Wikipedia talk:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Section title added. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations Wikimedia licensing team! Shii (tock) 05:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

They are to be congratulated for making Wikipedia's licensing terms ten times more complicated? Gurch (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't matter if it's more complicated for us-- it's now infinitely simple for other producers of free content. Shii (tock) 18:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on wasting people's time with irrelevant attributions. Just release it all public domain please. (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC) It was David COhan and merry terrry.

Awady TBM

Are the long strings of all caps really necessary? Splargo (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

IIRC they're the legal equiBold textvalent of speaking to someone with a stern look on your face Gurch (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
But the internet standard is that it's shouting. Surely Lessig, Stallman, Wales, and the boards of both the Wiki-media and Free Software foundations would all prefer legibility to following a tradition which has zero case law or statute or anything but tradition from an earlier era behind it. Is there any reason to doubt that? Splargo (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not tradition, the Uniform Commercial Code requires that certain contract clauses be rendered "conspicuous", particularly when their effect is to negate or limit rights that one would normally have in a similar situation. Though not the only means of generating "conspicuous" text, writing in ALL CAPS is a means that has a well-defined body of case law behind it and so is the usual choice. The formatting is deliberate and well-motivated, and should not be removed. Dragons flight (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
"Under the Uniform Commercial Code, 'A term or clause is conspicuous when it is so written that a reasonable person against whom it is to operate ought to have noticed it'; whether a term is conspicuous is a legal question. (U.C.C. Section 400.1-201(10), RSMo 1994.... courts examining the question of the conspicuousness of exculpatory clauses have adopted the U.C.C. definition as authoritative.) Methods for making a language conspicuous include, but are not limited to, rendering language in all capital letters, in larger type, or in other contrasting type or color." Warren v. Paragon (1997) [Boldface added as a self-referential example.] There are no reasons that legibility ought to decrease the probability of notice. Splargo (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there are other approaches to creating conspicuous text, but they wouldn't be Creative Common's choice. Because such stylings have legal meaning behind them, I don't believe we should change them without their permission. Dragons flight (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe the choice of valid conspicuous styling is insignificant, but we owe a duty to readers to enhance legibility when possible. Splargo (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
It really isn't insignificant. Almost everyone adopts the ALL CAPS convention because there is substantial case law built up around that style. It's a legal question and not an issue I support changing on our own. Dragons flight (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I suggest changing the text to normal case and displaying it with "text-transform:uppercase". This also makes it easier to read with text-to-speech systems. --Ysangkok (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Human readable version?

yes sir! It would be nice if we had the human readable version of this license up front, rather than simply giving all of the lawyerese text from the start... Mike Peel (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Since Creative Commons prefers to link to the more human readable version at then we should certainly include that text in an article message box on this project page, like the {{ombox}} below. Splargo (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. But where did you get the passage at the bottom from? "Think of it as the user-friendly interface to the Legal Code beneath." etc. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I clicked on "Disclaimer" at the bottom right of - I've un-bolded the other pop-ups, which I don't think we support including, because of problems with printing. Splargo (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of including the deed conceptually, but I'm not sure about the current formatting. If the legal code and deed appear on the same page, I think the separation should be clearer. Perhaps given the box it's own title and move the disclaimer immediately below that? Also, not sure I like the icon in this case. Dragons flight (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the disclaimer. Was it really needed? I agree that the formatting could be improved. It would be nice if it could look more like with the separate icons for each section. But this is a reasonable version to implement now I think. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I already had removed part of the disclaimer, but you're right, the part you took out was also redundant. Is the Creative Commons logo better, as changed above? Either image is fine with me. I would also be fine with re-using the separate icons, but that would probably violate the {{ombox}} conventions. Splargo (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I added the kind of header I had in mind, and placed the disclaimer at the front of the box. Dragons flight (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As a secondary question, would hyperlinking terms be better?

I prefer the hyperlinked version. Splargo (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Like the wikilinking. I don't like the long URL at the bottom. Could this be shortened or removed somehow? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
It's actually fairly short as URLs go. I like the idea of spelling it out, since that would continue working even if someone prints the license. Dragons flight (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this is a good idea. Even looking at WP:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License you'll note that it is just the license (no box at the top explaining the license). I think this page should just be the text of the license. Of course it is going to be legalese but that's the point, really. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Well yes, but unlike FSF and the GFDL, Creative Commons provides their own summary and actually recommends it as the page people link to, so I don't think the situations are entirely comparable. I do think if we include the summary it needs to be clear that it is not itself part of the license. Dragons flight (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. So long as there is a clear distinction as to where the license text actually beings, that should be fine. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


{{editprotected}} Please add a link to ca:Viquipèdia:Text de la llicència de Creative Commons Reconeixement-Compartir Igual 3.0 No adaptada. Thanks. --Vriullop (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


For those confused by the term “unported”, it is Creative Commons’s term for “generic, referring to international treaties, not localized (‘ported’) to a given country’s laws”, as per this explanation:

I.e., it is the ur-license on which particular national (properly, jurisdictional) licenses are based.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
This explanation really belongs to the article itself. (talk) 07:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Please add links to

Thanks, Holder (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Aervanath (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

interwiki +ko

{{editprotected}} Please add ko:위키백과:Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Thanks.--Kwj2772 (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 09:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Add Thai Interwiki

{{editprotected}} Please adding Thai Interwiki th:วิกิพีเดีย:ข้อความในสัญญาอนุญาตครีเอทีฟคอมมอนส์. Thanks. --Harley Hartwell (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Add HE inerwiki

{{editprotected}} please add [[he:ויקיפדיה:רישיון Creative Commons ייחוס-שיתוף זהה 3.0 לא מותאם]] interwiki. Thanks, Yonidebest Ω Talk‏ 20:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 DoneTheDJ (talkcontribs) 21:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


About the June 18 edit, which promoted this page to policy ... was there any discussion? Are there any other policy pages that are permanently full-protected? - Dank (push to talk) 23:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Lots of discussion and a vote, across all wiki-projects, which resolved to migrate GFDL to CC-BY-SA. For full details see Wikipedia:Licensing update and m:Wikipedia:Licensing update. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I know about that, it's hard not to :) I mean: read WP:POLICY, and you'll see that there are certain processes commonly used for promoting a particular page to policy status, and certain things that policy pages have in common ... for instance, they're not permanently full-protected. So ... should this page be a policy page? Probably not, I think it would make more sense to link it from a policy page. Although it's not a "disclaimer", exactly, the closest match I can find for this type of page is the "disclaimer" subcat of Category:Wikipedia legal policies. - Dank (push to talk) 12:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Dank is right that this page is not exactly the same as other policies, but it and WP:GFDL can be considered exceptions to the rule; most policies are promulgated from inside the community and promoted "bottom-up"; the copyright notices are "top-down" policies, in that they've been implemented by the Foundation across all the Foundation wikis. The reason it's fully protected is that, unlike other policies, it's a legal document, and it needs to be a faithful reproduction of the official CC-BY-SA text on the Creative Commons website, and it's not negotiable like other policies are. This is a somewhat unique case not covered by WP:POLICY.--Aervanath (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
You're right ... they're not even similar to the disclaimers, because we occasionally edit the disclaimers. They should be on meta along with the other pages that shouldn't be edited by Wikipedians. We can link them from a policy page and say that our policy is to follow them. - Dank (push to talk) 12:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
m:GFDL is already on meta, although they don't appear to have a copy of CC-BY-SA; all the references they have are direct links to the copy on the Creative Commons website itself. I think it is better to have a local copy that is protected; it makes it easier to link to, for one thing.--Aervanath (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, but are we agreed that permanently full-protecting policy pages is a bad idea? Let's at least remove the policy cat. - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I would agree that permanent full-protection of other policy pages isn't good, as long as we're clear that this page and WP:GFDL stand as exceptions to that rule. And I would object to removing the policy cat. A lot of policy is based on our copyright documents, it seems odd not to include this. I would hope that people looking at that category would see this page, since it is one of the two completely non-negotiable policies we have.--Aervanath (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I just stumbled across Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines#Global_policy.3F, which leads me to believe you're trying to straighten out the structure of the policy and guideline cats. I think I'd suggest that we work on straightening out the general structure of those categories first, and then we can figure out where to place this page and WP:GFDL in that structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aervanath (talkcontribs)
Personally, I'm inclined to agree that the licenses are something other than "policy" in the usual sense, and I don't mind if they are removed from the category or added to some other category. That said, I don't see it as a big deal either way. Dragons flight (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

←Has anyone made the necessary changes to policies, guidelines, essays, and other pages yet?

And we'll need to change several sections of WP:PROTECT explaining that these two pages are exceptions to the rules for how to request and make changes to protected pages. - Dank (push to talk) 12:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC) tweaked 12:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I expect you're making these proposals somewhat facetiously, but I'll bite. The changes aren't necessary; see Wikipedia:POLICY#Sources_of_Wikipedia_policy, which already states that one of the sources of Wikipedia policy is "Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load." This would certainly fall under that category.--Aervanath (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
More light-heartedly than facetiously, and yes, if the WMF board says that something needs to be a policy page, then we can adapt to their wishes, despite the fact that "policy" and "legal document" are more opposite concepts than similar concepts. Did the WMF request that we make this a policy page? - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
No, there is no requirement that it be labeled as policy per se. Obviously it has to be treated as the official law of the land, but how one chooses to label and categorize it is a local decision. I'm pretty sure this was marked as policy primarily because the GFDL page had been so flagged for years. Dragons flight (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
That is probably the reason why it was added to the category in the first place. Also, I would be hesitant to exclude our copyrights from the policy category just because they didn't carry a {{policy}} tag; unless there's a better way to categorize them to make them easier to find, I think that a policy category is where people would look for them.--Aervanath (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
But yes, I agree with Dragons flight that the WMF has not made a statement that this should be labeled as policy; they haven't really addressed the issue, as it doesn't really matter what we call it, as long as we follow it. So I guess I've talked myself into not caring where its categorized, as long as the categorization makes clear that it's not to be messed with. Perhaps Category:Stuff that should absolutely not be messed with, and if you do we'll beat you up? :)--Aervanath (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
And I agree that it's okay to transclude this material into a policy page, as long as the policy page is something solid, more than just this transclusion. And that sounds like a good cat to put the license page in, Aervanath! - Dank (push to talk) 19:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictures as bullets

{{editprotected}} Can we replace the two plain bullets with the two small (15px) images that the website uses to symbolize the rights? --Ipatrol (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Are these available on Wikimedia Commons somewhere? (if so, could you point to them?) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
commons:Category:Creative Commons icons. I don't really see what value these would add, though. --- RockMFR 16:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Which two bullets are you talking about? And I agree with RockMFR. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The result (if the formatting can be fixed):

--Ipatrol (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm inclined to think those tiny icons are more distracting than illuminating. Dragons flight (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Proper name

The CC website calls it "Attribution-Share Alike" and "Attribution-ShareAlike" (note the space or lack of space in ShareAlike). This page uses "Attribution-ShareAlike" in its title. Various system messages, including the footer, use "Attribution/Share-Alike". We should be consistent. --- RockMFR 18:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Attribution-ShareAlike" in all the system messages I could find it in. --- RockMFR 23:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

interlang ja

Please add ja:Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.--aokomoriuta (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

vi interwiki

Please add interwiki to vi:Wikipedia:Nguyên văn Giấy phép Creative Commons Ghi công-Chia sẻ tương tự phiên bản 3.0 Chưa chuyển đổi. Thank you. Tân (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Horologium (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding microformat to copyright footer

See my proposal for microformat in the copyright footer: MediaWiki_talk:Wikimedia-copyrightTheDJ (talkcontribs) 00:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


There are a couple of typos in the license. The two that jumped out at me are in section 1(b), where it refers the reader to section 1(f) but it clearly means to send them to 1(h), and where it refers the reader to view the adaptations "defined below", even though the definition of them is above. The typos are original to the license from Creative Commons, and I've told them, but of course it cannot be changed since it is a legal document. I just thought I'd point them out here. kmccoy (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

es interwiki

{{editprotected}} Please, add es-interwiki link: es:Wikipedia:Texto de la Licencia Creative Commons Atribución/Compartir-Igual 3.0. Thanks. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. — RockMFR 02:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Something weird going on in section titles?

Maybe it's just my browser, but the section titles are not coming out right. For example, section 1 title code is

=={{section|1}}1. Definitions==

and renders as

(((2 |}}}</ span> 1. Definitions

All the section titles seem to have the problem. Is it the template? Is it just me? —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind; I found it. Somebody edited the "section" template to put it in a non-English language. I reverted the edit and now all is well. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Category discussion

This page might get a new policy category; the discussion is at WP:VPP#Wikipedia administrative policy. - Dank (push to talk) 23:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Now done. Please see discussions at WT:POLICY#Tweak to list of legal policies and WT:Terms of use. The "policy" label moved to WP:Wikimedia policy, which now links this page. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont think u should get information from this site because people change it as they please. Well anyway you should go to periodic to research elements. It gives pics and everything. Hydrogen is very pretty. weel bye. SINcerey sam the girl —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


Shouldn't "licensor" link to the WMF wiki or the WMF page on Wikipedia? (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


I wonder if it should be clear with big bold flushing letters that this license allows commercial exploitation (if its conditions are met). It may be very unclear at first (to a non-lawyer). --Leladax (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I second this concern. The text that exists doesn't use the word "commercial" at all. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


I bought a book from Pediapress. It is a collection of articles from Wikipedia. If I qoute from the book, do I cite the book as the source or do I cite the original Wiki article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prsaucer1958 (talkcontribs) 17:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Originalpatidar, 8 June 2010

{{editprotected}} The facts mentioned at present about "Satpanth" are not factually correct. The present details are of imamshahi sect (a breakaway group from Satpanth) and not the original Satpanth sect

Correct facts are mentioned in the site "" and "" The encyclopedia of satpanth, researched by Russian Waldamir Iwanow in 1948 gives true and correct picture of Satpanth.

More details can be found on

Originalpatidar (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This request does not seem to relate to this page. Please post at the relevant place, thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Help Croatian grammar

Who and why is deleted Croatian grammar? Please return page Croatian grammar!

 who was born on NOvember 21st, 1940 at 6:30 PM???? ( ujuj)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujuj (talkcontribs) 14:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC) 

a little typo

i'm noticing a typo in Section 4(c) : it says "Ssection" instead of "Section" at some place. --1904.CC (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

+ ru


[[ru:Википедия:Текст лицензии Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported]]

 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Diatomaceous earth

Diatomaceous earth Application range of the product:

1、 Diatomite Filter-aid:

Condiment: monosodium glutamate , sauce, vinegar, corn salad oil, rapeseed oil, etc. Beverage industry: beer, spirit, fruit wine, glutinous rice wine, fruit juice, wine, beverage syrup, beverage magma, etc. Sugar refining: high fructose syrup, glucose, starch sugar, cane sugar, etc. Medicine industry: antibiotics, vitamins, purification of Chinese traditional medicine, packing of dental material, cosmetics, etc. Chemicals: organic acid, inorganic acid, alkyd, sodium thiocyanate, oil paint, synthetic resin, etc. Industrial oil: lubricating oil, lubricating oil additive, metal plate roll oil, transformer oil, petroleum additive, coal tar, etc. Wastewater treatment: domestic sewage, industrial wastewater, sewage disposal, water in swimming pool Other materials: enzyme preparation, algal gums, citric acid, glutin, electrolyte solution, plating solution, coating material, washing liquid, soap liquid

2、 Diatomite Stuffing & Carrier

Series of Diatomite Stuffing & Carrier Mainly used in some industries such as pesticide, fertilizer,paint, plastic, rubber, toothpaste, grinding material, cosmetics, pottery, centrifugal pipe-casting parting agent and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sammcdon, 30 September 2010

{{edit protected}} Request the following be deleted as irrelevant to the court's decision:

Sammcdon (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)British pathologist Professor Keith Simpson was invited by the Canadian government to review the forensic evidence.[5] On May 4, 1967, the Supreme Court (Hall J. dissenting) held that, if Truscott's appeal had been heard by the court, it would have been dismissed.[4]

Professor Keith Simpson's testimony was irrelevant to any decision about the case. There is no evidence that the Supreme Court held that if Truscott's appeal had been heard by the court, it would have been dismissed.[4]

Request the following be inserted: 1967, May 4: New forensic evidence was presented on his behalf, and Truscott testified before the Supreme Court of Canada and got a chance to tell his story for the first time. Truscott and 25 other witnesses testified before the Court, telling their story to the best of their abilities. After a two week hearing before the Supreme Court, Canada’s top judges ruled 8-1 against Truscott getting a new trial and he was returned to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence. Those eight judges watched and listened carefully to Steven Truscott as he gave his testimony and it was clear to them that his testimony was vague and confused. The Supreme Court stated that “There were many incredibilities inherent in the evidence given by Truscott before us and we do not believe his testimony” The Joint opinion of Canada’s Supreme Court Justices: “The verdict of the jury, read in the light of the charge of the trial judge, makes it clear that they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts, which they found to be established by the evidence which they accepted, were not only consistent with the guilt of Truscott but were inconsistent with any rational conclusion other than that Steven Truscott was the guilty person.” (12)

Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada Re: Steven Murray Truscott, [1967] S.C.R. 309 Date: 1967-05-04

I suspect you are on the wrong page. Which article are you referring to? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 14 October 2010

{{edit protected}}

Please remove the name of Camron Gorguinpour as Executive Director of Scientists and Engineers for America with Tom Price. Camron officially left the position two weeks ago and I, Tom Price, have taken this position of Executive Director.

Please contact me at or 914 805 0602 should you have any questions. ---- (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

think you are on the wrong page as I cannot find this name on Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


This article/tutorial is far too long and needs abbreviating —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from AzertyFab, 4 December 2010

{{edit protected}} Please add an interlang link to the french language version by adding this line in the end of the article :

[[fr:Wikipédia:Licence Creative Commons Paternité-Partage des Conditions Initiales à l'Identique 3.0 Unported]]

Thanks! AzertyFab (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done decltype (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Hosting of Wikipedia information for profit

Is this legal under the current license? Perhaps we can make a change to prevent this kind of abuse since it is intended to draw internet traffic away from Wikipedia proper and into a format that cannot be freely edited by the community. This loss of potential editors and contributors hurts wikipedia as a whole while profits from our collective work.

Here's an article discussing what Amazon is doing:
Hers's what the Amazonized wikipedia pages look like:
And this is Google's current policy on rating of sites that duplicate information:

Lets please do something about this I want my wikipedia contributions to be for the benefit of everybody ... not just, and not in a way that directs traffic & new editors away from wikipedia.

EDIT: I got most of this information from a Slashdot article here:

Zuchinni one (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Misrendering of section 3e

The items in the list of section 3e start off with ii and go to iv. The original Creative Commons document has items i to iii. I see this with Chromium and Iceweasel, and it appears to be because of a spurious <li> tag. It would be great if this could be fixed. Bk2204 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 11 April 2011 (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) (Shout!) 05:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Crazymonkey1123, 11 April 2011

I noticed a small typo under section 4c. It says Ssection somewhere in there which is an obvious typo that needs to be changed to section.

Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) (Shout!) 05:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 19 May 2011

The use of the calender denotation of BCE is of one very specific religeon, and changes the agreed upon, commonly accepted history of mankind that Christ did indeed live.!-- End request --> (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a specific request--Jac16888 Talk 17:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)