as it purports to be) general advice on such sites. I removed it; he restored it; I removed it again. Can an admin please have a look and, if he restores it, consider whether to block him. Thanks.-- Arthur Vogel  16:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if I agree with you in regards to the value of the link, since there was no attempt to dialog made by you (or the opposing user) in that page talk or on the user's talk page, a block should not be a valid immediate response to the issue at this time. (I also noted that the user is recently registered and that all edits are centered on that edit, but we should expect good intentions by default Please do not bite the newcomers).
 * You could add a warning and explain in the light of our policies why the action is objected, that would make any further abuse open to receive the more stricter response you are requesting. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 17:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have left him a message asking him not to restore the page. If he persists he will be warned, if he continues to persist then I will block. Thenub314 (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've blacklisted the domain, feel free to remove if you wish, but I struggle with seeing this as an "innocent" new editor - it looks like a deliberate spam attempt to me especially if you look at the global contributions like this. QU TalkQu 18:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good thinking. Thenub314 (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like you did no wrong Arthurvogel. To be it was obviously link spam and such links to commercial websites (especially where non-commercial alternatives are available) should be reverted.  Will keep an eye out over the next few days on this user.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 19:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)