User talk:Morton devonshire/Finding your inner sockpuppet

Why are you copying and pasting Uncyclopedia articles into your user space? That is a violation of the copyright on Uncyclopedia and it is destroying pagerankings of Uncyclopedia articles. Orion Blastar 21:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright? Get over yourself. None of this stuff is important, and coming from Uncyclopedia, you should know that. Wikipedia is a big joke, and Uncyclopedia does a good job of lampooning it -- that's why the entry is there. I would be glad to make the attribution if that would satisfy you. Meanwhile, I will continue to edit and allow others to edit the article here, and eventually it will be something completely different. Peace. Morton devonshire 00:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right of course. Please feel free to copy any or all articles from Uncyclopedia. However attribution is still common courtesy, even if nobody is going to sue you over it. --A Sock Puppet 05:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Morton devonshire 05:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the attribution gone? Missing it out is a federal offence, plus the fact that you defeat one of the points to copyright - allowing anyone to know that someone else put some work into this. --02barryc 19:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ed g2s complained about it, so I took it out. Look, I like Uncyclopedia, but apparently sorehead Wikipedians don't like it because it makes fun of their vaunted Wikipedia, so they want to attack the spoof on my user page. Also, this is just my user page, not an article, so cut me some slack, okay? Please just leave me alone so I can poke fun at Wikipedia -- all right? Morton devonshire 20:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I love Uncyclopedia. In fact, I work there. Or, rather, I work for Wikia (honest!), which hosts Uncyclopedia. And the reason it should be taken down is not because "sorehead Wikipedians" don't like it (most I know are quite fond of it) but because the license is incompatible... you cannot post CC-BY-NC-SA material in wikipedia. It is not compatible with GFDL, and we don't allow fair use text. I'm sorry to spoil your fun, but I've blanked it; you're welcome to link it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual property is my daily work, and I understand the creative commons license well -- how is it incompatible with Wikipedia? Is it the derivative works aspect, or something else which is not a creature of Copyright Law? Morton devonshire 06:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest difference is the NC (noncommercial) aspect; GFDL allows commercial use. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep the notice up, then the GDFL/Creative commons issue shouldn't be a problem. The reason I am picky on stuff like this is because a lot of people copy uncyclopedia, but very badly like here. I have absolutely no problem keeping it up, just so long as you attribute. The person who wrote it on uncylopedia wasn't too happy when he fond out you copied him: her's the forum. It should hopefully be sorted out now. If it's not crystal clear, then contact me. I'm not a complete reject-I just hate plagarism, though not as much as this lot! --BarryC 11:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meat puppets on WikiFur?

I've not heard of it. Of course, they might exist, but most of the people posting under their own names are writing things that can be easily verified, if not exactly common knowledge. GreenReaper 19:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]