Forum:Deleting your own featured article

Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > Deleting your own featured article

Note: This topic has been unedited for 3993 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Hi, It's Xamralco. I'm back with some rather unfortunate news. I had submitted my article Cow tipping (a featured article on Uncyc that I had written by myself) to a writing contest and won a prize. The Alliance for Young Artists & Writers (contest's sponsor), however, now has exclusive rights to the piece and request that it not be published elsewhere. Thus, I recently reverted all of my edits to the article (a total rewrite for Conservation Week). Since I only reverted my own edits, I argue that my action was acceptable. MrN9000 had said on my talkpage that I cannot delete a featured article regardless of whether I wrote it myself and requested I make this forum. I feel that if a user has written an article by themselves, they have the right to remove their edits regardless of featured status. If the article was not featured, this conflict would not have arisen. I would like to hear what other users think of this issue. Thank you. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 19:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

First off, I'd like to know if they knew it was an article on Uncyclopedia (and if they knew it was an article, if they knew it was featured). Because if they knew that, in some states (I think) they cannot (by law) revoke your rights to the article. And inform them of the following legal claim for Uncyclopedia: Please note that all contributions to Uncyclopedia are considered to be released under the Creative Commons SA License. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here.. And inform them of its importance. Negotiate with them. Something! But I'm of huge opposition to huffing deleted FEATURED articles and writing competition pieces.  Sir Peasewhizz Biblio HOS Awards 20:03 3.18.13

Also note that if they request all rights to it, they might be planning to claim it as their own and/or avoid legal issues if they come by one in the future.  Sir Peasewhizz Biblio HOS Awards 20:04 3.18.13

Xamralco, you dirty swine, I KNEW you were off cheating on us with someone else. THAT WHORE WILL NEVER LOVE YOU LIKE WE DO! (sob) ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Mon, Mar 18 '13 23:19 (UTC)

If it's something that would actually be a big issue, I suppose we'd have no choice. I'm pretty sure Peasewhizz is incorrect about his legality claims. But I wonder whether Uncyclopedia would actually register on anyone's radar as a threat to their commercial such-and-such. Probably warrants analysis from somewhere more in-the-know on that sort of thing than me. -RAHB 23:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Objection, RAHB is gay.  Sir Peasewhizz Biblio HOS Awards 00:02 3.19.13

Objection! Nuh-uh! -RAHB 00:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Objection! PROPAGANDA!!  Sir Peasewhizz Biblio HOS Awards 01:45 3.19.13

honey, don't. --Roman Dog Bird (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The section where we treat this seriously and don't fuck around

Ah, hah, almost had you there, didn't I?

Seriously, though, this is a bit of a conundrum. If we try to Be Cool to Xamralco and remove the featured article so he can collect his rightful winnings, we are violating at least the spirit of the CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0. which the article was licensed under, and setting a bad precedent for the future. On the other hand, if we say "FU Xamralco, your article belongs to the world now, so tough titties," Xamralco sure as hell won't like that. I don't want to piss off Xamralco --why? 'Cuz he's like the Fonzi. And the Fonzi was cool.

So, yeah, conundrum.

I like to pop in and state the obvious from time to time, cuz I'm...Obvious Man! 00:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Huh? The page "Cow tipping" doesn't seem to be featured, and looking at the edit history X's name isn't even on it. Is this a joke, or are you talking about another article? Aleister 1:45 or 2:45, I don't know which one 19-3-'13

This is what you're looking for. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Tue, Mar 19 '13 1:50 (UTC)

It's gone on the other site too. Apologies to Xamralco, but nobody else has exclusive rights to this page, and you may have to take this as a learning curve and tell the contest people what happened and let them award the prize to the second place winner. You knew it was written here, and that it was featured. When Puppy tried to erase all his pages on this site we told him "No way, Jose (Puppy's real name is Jose)". This is probably something that shouldn't have happened in the first place (although I'm not an admin and actually have no say in the final decision, and again with apologies to Xamralco, this would set too much of a precedent. That's my opinion and nobody is welcome to it). Aleister 2:00 or 3:00 19-3-'13

I just looked up the award on wikipedia, and it's a big one if you (Xamralco) won one of the big awards. Which one did you win, just a regional contest or did you win one of the big prizes? Details, man, details. If it is a major award, and not just like a city-wide contest, I think I'll change my "vote" on this. But you have to promise that in two years the feature will be restored exactly as it was, and until then some kind of placeholder with an explanation is set up. Jose, I mean Puppy, he didn't win major awards with his pages. X, you did fuck up on this, and let's see if we can try to make it right for everybody. Aleister' about half an hour later, 19-3-'13

p.s. and I must admit that since I wrote the above I'm very conflicted on this. Luckily I'm not an admin, and they should step in and decide this, mainly because everyone likes Xamralco here and we all want to see him successful, so everyone is biased and probably conflicted. On one hand it's probably a page nobody logging in is going to look for unless they're drunk and want to learn HowTo:Cow tip. So should we allow a one-time stupid-mistake exemption, and then create a policy which makes sure this never ever never happens again (I can't win an exclusive contest with The Old Man and LV, for example (hahahahahahaha). Maybe we should let Puppy and Aimsplode decide (hahahahahahahaha)

Yes, I'm thinking that, since there hasn't already been a precedent set, if Xam wants this one article gone, it might be best to allow for it, and then to create a policy (highly publicized enough for attention) that details how things are to be done in future. This is hardly the same as Puppy's requests before, as it seems like Xam wasn't aware that these contest folks would get the exclusive rights to the article (which I think we can all agree is pretty shitty of them, but such is life sometimes). With another article in its place now it's probably okay, and it can still be denoted in the history of features, just with a note somewhere about the unfortunate circumstances. Maybe a link to the contest's version, should they decide to publish it on the internet. This seems the most amiable and easiest solution to me. Thoughts from anyone else? -RAHB 02:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I did win on the national level. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't have thought anything of it. I agree that it was a lapse in judgment to submit the article but I had never thought I would actually win anything and did not know that they would get the rights to the piece. In 2 years, when their exclusive rights expire, I would definitely restore it on here. I apologize for all the trouble and inconvenience that I have caused because of this. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 03:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No trouble. No inconvenience. It was an honest mistake, if it can even be called a mistake. They probably should have made that inconvenient fact more noticeable. Seeing as nobody else seems to be stepping in I'll go ahead and make a rare executive decision here. It helps a lot that the rights will expire in two years. So I say go ahead and remove/leave it removed, make a small mention somewhere of the circumstances, or simply that "We'll Be Back Soon" or something like that, and then after the two years it can be restored. I think this is the best way for everything to all work out without any contention anywhere. Well done, Team Uncyclopedia! -RAHB 07:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Except wait, maybe we should vote or something. I'm bad at executive decisions. -RAHB 08:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the article in the meantime since it just doesn't work that way, but if folks decide to delete it anyway then I certainly won't stand in the way. -— Lyrithya ༆ 07:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This situation calls for a vote

• It looks like I am a bit late to the party. Everything published on Uncyclopedia is released under the CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0 license. You know this because every time you hit the Save button there is a line above the Save button that reads "You agree to license submissions under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0." In the past it was agreed upon, by overwhelming consensus, that Puppy was not allowed to remove content that he wrote for the site (both featured and non-featured) that did not meet the community's standards for deletable content. Obviously this is a unique situation we have with Xamralco's article. Therefore, I think we should all vote as a community on whether or not Xamralco should be allowed to remove his version of Cow tipping for a two year period during which time it will be owned exclusively by The Alliance for Young Artists & Writers. -- The Zombiebaron 08:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Score: +4

1. Against. I think that once we start to define "ownership" in the context of the wiki things start getting very messy. -- The Zombiebaron 08:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Boner. Young artists and writers have to stick together. Which often means young artists and writers have to compromise with young enterprising businessmen. -RAHB 08:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
3.  Sure - Throwing you a bone. One missing feature for two years isn't going to kill us. -- Kip the Egg Talk Works 08:39, Mar. 19, 2013
4.  For. We can write another feature. -- Style  Guide 08:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
5.  Against. Naaaahhhhhhh they can suck it up. Unless we just put another version there in its place.  Sir Peasewhizz Biblio HOS Awards 11:36 3.19.13
6. For - I will also offer some thoughts on the subject in another post when I have some more time.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 19:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
7. Very, very conditional for This is a messy situation. I want us to be able to support our writers here, and if you can win awards for things written on Uncyc it can be a great thing for both the writer and the site. Especially if we can somehow use this to show the world at large that we have some really quality writing out, and people should come read/write for us. I really don't like the idea of another site having exclusive rights to something that was originally written on this site, especially with our status as a wiki and it being a collaboration. I support Xamralco being able to do this this time since we don't really have a policy on it, BUT we absolutely need to come up with a community policy on this kind of thing, whether we want our articles popping up in other places (I would be very very in favor of getting our articles on other sites if we can make sure it is mentioned that the article was originally written on Uncyc), and how to deal with sites that would require exclusive rights. Exclusiveness generally goes against what we are all about. The Woodburninator Minimal Effort ™ 19:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

   We already have a policy, called the CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0 license. Anybody is free to use content from Uncyclopedia as long as they follow the terms of the license. -- The Zombiebaron 20:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

   Ugh, flip-flopping here. I'm going to Abstain. for a while and think on it. Don't like either answer right now. The Woodburninator Minimal Effort ™ 06:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

8.  For. This one time, and let everyone far and wide realize that what they write here is staying here from now on. Congratulations to X for kicking dirt in the faces of the other contestants, who by this time are seeking solace in bottles and in their mommy (literally). Except I'd say if Puppy wins a contest like this he has a perfect right to demand a gimmee, a get-out-of-this-form-of-uncyclopedia-free card. Xamralco, are you going to be at the Carnegie Hall presentation? Maybe you can wear an uncyclopedia te--shirt there! Congrats again. Aleister 19-3-'13

   Yeah, I'm going. It's gonna be fun! Hmm... Uncyc t-shirt? Not a bad idea. :) -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 20:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

9. Neutral. Also, OH MY GOD HI XAMRALCO!!! —  (talk) (contributions) 21:22:33 2013/03/19 UTC
10. Abstain. Mostly per KIP's comments, and as Al said: This one time, and let everyone far and wide realize that what they write here is staying here from now on. Congratulations to X for kicking dirt in the faces of the other contestants, who by this time are seeking solace in bottles and in their mommy (literally). Except I'd say if Puppy wins a contest like this he has a perfect right to demand a gimmee, a get-out-of-this-form-of-uncyclopedia-free card Nope. This will be the first and only exception. Xamralco did not realize the seriousness of what he was doing, which can be forgiven because this has never happened before. Now it has. Everyone now knows. NEVER AGAIN! I think some of you need to think more about why ZB said: "I think once we start to define "ownership" in the context of the wiki things start getting very messy". this is where I write the bit about how I have no hard feelings for Xamralco, but we all know I do, in my Pants. MrN 21:55. Mar 19. 2013
11. Against. I love you like a brother, man, but what part of CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0 don't you understand? Is it the "NC"? It's not North Carolina, if that helps. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
12. Comment. Wow, didn't know Xamralco was that young. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Wed, Mar 20 '13 0:30 (UTC)
13. These sorts of things generally come down to the reason, and this reason just ain't valid - whether or not the thing is here does not affect the license under which it has already been released. Doesn't even remotely affect what exclusive rights someone else might try to claim. -— Lyrithya ༆ 07:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
14.  Against. Per my whole thing on people not owning the articles they write. They belong to the community maaaan... ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 07:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
15.  For. Making exceptions is usually a bad thing, but I think in this case we should support Xamralco--the contest is a much bigger deal to him than one article is to anybody else here. And somebody should write UnNews: Local Uncyclopedian Makes Good. —rc (t) 00:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
16.  For. If this were Wikipedia or some other SRSBZNS website, or he was asking for this to be done with 36+ articles, or if anybody cared that Uncyclopedia would be missing a featured article for two years, I'd say "fuck no". But as I said to Xamralco's mother last night, "Flexibility is a good thing." It's one article, it's (allegedly) not going to be deleted permanently. Let this be a lesson to Xamralco and others in the future. If this happens again for anyone else, my vote will be "absolutely fuck shit no."  ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Fri, Mar 22 '13 0:33 (UTC)
17.  Against. Much respect and love for Xamralco, but we are being asked to cover up copyfraud which we cannot do. Another justification has to be found for deleting the article. The only solution would be to rewrite the article and nominate the current article on VFD with the reason that the rewrite is better. I'd gladly be a part of that process since I live in Iowa and have tipped my fair share of cows (15% tip, always). However, even if we successfully get it deleted from Uncyclopedia there is still a likelihood that somewhere, in some dark corner of the internet, someone has reproduced and properly attributed your work as it was published on Uncyclopedia. This could create problems for your publisher. If/when it is deleted from Uncyclopedia I highly recommend you advise your publisher that the work was once released under the Creative Commons license but is no more. Always inform publishers if your work has ever been published anywhere so you don't end up plagiarizing yourself. And like many have said, you cannot submit work you have already submitted on Uncyclopedia to publishers who wish to have rights to it. You just cannot do it, because you don't own it anymore and thus you can't sell something you don't own. --EMC ^[TALK] 15:11 Apr 9 2013

    Just to clarify why I crossed that sentence out: the Creative Commons license is non-revocable but ultimately, like with all works, the license is only enforceable if it can be proven to have once been released under that license. This is where the problem of others republishing the work with the same license comes in. Even if every copy of the work released under the CC license were removed from existence the work still legally remains Creative Commons, but again it's about what can be proven. I would still let the publisher know what the situation is regarding the license even though it appears your contributions have already been deleted by another administrator. --EMC ^[TALK] 15:49 Apr 9 2013

18. For but only if there is a rewrite as the guy above me suggested. There is also the problem of it being on the old Uncyc and on various mirror sites as well. Don't know how that'd be fixed as I've never tipped a cow but not for lack of trying. I gave the Korean woman who cut my hair a 20 today, and for some reason, she gave me 6 bucks back. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 02:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
19. For Congrats for the award Xamralco. We have to finish that constitution article one day, I've been gone for a while too :) Mattsnow 08:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Rant

The article has already been released under a free license, and that license is irrevocable. The only exclusive rights that can be granted would be the ones not already granted to everyone under said license as we all already have the rights to copy, share, mangle, and basically do whatever we want with the thing so long as it's attributed and it ain't commercial. So exclusive commercial rights could probably be granted, and that might even work in this case if you bring it up with the sponsor, but deleting it won't change what the rest of us can do.

So seriously, bring this up with the sponsor and sort it out there. Please don't go deleting stuff thinking it will change the license, because all content here has already been released and we and every mirror, random passerby, and his dog have rights already under the license, and nothing any overly grabby sponsor might try to pull is going to change that. Related if they try to grab you... er... nevermind. -— Lyrithya ༆ 07:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the wikipedian in me needed to get that out. -— Lyrithya ༆ 07:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Come on all you guys, have a heart instead of a brain. He won a national contest with something he wrote here, which gives uncyclopedia a nice piece of publicity. Who is going to come here and look up Cow Tipping anyway. It's a one-time exemption, he's going to restore the feature in two years, and might even wear an uncy tee-shirt at the award ceremony. How can any of this really harm anything as long as everyone agrees that this does not set a precedent (kind of like Bush v. Gore in the Supreme Court). What's more important, letting someone else pretend-ownership for two years (call it a "lease" being paid for by happiness and sharing the page with a very wide audience), or hiding the page here and letting it get three views in two years? Aleister 12:56 20-3-'13

I agree with your sentiment Aleister. I'm just a but worried that we won't get ANY publicity from this since THEY would have exclusive rights to the article. Would there be any way to promote the fact that it was written here, while not allowing it to actually be on the site? I'm all ears on this one because we could use as much publicity as we could get. The Woodburninator Minimal Effort ™ 16:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you guys are missing the point of Lyrithya's rant. Whether or not the article remains on Uncyclopedia is irrelevant: it has been released under a creative commons license and that license is irrevocable. We can choose to waive certain elements of the license, but there is no way to give anybody "exclusive" rights to the article. -- The Zombiebaron 18:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That. -— Lyrithya ༆ 21:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

In Oklahoma they call giving someone something and then taking it back "Indian giving", mainly because they're racists and have a very confused version of American history in their textbooks. The practice itself is not legal in any sense. A gift, whether to the community or to an individual, may not be revoked without the permission of all parties, and I'm quite sure it's impossible to get everyone in the world's permission (since the creative commons license is, in effect, a gift to the world). I can state this with all the knowledge and authority of someone who once saw a lawyer show on TV.--<<>> 12:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

SO THEN WHY THE VOTE??

You made me read all this shit for nothing you incomprehensible (choke) --- --- -- Style  Guide 21:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Incomprehensible Choke was my stage name back when I was a magician. True story. I would pull a rabbit out of a hat. That's not true. I never got all of it. Most of a rabbit out of a hat is still magic, though. Ta-da! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Also the discussion is not over yet. Lyrithya has just restored the page until we decide what to do. I'm off to bed. :( MrN 23:01. Mar 20. 2013

I started the vote before I was made aware of the fact it is impossible to give somebody "exclusive" rights to something released under the license. The vote still shows what community opinion is on deleting the article for 2 years. -- The Zombiebaron 01:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

People who are using the argument that anyone using the "Save" button should "agree to release your stuff under under the Creative Commons SA License" to say Xamralco can't edit his article probably never uploaded a picture that was subject to a copyright... Come on, the guy made huge contributions to this site, and this is the reward he gets? Mattsnow 00:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)