User talk:IFaqeer

Trying hard to go on  Wikivacation.
I will be checking this page—as rarely as I can help it :D.
...and maybe Partition of India.
You can help me resist Wikitemptation by helping with
Africa-related, Islam-related, and South Asia-related topics.

Feel free to send me e-mail.

Archives

/Archive001

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)

I never kid about things like the Cabal

We exist (shhhh!) and we intend to subvert Wikipedia for our own nefarious schemes! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Templates

Why am I "definitely the wrong" person to judge this? My opinion is just as valid as your own. As to the consensus back in May, it was strong enough that that almost all of these templates were purged from country articles [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] . Since then some of the templates have occassionally been readded by new users or those unaware of the previous discussion. - SimonP 05:30, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

The accepted rule has been that an international organization has to be important enough to be mentioned in the opening section of a country's article to merit a footer template. This is not the case in any of the countries you listed. As a Canadian, a country widely recognized as one of the most dedicated and active members of the Commonwealth, I have a very different experience than the one you describe. I don't recall ever seeing a one paragraph description of Canada include a sentence mentioning its Commonwealth status. When Canadians are asked to give ten or twenty defining characteristics of out country Commonwealth membership is not included. When talking with people from other Commonwealth countries, including Nigeria, Pakistan, and India, I do not recall the Commonwealth ever being included in a description of their homelands. A Google search shows that less than two percent of pages mentioning India, Canada, or Pakistan also mention the word "commonwealth". - SimonP 06:07, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, iFageer, for your words of wisdom. You've helped calm me down. I agree that I did respond a bit too rashly to SimonP's actions - just upset that I had to spend extra time on something I hadn't planned on doing. Nevertheless, I was far too harsh when I called his work "vandalism," and I have apologized to him for that. I am posting the following comment on the talk pages of all who have commented:

Anyway: Most of my fellow-New Zealanders - including republicans are passionate supporters of the Commonwealth, and consider our membership of it much more than a factoid. No matter how opposed to the monarchy they are, no matter how left-wing they are, almost all New Zealanders consider our Commonwealth membership to be of supreme importance. Symbolic, yes - but symbols have powerful meanings. By working as a group, for example, the commonwealth was able to force Fiji to restore the 1997 constitution after the 2000 coup. (Other joint ventures were less successful, but at least they tried - and did so together, as a united force). It influences our foreign relations, too: Commonwealth-member countries exchange High Commissioners, not Ambassadors. The distinction may seem trivial (and for practical purposes, it almost always is), but it is real nonetheless. David Cannon 09:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)