Hello xkcd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! Tuspm (C | @) 20:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Getting started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikipedians Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

What if anything does xkcd mean? Lizz612 19:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a line to the xkcd.com "about" page [1] that mostly answers this. It doesn't mean anything, it's just a string of letters to refer to a particular comic. Except when I use it as a username, in which case it refers to me. xkcd 06:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)xkcd[reply]

I just found your comic (curse you, Boing Boing) and am really enjoying it. Thanks! (Even if it all is "patently made up". Heh. Nowadays nobody believes you work for NASA until you're arrested and found to be carrying pepper spray and a diaper.) Anyway, I should be emailing you to say I like the comic instead of pestering you here, but I thought I'd come across as ever so much more impressive in my Wikipedia persona than as some random emailer. Yeah, didn't work, huh? (My favorite comic so far: mixing curse levels. I'm going to start trying it.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big fan of your comic and some of your other work, but I thought it might be a good idea to point out our policy on conflicts of interests in regard to editing stuff related to you. Also, (Striking out earlier, since I see that you've seen that already). I'm attemping to improve the XKCD article and better source things. In that regard, by any chance do you know what reliable sources have mentioned or discussed the comic? Thanks. JoshuaZ 19:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I hadn't actually seen that conflict-of-interest link. I saw some things earlier suggesting that editing articles about yourself was okay as long as you were careful, but I had the feeling that it wasn't good form and eventually decided to stop it completely, putting the note at the top of the xkcd talk page to let people know.

As for reliable sources, there's the Red Hat interview with me linked on the xkcd page, as well as an interview in the February 2007 issue of Physics World (not currently available online) and another at Comixpedia [2]. I'll be giving a talk at MIT in a week or so, and I'm told it will also be available online, so that's another type of source. But then, what's the difference between what I say there and what I say in my blog? And how does that compare to what I say in an interview? It's all pretty tricky. I think maybe things I say shouldn't be counted as a primary source unless I write on cracked and yellowed parchment. That would seem a little more fitting.  :) --xkcd 20:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)xkcd[reply]

Per Wikipedia notability, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Your interview comments, talk at MIT, and blog are not "independent" of the subject (you and your blog). However, the interviewer's comments in your interview generally can be used (assuming that the interviewer is independent of you, such as he's not your brother or someone who works for you). In the case of people who publicly express their opinion (such as you through your blog), your interview comments, talk at MIT, and blog may be fair game to some extent when placed under a biography section such as Philosophical and/or political views. It usually is better to cite some independent person's statements regarding the topic's Philosophical and/or political views, but sometimes it's necessary to go directly to the source to avoid ... uh ... mischaracterization and WP:BLP problems. Your interview comments, talk at MIT, and blog can be used as gap fillers for factual information that is very likely to be true, unlikely to be disputed, and not yet available anywhere else. The above are more rules of thumb that I use to develop articles. Policy and guidelines control over these rules of thumb, of course. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think your webcomic is notable enough to be included in this article? You're either the best person or the worst person to answer this question, and I can't decide.

On a side note, are webcomics all italized nowadays? If that's the case you might want to do so on your user page, unless you like it that way; I never like messing with other people's pages.

...Just something I noticed. Love what you do. - Boss1000 01:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing the fangirl thing, and, like another before me, felt doing it via Wikipedia would give me a certain cachet. Your comic is awesome. </fangirl>

I also wanted to ask if your whiteboard Wikipedia picture is also released under the same CC license as your work -- I'd very much like to use it on my userpage. You can respond here or on my talk page. If you do the latter, I will be forced to make a separate archive containing only talk page comments from notable webcomic artists. ... you should really do the latter. Cheers! -- Merope 01:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• His work is available under a nc only license...which isn't considered "free enough" for wikipedia. -N 21:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of getting http://xkcd.com/c285.html released under cc-by, cc-by-sa, or GFDL for inclusion here? I think it'd make a nice touch. -N 01:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I suspect that comic would be used widely withing Wikipedia if it were free content as it captures Wikipedia pretty well. It doesn't matter what the guy says, but do it without a citation and you'll receive a Wikipedia protester. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been deleted because someone uploaded it under it's original licence (CC-NC), which is incompatible with Wikipedia. --Edokter (Talk) 13:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randal. I uploaded Image:Wikipedian protester.png a few weeks back (after it was deleted for not having a fair use rationale). Just now, I found it the image is also at Image:Wikiprotest.png, licenced as CC-BY. But I cannot verify that you lincenced it as such. I've asked User:Mike33 to send me a copy of your email he said you sent him, but I would much prefer if you edited Image:Wikipedian protester.png to change the licence (if you do indeed want to licence that particular comic as CC-BY). — Edokter • Talk • 19:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been moved to Wikimedia Commons but currently, there's no verifiable record of the image having been relicensed. (Links are dead, and no proof exists.) I think this might be a problem. (Mike33 should have filed an OTRS report... Maybe you can do it instead?) --Kjoonlee 19:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I've already fielded requests on this particular image elsewhere in the three years since this debate, so the issue has probably been resolved. In case I haven't: yes—I am willing to release comic #285 under CC-BY-SA, so Wikipedia can use it. Sorry for any trouble! --xkcd (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: It lives at commons:File:Webcomic xkcd - Wikipedian protester.png, and the release under cc-by-SA was logged in the OTRS. Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea 13:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added some references to the xkcd article, so it's more likely to survive the AfD ax should someone be so inclined to list it. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say I love your comic. My girlfriend thought the foreplay one was hysterical. Raul654 16:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the Article / Talk page on Centrifugal force and noticed this comment and thought I would pass it along to you. -AndrewBuck (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of my all-time favorites, and one of a dozen or so xkcd comics that I have hanging in my cube at work. --Mugsywwiii (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may also enjoy these bits from Bill Beaty:

• http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/news.html , scroll down to "Wagon-wheel reverse rotation effect"
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78Mc9kg2kU8
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LRnJIPoF9w

—Ben Brockert (42)

I uploaded PNE for my userpage is that okay with you? King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 22:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're all fans (of xkcd, not Wikipedia) but do you have to go and encourage them?  :) --Stéphane Charette (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, because I quoted the strip simply as "446", it made me think to go back and look up which comic happened to be #404. Nice. Very fitting.  :) --Stéphane Charette (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not his fault people go and do that... though on Foreplay I did feel a tooltip or something asking to not vandalize might have been nice, though it might detract from the humor of it all somewhat. Personally, I'd give him points for reminding people just how ridiculous "in popular culture" sections can get... CCG _(T-C) 15:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re #403 tooltip -- have you? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We would appreciate it if you put a stop to this nonsense. I love your comic, Randall, but you're basically commanding an army of fans akin to 4chan. The article didn't exist when you made the comic, and now your fans are flooding in to try and get it created and re-created. ALI ^{nom nom} 13:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... I'm not sure we can really compare those disparate groups of fans. Jclemens (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. One group consists of socially-stunted children who get excited about hearing words and memes that they can use to garner attention and praise from their peers, and act as a nuisance to Wikipedia in general. The other is 4chan. 90.219.166.214 (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Heh.) I don't mean in terms of content. Of the two, at least xkcd fans are more civil and speak common English. Thank the gods for that. ALI ^{nom nom} 17:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And some of the fans are prolific and useful contributors to Wikipedia. *cough, cough*. I for one cannot believe the situation actually led to that enormous talk page. It is both funny and disturbing; but so the internet is. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

xk/b/d is a malamanteau of xkcd and 4chan's /b/ "random" board. See also xk/b/tard, /b/tard-sniping etc... --Surturz (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Anonymous does whatever it feels like, while xkcd fans are more like a missile system guided by the button presses of the seeing-eye dog of a whimsical fisherman. --74.72.121.211 (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it his fault? He didn't tell people to vandalize Wikipedia. He just wrote the comic. It's not his fault that a bunch of people are idiots. What is he supposed to do, never mention Wikipedia on his site? That would deprive him of half his material. 129.97.34.69 (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Man, if I'd known my deleting and protecting the non-article would have generated so much fuss, I would have hacked the whitepages and called you to get your ass out of bed and watch the fun. :D Maybe next time give us a head's up when you're gonna poke fun at us. ;) - Writing on behalf of the non-existant Wikigods... UtherSRG (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is sorta like Stephanie Meyer destroying /b/ by featuring it in her books and thus filling it with her goth fans - except instead it's you destroying Wikipedia by featuring it in a cartoon and thus filling it full of xk/b/tards. And we didn't even ask you to show us your tits. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Show us your tits! - UtherSRG (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it you would stop trying to take credit for a word I invented on July 17, 2007: http://ask.metafilter.com/67192/How-to-define-this-language-mistake#1006932 If you do not immediately cease and desist, you will be hearing from my legal team! 76.99.24.196 (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Ideas and words that people come up with are rarely original, there's always a chance someone has thought of it before them. 2) You did not pursue copyright of the word. 3) You are not losing anything because Munroe used it in his comic. 4) Any legal action would be ridiculous. 5) Wikipedia:No legal threats means exactly how it reads, and the consequence for violating it is an instant block until the threat is withdrawn. ALI ^{nom nom} 15:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't believe that I am the true creator of "malamanteau," kindly provide a citation for "malamanteau" that predates July 17, 2007. If you cannot do so, then it is clear that "malamanteau" is my intellectual property. Randall's dishonest claims about its origins are harming the prospects of my upcoming "malamanteau" business ventures, including a planned TV series and a line of women's fragrances. If you have never invented a popular new word, you can't understand the craftsmanship and labor that it involves and should reserve comment. 76.99.24.196 (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll happily grant you possession of the word and the accompanying Talk page clusterfuck. As I said in a couple places, there was one hit for the word when I did the comic (yours), which I found after posting and which didn't define it the same way. But I'd be happy to give you credit for coming up with the word before I did (I didn't even mean to invent a word), especially if it means you have to argue about the word's inclusion in Wikipedia. Let's work out an agreement. Can we have your people meet with my people, and then get them to fight to the death in some kind of a cage? I think that would be awesome, as my people are pretty scrappy and I assume yours have been training since at least July 2007.--xkcd (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly accept your challenge Mr. Munroe, but you must realize that it is a foolhardy one, as your leopard style will surely be no match for my crane style. However, I am feeling charitable today -- if you'd like a legitimate piece of the burgeoning "malamanteau" industry rather than the misbegotten share you currently hold, I might be persuaded to offer you an executive producer credit on the "malamanteau" feature film currently in pre-production. I received word this morning that Ridley Scott has committed to the project. That, however, is the limit of my generosity, and I would advise you not to test me further. 76.99.24.196 (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there's a Mallory Ann LaManteau on the phone and she doesn't sound happy. Who wants to handle the call? - Dravecky (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the anon claiming that a single word is his intellectual property: I suggest you learn a little something about United States copyright law. It is true that one does not have to apply for copyright in order to obtain it; however, it is also true that single words or short phrases are rarely eligible for copyright protection. Slogans and words used by companies are covered by trademark law, which is rather different from copyright law, as it DOES have to be applied for. In short, your use of a single word is ineligible for copyright, sorry. But don't take my word for it: the United States Copyright Office itself says it all here: title 17 of the US Code defines what is copyrightable, and single words fall decidedly outside of the criteria. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't tell if the anon is joking or not. ALI ^{nom nom} 15:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what anyone says, none of this insanity A. matters, or B. is your fault.--Tznkai (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do know you can fix your signature so that it says "xkcd" instead of "Xkcd", right? - UtherSRG (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that! How do I do this? --Xkcd (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, figured it out. Thanks! --xkcd (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Now show us your tits! LOL! J/K... I'm in a weird mood tonight... - UtherSRG (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

figured you might enjoy this. Besti flokkurinn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hreinn (talk • contribs) 22:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I knew back then that Wikipedia has these sorts of things, I would have nailed your color survey (shades of chartreuse?!). --Brainmachine (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Randall, love your comic, and greatly appreciate that it's Creative Commons licenced. A year ago I resolved to concentrate on improving a psychology article. My choice of confirmation bias was influenced by seeing you list it as an interesting topic. The article's improved a long way and it'll be the main page Featured Article tomorrow. Hope it gives you some nourishing brain-food. Thanks again for making me and my friends laugh so many times. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to upload to Commons and use http://xkcd.com/767/ in WP:Dispute resolution#Stay cool - would you be willing to license this as CC-by-2.5 ? --Lexein (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that you've released Webcomic xkcd - Wikipedian protester.png at Commons. Would you please also consider a similar release for Advertising Discovery? Doing so would mean that it could be included in editor advice pages, e.g. Identifying reliable sources, which I believe would be useful. Thanks for reading, and great work BTW! --Trevj (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please upload this to commons! — Edokter (talk) — 17:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, or alternatively bless it via ORTS (20040302 (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thirded. Relevant discussion is here. Thank you for your insightful work :D PS. And perhaps the Advertising Discovery noted above? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It probably happened at Wholphin. See this edit and this discussion. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fourthed? Keφr (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ~lol~ your cartoons are hilarious. benzband (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd rather have it uploaded here for its informativeness and helpfulness in explaining why sources should be cited, and cited carefully. Though that people find it amusing is a nice bonus. Keφr (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a relevant discussion at Talk:Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Information_Loop_and_Wikipedia_Editors. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randall, I'm making a reference to your recent comic on the Star Trek discussion in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-02-04/In_the_media, and have linked it there via the external media template. Best, Andreas JN466 11:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dioxygen difluoride Ego White Tray (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At [[3]] you claim that the orchids only pollinator is extinct and that the flower is in extinction debt. Do you have sources to back this up, since there is plenty of evidence that you're entirely wrong. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Randall,

thank you for all your work and passion on xkcd. I would like to ask you to set Invisible Formatting (2109) under cc-by, cc-by-sa, or GFDL to use it here? Id like to use it also on Wikis in Organisationen (de), but "Invisible Formatting" is a problem on all wikis and WYSIWYG editors. thank you in advance VanGore (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I was wondering whether https://xkcd.com/1357/ was freely licensed - I can't find it in Commons, so I assume not. Could you make it so? It must be in big demand these days.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

for The Signpost

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for your exceptional artistic and scientific output! I'm a long-time fan, and always love seeing your work in the wild :) Yitz (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

oMg this article about the wikiPed1a dispute just got m0VeD~~!!!!**!!!!! Cielquiparle (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year! There is something bittersweet about the drama that continues to rage about a certain doughnut stand in Seattle. (The deletion discussion goes back to 2022, was appealed unsuccessfully in 2023, and in this U.S. presidential election / Summer Olympics year, looks to be high on the agenda in 2024.) Cielquiparle (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Xkcd. Your comic 'xkcd no. 2347 Dependency' has been mentioned by many reliable sources as capturing the essence of the fiasco surrounding the XZ Utils backdoor. I have added an external link to it with this edit on 2024-04-12 (8 months ago), and the change appears to be stable.
I think that the XZ Utils backdoor article could benefit from featuring your comic directly in the page. Could you kindly please consider licensing this particular individual comic with a Wikimedia Commons compatible license, such as CC-BY-SA (or similar, see Commons:Licensing#Well-known licenses) so that we may upload it to Commons and feature it in this article? Thank you. Melmann 22:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idea ok 132.147.197.111 (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]