MediaWiki talk:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning/Archive 1

message: Here is my attempt at a non-controversial versions of these texts:
:Wikipedia:Terms of use (a), and 
:Wikipedia:Submission Standards (a).
Comments?  — Alex756  talk 07:38, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Look much better to me. Jamesday 02:32, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-controversial versions

message: I've a modest proposal for amending the special characters list with the middle dot (· or ·). It doesn't seem like such a big change, but I'm mentioning it here because millions of people see the list and most of them, I surmise, don't use it. Making it bigger might only serve to distract people from more important things, like the crucial caveat that one's writing will be edited mercilessly. Furthermore, we must recognize that, when we do trivial things like adding a couple-pixel midpoint to the special characters list, precedents sometimes get established that result in harm. Doing so could encourage others to add their own 'pet characters' to the list, leading to bloat and even less usability, which is why I'm unsure, now, how to proceed. Here's how the two versions, old and new, would look:
Insert:
 Á á É é Í í Ó ó Ú ú   
 À à È è Ì ì Ò ò Ù ù   
 Â â Ê ê Î î Ô ô Û û   
 Ä ä Ë ë Ï ï Ö ö Ü ü   
 ß   
 Ã ã Ñ ñ Õ õ   
 Ç ç Ģ ģ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ņ ņ Ŗ ŗ Ş ş Ţ ţ   
 Ć ć Ĺ ĺ Ń ń Ŕ ŕ Ś ś Ý ý Ź ź   
 Đ đ   
 Ů ů   
 Č č Ď ď Ľ ľ Ň ň Ř ř Š š Ť ť Ž ž   
 Ǎ ǎ Ě ě Ǐ ǐ Ǒ ǒ Ǔ ǔ   
 Ā ā Ē ē Ī ī Ō ō Ū ū   
 ǖ ǘ ǚ ǜ   
 Ĉ ĉ Ĝ ĝ Ĥ ĥ Ĵ ĵ Ŝ ŝ Ŵ ŵ Ŷ ŷ   
 Ă ă Ğ ğ Ŭ ŭ   
 Ċ ċ Ė ė Ġ ġ İ ı Ż ż   
 Ą ą Ę ę Į į Ų ų   
 Ł ł   
 Ő ő Ű ű   
 Ŀ ŀ   
 Ħ ħ   
 Ð ð Þ þ   
 Œ œ   
 Æ æ Ø ø Å å   
 – — …   
 [+] +    
 ~ | °   
 ± − × ² ³   
 €   
to
Insert:
 Á á É é Í í Ó ó Ú ú   
 À à È è Ì ì Ò ò Ù ù   
 Â â Ê ê Î î Ô ô Û û   
 Ä ä Ë ë Ï ï Ö ö Ü ü   
 ß   
 Ã ã Ñ ñ Õ õ   
 Ç ç Ģ ģ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ņ ņ Ŗ ŗ Ş ş Ţ ţ   
 Ć ć Ĺ ĺ Ń ń Ŕ ŕ Ś ś Ý ý Ź ź   
 Đ đ   
 Ů ů   
 Č č Ď ď Ľ ľ Ň ň Ř ř Š š Ť ť Ž ž   
 Ǎ ǎ Ě ě Ǐ ǐ Ǒ ǒ Ǔ ǔ   
 Ā ā Ē ē Ī ī Ō ō Ū ū   
 ǖ ǘ ǚ ǜ   
 Ĉ ĉ Ĝ ĝ Ĥ ĥ Ĵ ĵ Ŝ ŝ Ŵ ŵ Ŷ ŷ   
 Ă ă Ğ ğ Ŭ ŭ   
 Ċ ċ Ė ė Ġ ġ İ ı Ż ż   
 Ą ą Ę ę Į į Ų ų   
 Ł ł   
 Ő ő Ű ű   
 Ŀ ŀ   
 Ħ ħ   
 Ð ð Þ þ   
 Œ œ   
 Æ æ Ø ø Å å   
 – — … ·   
 [+] +    
 ~ | °   
 ± − × ² ³   
 €   
The second has · added to the '– — …' subset; this subset was chosen because it seems to make sense there. The named character identity reference was chosen for consistency with the other items in the subset and for consistency with current usage in WP. I'm kind of surprised that the rest of the set is such a jumble of direct keyboard inputs and numeric and named references, but it's no big deal. :-)
So, if there are no unresolved objections, made anywhere, to my knowledge, in one month, I'll add the midpoint to the list, which is not to say that I would object to someone subsequently removing it for a good reason. BTW, I originally argued for midpoint use here; ALoan kindly pointed me to this page. Chris Roy 00:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, my own comment on how adding the midpoint could establish a dangerous precedent does count as an 'unresolved objection'. Unless I or someone else convinces me otherwise, I will not add the midpoint to the special characters list. Chris Roy 03:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: Maybe you shoud add someting like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning , they have Category: , <gallery>, and signature code. And ofcourse some Cyrilic letters like this Љ-Њ-Џ-Ш-Ђ-Ч-Ћ, we use this in Serbian wiki. Thanks --Sasa Stefanovic 17:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmmm 

message: Considering how much vandalism occurs, I am surprised that there is not a clear warning against vandalism. Vandalism is a major problem, and having a better warning may make potential vandals to think twice. Instead, there is only the minor "bad edits to articles are watched for and will be quickly removed." message. I propose a message like this to make it clearer that vandalism is unwelcome.
:DO NOT COMMIT VANDALISM. DOING SO COULD LEAD TO YOU BEING BLOCKED FROM EDITING.
NSR 12:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal warning. 

message: Based on discussions at WP talk:CP, feedback on wikipedia-l, and the note above, I propose the following version, which changes formatting and order, but changes content only by adding the note regarding vandalism as proposed above. The idea with the colored box is shamelessly stolen from the German WP. Rl 13:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change 

message: I would like to advocate for a proposal similar to user NSR's proposal above, except for dealing with copyvios:
:PLEASE DO NOT COPY AND PASTE CONTENT WITHOUT RECEIVING PERMISSION.
I would like to suggest that this occur at the very top of edit pages, where new users can't help but see it. WP:CP is constantly being filled up by the contributions of well meaning anons who just don't understand about copyright and who don't bother to scroll down to the bottom of the page where the warning about the GFDL license occurs.
func(talk) 7 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)
:Agreed. --Phroziac (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet Another Proposal 

message: I have a small request: can the section symbol (§) be added to the character bar? It would be of immense convenience to those of us who write about statutes and other sources of law. -- BD2412 talk 22:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it's been added. -- Curps 00:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks!!! -- BD2412 talk 00:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section symbol (§) 

message: Hi, I was wondering how to add the "insert special chars" box to my wiki.  When I add it to my page all I get is a bunch of "charinsert" tags... the javascript (or whatever) isn't converting it over.  See:   Thanks.  David Bergan 05:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind.  I got it.  The answer was found here. David Bergan 06:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Insert special chars box to my own wiki

message: Soon (in less than 24 hours?), this template will appear above the Edit summary box. This change was decided by MediaWiki/Wikimedia so that they could be assured editors were seeing a copyright warning before clicking submit (on lower resolution screens, the warning is off-screen). The character-insert toolbox that is currently here will exist at MediaWiki:Edittools. Thus, not only should the character-insert toolbox be removed from here, but this template should also be drastically shortened. Only the key points should be here, while the rest of the content should be moved below the Submit button, which would mean putting them in the Edittools template. So, what are the key points that should remain here?
Based on our most recent endeavors, I think the key points should include: copyright warning and citing sources notice, at least.
Maybe it could be worded in a way to look like an agreement, such as "I confirm that this text was not copied directly from a copyrighted source, and that citations have been included."... or something along those lines. Didn't the image upload page used to say something like that?
— BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-30 11:48
:I've moved the charinsert bits out, but this message could still use some cleanup. --Brion 03:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch - I can't speak for anyone else, but don't care for it. Slows me down some. But, if this is the way it is to be, I'll learn to cope. BD2412 T 03:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Done.--Sean|Black 03:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! Thanks. BD2412 T 03:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New version

message: I've made this much shorter like I said earlier, but please discuss it further. This is simply a temporary change so that the whole place doesn't go bonkers over the large chunk of text. We all know it should be shorter than it was, but what should be kept/removed/changed? Note: anything that should be removed can go into MediaWiki:Edittools, like it is now. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 03:48
====BD2412's reply====
For me, this is much better, with a single line between the text box and the edit summary - I don't have to scroll very far down just to save the page. I think a second line would fit just as well, with no ill effect. BD2412 T 03:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Sean|Black 03:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! Thanks. BD2412 T 03:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: One-liner version

message: For me, this is much better, with a single line between the text box and the edit summary - I don't have to scroll very far down just to save the page. I think a second line would fit just as well, with no ill effect. BD2412 T 03:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: BD2412's reply

message: It's got a few problems.  The big one I see is the "does not contain copyrighted work".  Taken literally, that means that nobody can edit any page: all previous versions of the page are copyrighted, but licensed under the GFDL.  It also means that people can't import articles from other GFDL sources, such as the Comixpedia wiki. --Carnildo 04:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Carnildo's reply

message: I don't affirm anything. I'm trying to clean up some vadalism thats all. I have no idea if the edit is based on verifiable sources or not and at best I can say it doesn't read like a copyvio. Inserdently It looks stupid on tlak pages. What was wrong with what we had before? just kill the who thing and put it in the edit tools template.Geni 04:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Sean|Black 03:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! Thanks. BD2412 T 03:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Geni's reply

message: Is there anyway to prevent the warning from spilling over onto a second line?--Sean|Black 05:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple lines 

message: Should the GFDL link point to Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License rather than to the Wikipedia article on the GFDL? --Carnildo 22:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I think it should - after all the Copyright link points to Wikipedia:Copyrights rather than our article on the same. BD2412 T 23:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GFDL link 

message: When you're creating a new section on a page (for example, ), the warning is currently between the edit box and the "Save Page" buttons.  This makes it easy to ignore, particularly since the edit box can be taller than the page.  Could this warning be moved to the *top* of the section-edit page layout instead?  I wasn't able to figure out how to do this. -- Creidieki 20:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position on section-editing pages 

message: I've restored the above wording because I think it's needed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed, do not submit it.

message: A mention of no original research was added to the warning today. I'm not too sure I agree with the change, because we already have a warning about sources - original research, by definition, has no sources. Thoughts on whether we should mention WP:NOR? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any particular reason? Dan100 (Talk) 23:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no reason. I just thought, since we're both named Dan, that I'd take the opposite side as you in order to confuse anyone who happens to be reading this discussion. — Dan | talk 17:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Instruction creep. The point of having the copyright warning was to add more prominence to the copyright links and GFDL, not to add every single warning we need in that area. It's best to keep the space between the edit box and edit summary as short as possible; that's why we have the warnings beneath. And sorry for taking so long to reply; it must have slipped my watchlist. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It is, however, true that the shorter something is, the more people read it.  Sam Korn 14:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The warning is already too long, at a line and a half on a 1024x768 screen.  If there's any re-wording that could get it down to a single line, I'd be all for it. --Carnildo 20:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research?

message: I don't know what you lot have managed to do to this particular message (which should just be left alone, dammit), but at present I get three successive warnings about different parts of enwiki policy before I can commit an edit. And yes, I've force-refreshed and purged and closed by browser and logged out. Stop playing. -Splashtalk 05:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gah! 

message: It's been pointed out (by a user called Rob on the talk page of WP:V) that while it's policy that information must be verifiable, it's only a guideline that you should quote a source. To quote SlimVirgin's response from the same talk page:
Regarding whether citing sources is mandatory, the policy is that people ought to (ideally) cite sources when they make an edit, but it's not mandatory. That is, if someone makes an edit and doesn't cite a source, you can't take them to the arbcom for a policy violation. 
Therefore I've removed the sources link, as how it was worded before suggested that providing a source was mandatory. Dan100 (Talk) 10:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sources" 

message: The current version is:
:Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable.  Your contributions will be licensed under the GFDL.
It would be better if it said:
:Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL.
The latter is more legally valid, and only a tiny bit longer. Superm401 | Talk 00:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Change 

message: I think all Wikipedians should be reminded each time they edit an article that Wikipedia is not a repository of links. I know that this is not Wikipedia's most important policy/guideline, but I have seen quite a few articles lately in which excessive external links seem to have been a problem. Among them have been pro-life and transsexualism. I don't know if it would be feasible to include a statement about this on the editing page, but it's just an idea.
Andrea Parton 04:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a repository of links

message: It seems odd that Wikipedia has a fairly weak copyright warning (compared to other Wikis), and we do get hundreds of copy and paste copyvios a day, so I think stronger wording is needed. Meta uses:
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!
I would like to change the current wording to something like that. If there's no discussion in a day or two I will do it. --W.marsh 16:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No; the usage on meta is the MediaWiki default. The reason that isn't used is because we the current version is brief and concise, while conveying the same information. (See above discussion for why a short message, conveying the same info as a long one, is better.) In addition, we don't want to scare off any newcomers. Meta is very unlike Wikipedia; most people there are already experienced editors. On the other hand, we shouldn't discourage new people who stumble upon Wikipedia from editing because of a harsh and excessive warning when a much more polite and shorter one will suffice. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree. People aren't getting the message that copying and pasting articles from random websites is not supposed to happen... doing newpage patrol or any kind of maintenence will make this rather clear. So it would seem that a better warning is needed. Moreover, many of these people will rewrite the article once warned about the copyright issues, it's just that we rarely warn them quickly enough, due to the massive flood of new pages. --W.marsh 01:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People will still submit copyrighted material, but a line must be drawn at how big and bold the warning should be. The briefer and more concise (while conveying the same information), the better. The current version does that, and the point is reiterated below the char box ("Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include most web pages."). I don't think there's a reason to change this wording. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I not being clear? The most popular Wiki should not have the weakest and least informative warnings. Most people don't think of copying and pasting random text as a copyvio, after all, they do it on their blog, forums, etc. and no one ever bats an eyebrow. The copyvio notice should tell them specifically not to do that. We get hundreds of copyvios every day... obviously the current warning isn't doing a good enough job, so I think we need to at least try something stronger and see if that helps. --W.marsh 14:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is, what is our goal with this warning? From my view, the goal is to protect Wikipedia from vicarious liability for coyright infringement, which the existing warning effectively does. Folks been warned - that's our duty. We hunt and knock out copyvios to make the encyclopedia better, but it is the poster of such material who bears whatever legal risk accompanies such posting. BD2412T 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: But copyvios can cause a lot of problems. If they aren't detected, that can get slightly altered over time and eventually integrated into articles, and a year later we discover we have to scrap a good article because copyvio text is entrenched in it. Also it presents a poor picture of Wikipedia if people find lots of obvious copy and pastes from other websites sitting out in the open. I don't think we should be okay with hundreds of copyvios a day, many of them sitting undetected for months. --W.marsh 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I totally agree that copyvios can cause a lot of problems, having seen quite a few and removed some that were unnoticed initially. However, a line has to be drawn somewhere; we could easily ask a user to confirm ten times that what they submitted wasn't a copyvio. While that example is a bit extreme, I'm just using it to point out that the warning should convey the appropriate information in as consise a statement as possible. In addition, we also need to consider the ramifications of using an excessively blunt and strong statement; we don't want to scare away potential new contributors. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that there is a point where warnings are pointless, some people will never read them or care... but I don't think until we try it that we can say that a more informative notice wouldn't help, because most people don't mean to do anything wrong, they just don't see copying and pasting stuff as a copyvio. And right now, I don't think the article creation process does much to tell them that it is a copyvio... we have very soft messages, softer than the defaults, softer than most any Wiki out there... and our maintenence backlogs are bigger than the entire contents of almost any Wiki (partially) as a result. We should be careful of having soft, unhelpful messages... doing very little to help well intentioned people avoid creating bad articles is bad for the project long-term. --W.marsh 03:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The English Wikipedia is three times larger than the German Wikipedia, and gets twice as much traffic as all other Wikipedias combined.  That might have something to do with the problems it's having. --Carnildo 07:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well duh, but I don't think having much softer warnings helps, especially considering our traffic level. Consider Commons  and Wikinews . I honestly don't understand the resistance against a more obvious and helpful message on Wikipedia-en. --W.marsh 13:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, I don't disagree at all that copyvios are a problem and should absolutely not be allowed. However, I disagree that the proposed changes would be helpful: it makes a consise statement longer while saying the same thing, won't necessarily help reduce the problem, and is quite strong, scaring away potentially contributors. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't currently explain that copying and pasting IS a copyvio, like I've said. I think most "copyvios" are just simple misunderstands... many of which would be stopped with a better warning. So the proposed changes would be helpful. At least in my opinion. We'd only really know if we tried. --W.marsh 02:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the text further down does sort of explain that... not sure that everyknow knows what public domain means. Still, I think ginormous letters and more obvious placement might be our only hope... though I understand that would never happen. :-) --W.marsh 02:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, this would be a good idea. It would prevent (to a certain extent) new users from adding copyright content indiscriminately. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think the warning is long enough as it is, and that the "will be deleted", while true, isn't entirely necessary.  JYolkowski // talk 21:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the length is the only issue I think. The purpose is, though, that under the current message a user will very well think "Whatever, I will still add it and, look there it is on the page. So nothing happened, yay, the message was a scare tactic and I got away with it." Saying it will be deleted tells them that there is an effective reason why there is no point in posting it: it will disappear. I do like the nice short current message though. —Centrx→talk • 03:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: can't we put thin in below "Your changes will be visible immediately."?Geni 19:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt many people read that now that the Insert character box is so big. There are a ton of copyvio's, almost all by well-meaning people who at least would not have uploaded the inevitably deleted copyvio, and best would have rewritten or summarized the addition and would not have been scared off by the rapid deleting response to their contributions. "Content must not violate any copyright" is clear from a professional or legal standpoint, but it doesn't make anyone pause to think that just about everything, including that website they just read, is copyrighted and can't be uploaded here. It would save a lot of everyone's time to have an effective message in the first place that informs them they can't upload that. Something like "Do not post text you copied from a website, it will be deleted." —Centrx→talk • 04:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to have a message DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!. Perhaps it does not need to be so capitally bold, but something strong is needed. —Centrx→talk • 04:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that the term deleted should be bolded as well as capitalized to emphasis the action which will be taken. This will definitely deter users on posting copyright content. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you please explain why it is not right to accept works that are NOT copyrighted? Could the reason be that the copyright status of such works are unclear? --Siva1979Talk to me 18:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  GFDL and CC* are licences for copyrighted information. No copyright, no licence. :-) Kim Bruning 14:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you please clarify why you think this will never happen? What are the negative consequences of having a warning screen? Would it discourage the newbies from staying in this project? --Siva1979Talk to me 04:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there's huge resistance towards changing the article creation process, for whatever reason. People think it would mean fewer articles if say, a screen said "You didn't format this article at all" and so on, or even if there was bigger warning text and so on. We still give people just a blank box and no real help... apparently there's little interest from the devs/powers that be in improving this situation. --W.marsh 05:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strong copyright warning.

message: In order to make clear that copyrighted content will not just sit there in what users think is the laissez-faire freedom of a wiki, it should be added that: "Content must not violate any copyright or it will be deleted." (emphasis added) Perhaps having "deleted" be in bold. —Centrx→talk • 04:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this would be a good idea. It would prevent (to a certain extent) new users from adding copyright content indiscriminately. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think the warning is long enough as it is, and that the "will be deleted", while true, isn't entirely necessary.  JYolkowski // talk 21:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the length is the only issue I think. The purpose is, though, that under the current message a user will very well think "Whatever, I will still add it and, look there it is on the page. So nothing happened, yay, the message was a scare tactic and I got away with it." Saying it will be deleted tells them that there is an effective reason why there is no point in posting it: it will disappear. I do like the nice short current message though. —Centrx→talk • 03:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: can't we put thin in below "Your changes will be visible immediately."?Geni 19:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt many people read that now that the Insert character box is so big. There are a ton of copyvio's, almost all by well-meaning people who at least would not have uploaded the inevitably deleted copyvio, and best would have rewritten or summarized the addition and would not have been scared off by the rapid deleting response to their contributions. "Content must not violate any copyright" is clear from a professional or legal standpoint, but it doesn't make anyone pause to think that just about everything, including that website they just read, is copyrighted and can't be uploaded here. It would save a lot of everyone's time to have an effective message in the first place that informs them they can't upload that. Something like "Do not post text you copied from a website, it will be deleted." —Centrx→talk • 04:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to have a message DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!. Perhaps it does not need to be so capitally bold, but something strong is needed. —Centrx→talk • 04:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that the term deleted should be bolded as well as capitalized to emphasis the action which will be taken. This will definitely deter users on posting copyright content. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you please explain why it is not right to accept works that are NOT copyrighted? Could the reason be that the copyright status of such works are unclear? --Siva1979Talk to me 18:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  GFDL and CC* are licences for copyrighted information. No copyright, no licence. :-) Kim Bruning 14:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you please clarify why you think this will never happen? What are the negative consequences of having a warning screen? Would it discourage the newbies from staying in this project? --Siva1979Talk to me 04:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there's huge resistance towards changing the article creation process, for whatever reason. People think it would mean fewer articles if say, a screen said "You didn't format this article at all" and so on, or even if there was bigger warning text and so on. We still give people just a blank box and no real help... apparently there's little interest from the devs/powers that be in improving this situation. --W.marsh 05:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Add that copyrighted content will be deleted.

message: It occurs to me that this warning doesn't say people should credit sources if they are copying and pasting from them, even if that source has a free liscense. We've recently caught some flack for articles that do this and never mention where the text came from, as that is plagiarism. Also, many people upload stuff assuming they have permission, but never assert it... and this leads to a lot of wheel spinning as their stuff is quickly deleted. 
I think better wording would help at least a little bit:
Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted. Credit any source you legally copy from in the article.
But that seems to convoluted... any ideas? --W.marsh 19:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just make it "Credit any source you legally copy." —Centrx→talk • 21:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism

message: I archived the page and added an archive box. --Meno25 05:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: Wikipedia:Attribution has replaced Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please replace "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." with "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source." -- Jeandré, 2007-02-23t21:00z
::Even better would be "Encyclopedic content must be attributed to a reliable source." -- Jeandré, 2007-02-23t21:08z
:::Done. Remember to use  to get administrators' attention quicker. I only came here because I was going to make a similar change of my own accord! Picaroon 01:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Attribution]].

message: Recommend removing the link to Wikipedia:Attribution in favor of the old link to Wikipedia:Verifiability. As it stands right now, ATT is a proposed policy. Frise 06:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. ^demon[omg plz] 06:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:ATT 

message: The footnote about GFDL (linking to MediaWiki:Edittools#copyright) seems slightly superfluous, might that be removed? In the interests of not overwhelming the editpage foot-instructions... We're used to its size (or hide it with css) but it's really quite overwhelming for new editors, as it currently is, and every reduction helps.
Also the superscript * causes an extra-large gap above the wordwrapped GFDL (at 1024x768 in firefox/linux): Example screenshot (see top left, above GFDL*). Anything that can be done to shorten that line, would be beneficial. Thanks. --Quiddity 03:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wordwrap 

message: What do you think about adding a larger message under the current one to "Cite your sources"? —Centrx→talk • 18:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad idea.  The message is already getting too long to read. --Carnildo 03:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is to put it below the current message on a new line, and in larger letters. Anyway, if the issue is that the message is already too long, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." can simply be replaced by "Cite your sources", which is much shorter and much clearer. It would also help with "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted.": all the people who copy text here from other websites do not read or understand "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted."; if they at least cite their sources—which is easy to understand and shorter—copyright infringements will be much easier to detect and delete. In trying to get a legalistic, passive-voiced message, we have instead a message that few read regardless of how short it is. —Centrx→talk • 02:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A larger font is even worse.  Instead of just being too long to read, the text will be difficult to read as well. --Carnildo 07:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Section headers and article titles have a larger font and we still use those without trouble. Anyway, what about the other option, of replacing the third-person passive "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" with "Cite your sources" or similar? —Centrx→talk • 04:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Section headers and article titles are meant to be read separately from the main text.  The larger font size enables the user to focus on them or ignore them as appropriate.  By putting two different fonts in close proximity as you are suggesting, you encourage people to read one or the other, but not both. --Carnildo 05:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good, if you can get it past the pedants.  It reads the way it does right now because some people felt that any other wording could be interpreted to mean that talkpage posts had to cite sources. --Carnildo 06:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add "Cite your sources" 

message: :crossposted to MediaWiki talk:Edittools#4 times now?
I'm wondering if we could reduce the 4 references to the GFDL in the editingfooter?
Anything that can be done to simplify and shorten this large instruction set, would be good.  --Quiddity 05:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed 100%.  — Omegatron 06:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 Gnus 

message: I wonder if this system message supports ParserFunctions. If yes, we could make it "smarter" by looking at  like it's done e.g. in MediaWiki:Newarticletext. Then the current text wolud only be used in the main namespace, for talk pages it would say "remember to sign ...", and say some other useful things in other namespaces ∴ AlexSm 23:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediawiki pages aren't watched very heavily. I think it would be better to ask about this on a village pump. The potential objection I see is that the GFDL applies to all contributions, including talk pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if no admin found this idea any good, I won't "fight" for it either. At least I implemented this in another language Wikipedia ∴ AlexSm 01:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even on talk pages you need the line "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL".  Jon513 (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, somebody already pointed mentioned this to me since then, so now I only propose to remove the other two sentences. —AlexSm 14:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We also need to have the line discouraging copyright violations (a copyvio on a talk page is still a copyvio), and I would prefer to keep the verifiability line too. Superm401 - Talk 12:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using namespace 

message: We're seeing a lot of "but I own the copyright!" sorts of complaints, and it takes a long time to make people realize that the GFDL is forever.  As a result, I just changed the third sentence of this warning from "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL" to "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL".  (I am a bit iffy on the word "irrevocably"; it's not an easy term for beginning English speakers, and it's very legalistic, which might cause some native English speakers to gloss over it.)
It's a minor change, and it won't affect the people who gloss over everything anyway, but I think it could help reduce some of the silly complaints.  Please feel free to rephrase or undo as appropriate. - Jredmond (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Insert objection to the length of the warning here. —Centrx→talk • 15:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're an admin, you can fix it.  Be bold, etc. - Jredmond (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure the length is now distinctly too long or especially important, or how it would be fixed other than by simply deleting "irrevocably" which is rather important. —Centrx→talk • 16:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should probably include that the GFDL is irrevocable 

message: Please change notice to:
Per the licensing transition.
Note, if we do end up mirroring the legal code on the site locally like with the GFDL, you may change the link. I also provided a link for the requesting permission and made things a bit more detailed. ViperSnake151  Talk   00:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: That's a huge difference to the current version, so this probably needs some discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I am a sysop from Thai Wikipedia.  Your new design is quite impressive, so we already adopted it here with some modification. --:th:user:Taweetham 13:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, big templates like that so that we scare away any potential editor. Commons can use them, as they almost never actually edit content, and I really wonder how new users can find the 'save page' button there. Seriously though, the three lines from the message are legally sufficient and do their job well. No need for that. Cenarium (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's true considering your current English Copyrightwarning page.  I don't think the new design is appropriate here since the text will be quadruple.  However, for Thai Wikipedia, we have used such a very long text for some times, and we readily adopted your innovative design.  Just want to tell ViperSnake151 that his stuff may not be useful here, but it useful for us. Thanks -- :th:user:Taweetham17:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licensing transition 

message: This is getting longer. More and longer instructions means people are less likely to read them. Is there any way this can be shorter? --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have worked it down to three lines, although it wasn't the intent of my changes. Dekimasuよ! 03:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 be shortened to CC-BY-SA 3.0 ? Cenarium (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You can try it and see if anyone minds. I left that one when I changed GFDL because I figured that people who are used to GFDL might not be familiar with Creative Commons licensing yet. Dekimasuよ! 16:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: Please note that on Wikimedia Foundation wikis, this message is replaced by MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning as of June 29, 2009.--Eloquence* 21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the previous page and the talk to the appropriate location, and restored your version. -- Luk talk 09:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel like the proper solution would be to move it back and mark as obsolete. I don't think meta:Licensing update/Implementation#Terms for edit screen allows for "content that violates any copyrights" and "verifiability" to be included in this message. — AlexSm 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't extra indications fall under the allowance for "Detailed instructions" mentioned below the main terms? Dekimasuよ! 15:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, individual communities are free to expand upon, stylize, and otherwise localize what appears here as long as they include at least the same basic elements provided by the WMF.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

text: When I moved it both messages were identical (except for a comma). Keeping the proper history seemed like the right thing to do. -- Luk talk 15:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolete 

message: People don't understand that when they write on wikipedia, they are basically amateur journalists, with no training about the legal issues surrounding defamation and libel law. I would highly recommend linking to the Electronic Frontier Foundation 'bloggers legal guide' or other similar guide material. This is a massive, gaping hole just waiting for the law to come crashing down on some hapless person who thought the internet was free. 
Example: see :en:Gutnick_v_Dow_Jones (an Australian man sued US Company 'Dow Jones' for defamation, over an article published on the internet. He sued in an Australian court where libel law was extremely favorable for plaintiffs). 
Wikimedia is setting itself up for a lawsuit when some joe schmoe editor gets sued then sues wikimedia for not warning him/her. reposting with message board bump. Decora (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warn people they are liable for defamation and other things 

message: The text says, "By clicking the 'Save Page' button" but the actual button says "Save page". The capitalization is different. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I just came here to say the same. Adding a  tag so that this can be resolved. To the passing admin: ideally it would actually transclude the message itself (MediaWiki:Savearticle). That means changing "Save Page" to "". Thank you! --MZMcBride (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Rjd0060 (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Save Page" should be "Save page" to match the button 

message: There was a  recently added to this. Please change it to  because any script that parses a wiki page as XML is broken, thanks. Gary King (talk · scripts) 03:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: At present we don't serve XML - we serve HTML 5.0, where both  and  are valid. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, both are valid. Which is why I suggest using it with the slash, because some scripts read wiki pages as XML so they are easier for the scripts to navigate, etc., using XPath, for instance. Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

text: It may not be what you intended to say, but "any script that parses a wiki page as XML is broken" is indeed true. Anomie⚔ 03:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

text: See the discussion here for a rationale. And, sure, I've added a slash. Nobigdeal ;p. Ironholds (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As the OP, I amended that discussion with a reply. I strongly disagree with the rationale given. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki><br></nowiki> to <nowiki><br /></nowiki> 

message: While the legal force of the current message has no doubt been carefully crafted, I'd like to point out that the current text is pretty impenetrable to the average user. "Don't submit other people's copyrighted material." is the sort of thing that would be very useful to effectively communicate, and this message doesn't really attempt the job.
I'm tired of deleting cut-and-paste copyvios by new editors creating new articles.  We need to tell people what our standards are, before we penalize them for ignorance, if we actually care about new editors. --j⚛e deckertalk 04:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If the warning at the top of the edit box isn't working, why do you think that adding one at the bottom will help? --Carnildo (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:   Well now, there I go, not paying attention.  Sorry 'bout that.   --j⚛e deckertalk 04:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plain English, please