Forums: Index > Village Dump > Cow tipping
Note: This topic has been unedited for 1899 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Xamralco requested on the fork that his contributions to this article be removed since he submitted it to a contest, giving exclusive rights to the contest promoter. As far as I can tell, consensus so far on SPIKE's talk page indicates that this site would like to keep the featured article around, or at least preserve the history of the article. I am putting this in a forum so that everybody who hasn't had a chance to comment on the talk page can see this and comment, as well as those who commented on the talk page. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 18:07, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

Quite. Contributions made to Uncyclopedia, by which I mean this web site, are released under the CC-whatever agreement. The author can insist on attribution (which is achieved by the change history) but others are free to use the work noncommercially; for example, anyone can take a copy of it and set up an impostor Uncyclopedia. Xamralco still owns his contributions, and is even free to sell them to a magazine (though I hope he did not tell it that it was paying for exclusive use of them!). He is not free to un-gift them to us.
Xamralco (who has done nothing to support this site since the Fork) used his Admin powers to withdraw the featured version of this article and leave us with another substantially different version of about the same size. This was undone, and MrN9000 (who has done nothing to support this site since the Fork, and has trolled me over a banning and sought to individually cherry-pick good writers away from the site) has reverted me, the latest in a long list of fallen-away Admins using the powers they retain to delete information from our database as personal favors or based on off-site requests.
MrN9000, speaking of course for the "Uncyclopedia community" suggests in the Delete Log that "we have decided" (presumably on some other website) to raid the Uncyclopedia database. This is illegitimate. Spıke Ѧ 18:18 28-Mar-13
Indeed, on the fork a community consensus was made to allow Xamralco's contributions to the cow tipping article to be removed. There is no such consensus on this site yet that I see so far, and deleting the history of an article is unprecedented unless there is legal action (Video Professor for instance). -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 19:01, March 28, 2013 (UTC)
On the other side of the island I was first in favor of not letting Xameralco do what he did, and then, when I learned more, I thought we should allow him to go ahead and we would loan the page for two years. Xamralco entered his article in a major national contest, won, and will be honored at Carnegie Hall with the other winners. It is a big deal, and is for young writers (Xamralco is only 15 as far as I remember) who have a future in writing. He claims he didn't know that they demanded exclusive rights for two years. I figure that as long as we retain a copy of the page, what is better, that we squash his win and bitterfi his life, or that we leave the cow-tipping article up and let three people who hit Random Feature see it over two years? It will have a much wider audience, a promotional affiliation with Uncyclopedia (he says he'll likely wear an uncyclopedia tee-shirt to the Carnegie Hall event), and the pleasure of knowing one of our writers will benefit from his experience here. I hope that everyone eventually will feel comfortable on this site, and allowing X to have his win will do something for goodwill with lots of people. The solution on the other site was not reached without argument, with MrN being one of the most vocal that uncy owns the writing. The solution was to put the old article up for two years, and then replace it with the feature, but in no other way concede that we don't have a right to put it up if we want to. It was decided this will be a one time thing, never repeated by anyone. I think it will be the nice thing to do to let Xamralco have the reward he earned, and feel comfortable that both sites support him. Aleister 19:11 28-3-'13
What a tour-de-force! a personal epiphany, an honest mistake, and a chance for us to make an exception, make peace with the Fork which after all does not raid and sabotage, feel great about ourselves, and avoid ruining a youngster's life, by doing something we're supposed to not do, but happily will never, ever do again. When I was a bit younger, I promised both my share and someone else's share of something to people, the wise solution being that I was required to give up my own share. Aleister, I consider it more likely than that Cow tipping won anyone access to Carnegie Hall that you are lying (okay, "joking") to win a debate. What is the name of this contest? Spıke Ѧ 19:27 28-Mar-13
I know, it just goes to show how lame other people write outside of uncyclopedia. It actually won a national contest! I'd bet on me lying too, but I also would lose. Can't recall the name now, and am too lazy to check out the other forum, but it's a damn important contest if you are young and a writer. If I'm not lying (and I'm sweating now trying to keep my lying story straight) would you consider letting this one go and we all can do a good deed for a young idiot? Al 20:14 28-3-'13
p.s. The Alliance for Young Artists & Writers
I see the Silver Medal. Aleister is not "joking." Spıke Ѧ 02:09 29-Mar-13
I'm significantly against this idea. This creates a precedent for writers to say “I sold the rights” assuming we'll remove it. Congrats to Xam for winning, but he won with something that was not solely his work (being it was done as part of a community and was a rewrite of an existing article), and that he had previously not published this previously. I also look at it from the perspective of “What's in it for us?”. Wearing an Uncyc t-shirt doesn't exactly mean that it's going to reflect we're a community that supports creative writing. Given Xam's initial statement was that he “sold” the rights, and that any competition like this would have strict anti-plagiarism rules, I find it mind boggling that nobody checked this with an anti-plagiarism program. Or - better yet - a 5 second google search for the first sentence. And by removing it here makes no difference to it being published elsewhere. It was published here, the fork, the mirror, and I believe on fool wiki. It'll appear on wayback machine and other sources. By deleting it here there is still no limits on this being taken by someone using the CC-BY-etc licence and reporting elsewhere. So we will not be able to stop this from being in the public arena - which is the point of the deletion - but we will lose one of our featured articles - which damages the site - and create a precedent by which authors can request a deletion at any stage if they find somewhere more lucrative to publish. Removal is a lose-lose outcome. In my mind I'd suggest Xam fesses up to what has happened and see what can be done from the competition's end. If they are happy to publish it still - given it is a quality work and a viable winner - then that works well for both of us - a win/win outcome. I'd also be happy to use that article to link to the competition to increase their exposure if that would alleviate any issues.                               Puppy's talk page01:02 29 Mar 2013
Dittoes to all of this. In the episode of overpromising I mention above, I learned a lesson. Xamralco had not yet learned one, at least as of the date on which he reacted to his own overpromising by coming in and manipulating our database. All the time we spend teaching strangers about the tools of this trade would be as hollow as the typical college education if we never taught moral lessons. Having overpromised, don't ask us to break our rules, to make a vain attempt to falsify the past, and to accept an un-gifting. Instead, Do The Right Thing. Spıke Ѧ 02:09 29-Mar-13
I concur. We have a policy against deleting the past. Also, we don't have authority to remove a create-commons license from a literary work. In fact, nobody has the authority to undo creative commons releases. In fact, if we go around pretending that something released here under a CC-BY-NC-SA license is now under exclusively owned by someone, we would be engaging in copyright fraud.
In theory, someone could copy CC content from here, then get sued by someone who (supposedly) purchased exclusive rights to the content. In such a case, we would have a moral duty show that the content was actually licensed under a CC license, and if we actively mislead people as to its true copyleft status, we would be engaging in copyright fraud. --Mn-z 13:12, March 29, 2013 (UTC)
What about reverting to the version just prior to Xamralco's edits and leaving the history in place? This would not delete the prior publication outright(which is not required by the rules) but would give Scholastic the exclusive publication for the two years. Ideally, however, Xamralco should contact the Award Committee and explain the situation, they need to know that his work was originally published elsewhere. While we do not have an exclusive license for publication, they should know (or find out) about the CC-by-SA license, so they can advise him appropriately. Either way, we need to get Xamralco's feedback here after he contacts the Award Committee about the licensing issue. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 15:39, March 29, 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, the argument against deletion is strong than in Aimsplode's or NXWave's deletion requests. Xamralco is attempting to (effectively) move content out of the Creative Commons for monetary gain, whereas the other deletion requests were personal issues. Removing content so that is can be exclusively published elsewhere for profit is against the principle of this site, and quite close to being an accessory to plagiarism and copyright fraud. --Mn-z 01:30, March 30, 2013 (UTC)
Ali is lying to win an argument, xamralco is avoiding learning a moral lesson by his own vanity, the admins are using the privaleges to procure corrupt deals in the black market of wiki nepotism...perhaps we can accuse more users of dodgy deeds and intentions. --ShabiDOO 02:17, April 9, 2013 (UTC)


I wouldn't care about this site one way or the other, but I happened on this forum by an unlucky accident. Denying someone the rights for what is actually his own work - for such a trivial principle - is utter and total dickery, and fuck you all unless you decide to do what is obviously right in such a case as this. I can't imagine anyone with any brain would even take the trouble to argue against lending the article. Spike, you incomprehensible nitpicker - you wouldn't know The Right Thing if it were rammed up your arse. -- Style Oranssiviiva Guide 09:49, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Removing material from the creative commons is a violation of the principle of copyleft. The whole point of the creative commons is to create material that everyone is free to use (provided certain conditions are met). This case is actually one of the least justifiable requests to remove an article, as the motivation is monetary, rather than personal. --Mn-z 12:46, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Monetary? Tipping the cow is allowed! - Al 13:00 5-4-'13

Spectral Radiance

Can't we all....just....get a long? -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)

A long what? Maybe a good "compromise" to allow X to be given the award and maybe kick-start his entire career as a writer (little things like that) would be to acknowledge that the article is one of ours, but we will allow it to be taken off-line and "loaned" out for two years. It's the right thing to do, imnho, and keeps our rights intact. Aleister 12:19 5-4-'13



Let's loan Xamalrco's version of "Cow Tipping" to whom it may concern for two years, at which time it will be placed back in its rightful home at Uncyclopedia. This in no way gives up legal rights to post the article here, but it does give community support to taking it off-line for the two-year loaning period (like a traveling museum exhibit, only electronically).

Score: -4
  1. Aye, it just makes all the sense in the world. Have a (imagine a picture of one of those corny red hearts here) Aleister 12:22 5-4-'13
  2. Symbol against vote Against. It is against the principle of the creative commons license, and very near to being an accessory to plagiarism and copyright fraud. --Mn-z 12:36, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Symbol against vote Against. - whilst wishing to support writers I think this would set a precedence that would be against the CC license. Sorry.... -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
  4. Symbol against vote Against. I can't support it. The point of a writer has the right to sell his work I support with no reservations. The problem here is that it's being sold as exclusive right. As it has already been published and reproduced the author has removed his access to exclusive rights. To support the sale as an exclusive right to publish would be supporting a fraud. Either the author has been neglectful in reading the terms of the competition, or he has been disingenuous in his re telling of events. Either way the moral standpoint would be to be honest about it's publication prior to this point to the competition organisers. By being dishonest he puts himself in a position where his credibility as a writer comes into disrepute. A google search will find this as an existing article. I fully support his right to sell this on to a different publication, but every single page on this wiki refkolects the licence that he agreed to when publishing. Deleting this article or removing the latter revisions damages the wiki, and puts us in a position where we are actively trying to support a fraud.                               Puppy's talk page02:01 05 Apr 2013
  5. Symbol for vote For. I actually went to the site of the competition, and there are no rules there against putting up something for the competition that has already been published elsewhere, provided that where it was previously published did not have exclusive publishing rights. Moreover, the author has the option of contacting the judging board for additional publication opportunities, which could mean they might agree to let us keep the article, if only Xamralco contacts them and asks for permission to leave it up here. I'm against changing the history, but for reverting to the version prior to Xamralco's changes, to make my position clear. It is, after all, his work so is not plagiarism on his part. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 14:09, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol comment vote Comment. I think the point is that they actually need to ask us for permission, not the other way around. ~Jewriken.GIF 14:11, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Symbol against vote Against. Removing content from here and covering up history is not "the right thing", it is dishonest and denial. If you screw up, take responsibility for your mistakes and learn from them, don't whine about ignorance and win pity points. If you want to get into a career by first taking a dump on Creative Commons, consider politics, where honesty and taking responsibility are not expected.◄► Tephra ◄► 17:01, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
    If what Simsie says is the case, then there is no need for us to remove the article. Xam has followed the guidelines of the competition, and it sounds like they don't expect it to be unpublished - just not sold on to anyone further.                               Puppy's talk page10:16 05 Apr 2013
    So what you're saying is this vote is over due to "no problem" for anyone? Cool. Aleister 00:47 6-4-'13
    Yeah - there's no valid need to remove the article, and there is valid reason to keep it. If Xam still wants it removed he can put it up on VFD, but it'll be voted to keep (obviously). This won't impact on his winning or the sale of the work in any way.                               Puppy's talk page12:53 06 Apr 2013
  7. Against Once something is released into the public domain there is no way to reverse that. As was discovered on, we cannot vote the license away. There is no way to give "exclusive" rights to the contest-people. As for removing the article from either Uncyclopedia for 2 years, I am against that. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 04:17, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Symbol against vote Against. As per others in the negative column. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 20:49, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Then I say, as the starter-upper of the vote, and according to Puppy's awareness of what Sims said, that this vote is over and the result is everybody goes home happy. Aleister

We can't have anyone going happy. This is Uncyclopedia not some hippy communist community! Quick! Say something offensive! ~Jewriken.GIF 20:27, April 7, 2013 (UTC)
Template:Anti-Semitic Comment Template:Homophobic Comment. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:29, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

We keep talking about a community, a wiki, a supportive group of writers and blah blah. We are all buddies here and if someone once every few years asks the community for what is a trivial favour...the decent thing to do is say...ok with hands wide open. The wiki goes without one article for a short time....not eventhe best article either imho....for two years. Are we so married to some abstract principle that you won't let an e-buddy have their article for a couple years to follow an incredible opportunity that we would have been very fortunate to have had? Out of thousands of articles we can't archive this for two years? I think this is a trivial request from a guy who wrote amazing articles, helped many people improve their writing, administered the site, did favours for everyone and gave fabulous blow jobs. Archive the damn article for two years. Seriously. --ShabiDOO 01:59, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Why? There is no issue here except that Xam removed the article when he doesn't need to. That's what Sims uncovered above - he is still eligible to win the competition as it stands as the competition guidelines state he can't publish it for two years after winning. This was published before. No harm in keeping it. And we can't unpublish something, even if we were to restore the previous version. Keeping the article intact is a win/win situation.                               Puppy's talk page02:10 09 Apr 2013
Nice. --ShabiDOO 02:19, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

So this is the penalty for not being able to read properly

Puppy - you took the wind right out of my sails. I had prepared a scathing conclusion and all, and now I have no reason to write it. My profuse apologies to everyone for calling you cunts, wankers, or whatever I called you en masse before this vote. Especially Spike, whose possible incomprehensible nitpickery elsewhere has nothing to do with this issue. -- Style Oranssiviiva Guide 06:03, April 9, 2013 (UTC)