User talk:Stephen Ewen

Hey Stephen, imagine meeting you here! -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my gosh! Wait, where am I? Did I type the URL wrong? :-D Stephen Ewen 03:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a flattering message! Having 2 teenagers, who greet me rather differently, it is music to my ears. Thanks, Stephen. :-) DrSculerati 14:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC) == Copyvio ==[reply]

Copy right vio[edit]

Hi there, I was gona post this on your citizendium page but I cant edit there.. Anyways just wanted to apologize about the copyvios, I was the one that originally forked all three articles that have now been deleted/reverted. They were nice articles that were missing here so I though I should copy them, I was under the wrong impression at the time. I assumed that releasing the content under a yet to be dicided free licence (keyword: free) meant that we could use the material over here since the GDFL is also a free licence. It was only after one of the articles was nominated for deletion that I studied the licencing issue carefully and realised that theres a possibility that you guys will choose a non comercial license which would not be compatible with ours. That said I do hope you guys go with a compatible one, theres plenty of room for cooperation and in my opinion there more sites producing free content the better :D RIP-Acer 22:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water under the bridge, no real offense taken, live and learn. :-) Stephen Ewen 00:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation[edit]

You assume too much. I did not read the whole disclaimer. All I looked for was "available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2". I did not read the whole thing that said "Articles that originated in part from Wikipedia are available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2. All new articles will be available under an open content license yet to be determined." Thanks for bringing that to my attention and reverting the edit. -Nv8200p talk 21:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish your elitist and presumptous project will fail soon. Nice idea to choose a different license just to avoid be copied by Wikipedia, while 99% of your articles copy from it. --Attilios (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attacking you! I am attacking Citizendium!! --Attilios (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually about 15% of articles on Citizendium started out as Wikipedia articles, not 99%. You can browse them here and import any improvements at will, with attribution to Citizendium at the bottom of the article. Moreover, Lessig, Stallman, and the WM Foundation announced last month plans to make GFDL and CC-by-sa compatible. It will most certainly happen in due time. I wish success to you and the WP project. Stephen Ewen (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I wish the best unsuccess to the Citizendium project.--Attilios (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, you obviously felt the text was something you wanted imported into Wikipedia. But according to the Wikimedia Foundation, this cannot be done....yet. To aid Wikipedians in this matter in the future, please see CZ:Sharing Content with Wikipedia. Best, Stephen Ewen (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DNA on Citizendium[edit]

See Talk:DNA#Citizendium_version_of_this_article, I tried raising this on the Citizendium forum but my post got deleted. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim, I'll pass it along. Stephen Ewen (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, I felt kind of responsible since they grabbed one of my early drafts before it went through the FA process. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PDB images[edit]

They got back to me, see Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Protein_Data_Bank. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

socks[edit]

I hope that your previous use of socks on his and related pages is resolved.--Die4Dixie (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright holder[edit]

You do not hold the copy right to the material that you have contributed to the TUCC page, as your edits here predate the publication of the paper. I hold that you used the material that you , and others with a very similiar style viz. WP:DUCK irrevocably released this material under GNU since it appeared here first. Please show evidence of a prior publication before reinserting you "claim" or be prepared to discuss my previous sock puppet claims against you that shows you edit here first. Or we could just go to arb-com. As an "academic", you should know better than this. Fudging publication dates is akin to academic dishonesty. If you wanted personal credit under the license you are trying to claim, you needed to have come with it first, not as an after thought. When you hit the button on each edit, you released under GNU your edit irrevocably, and it supercedes any ex post facto license claims. --Die4Dixie (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll show the evidence just as soon as you prove to me that you're not a paid agent of Advantage Consultants. Stephen Ewen (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need. Please give the date and evidence of publication. Your socks released this under GNU. the essay was an after thought after your edits. --Die4Dixie (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I hope to have your IP addresses clean up soon too. An I am a paid agent of Advantage Consultants, but don´t tell anyone. I need the extra income. ll the best,--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppety Investigation[edit]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CyberAnth. Thank you. GRBerry 21:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]