User talk:Smith03 from April 26, 2004 to April 25, 2005
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Reds and Blues in Texas
Interesting! I'm still not convinced (yet) that there's really a connection between this and the "red states"/"blue states" of today, though... Dpbsmith 02:45, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
- Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
- Multi-Licensing Guide
- Free the Rambot Articles Project
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
- Option 1
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
- Option 2
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)[[]] 13:44, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Reform Party of Minnesota
Please do not merge/blank pages without discussion. EdwinHJ | Talk 03:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] DFL
I would most certainly not support dropping the "Farmer-Labor" from the DFL name. It is a part of our history and shows our continued support of our state's farmers and working people. This not really an issue pending in the DFL, what made you think of it? EdwinHJ | Talk 20:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh mainly just for simplication sake ( I also like to see ND dems drop the npl). Smith03
[edit] baseball franchises
You made St. Louis Browns into a redirect to Baltimore Orioles. This is a decision I fully support. I think it is the correct protocol for MLB teams. There is currently a debate raging at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Montréal Expos, and so far the redirect solution is losing. I think it is because some of the users don't fully understand how franchises work in MLB. If you have the time, maybe you could chime in on the conversation there. Kingturtle 04:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
