This is an archive of past discussions with User:RossPatterson. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks for getting to this and for asking me to participate a bit. I thought it better to respond here than on the template's talk page.
Don't stint your holidays for this on my account. As long as it's in the pipeline, I can wait for it. Enjoy.
I did take a quick look -- two comments:
If either (1)url or (2){ chapter-url | chapterurl | contribution-url } is taken from an archive, the other is likely to be taken from an archive as well. besides an archiveurl parameter, wouldn't archive-chapter-url (etc.) be needed as well?
If either archivedate or accessdate is required to be wikilinked, shouldn't the other be required to be treated similarly?
Good points. I've added archive-chapter-url, archivechapterurl, and archive-contribution-url, and I've unlinked archivedate. I don't care for the latter because it's inconsitent with other citation templates, but Citation is the only citation template that doesn't link accessdate, so it's consistently-inconsistent :-) RossPatterson (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The two simpler cases which I skipped both have apparent problems. They are:
url+title+chapter+archived-chapter+work
{{User:RossPatterson/Citation
|url=http://www.url.com
|title=Work Title
|chapter=Chapter Title
|chapter-url=http://www.chapterurl.com
|archive-chapter-url=http://www.archivechapterurl.com/subdirs/datedir/http://www.chapterurl.com
|archivedate=[[2007-12-31]]
}}
It seems to me that this should have produced something like:
{{User:RossPatterson/Citation
|url=http://www.url.com
|title=Work Title
|chapter=Chapter Title
|chapter-url=http://www.chapterurl.com
|archiveurl=http://www.archiveurl.com/subdirs/datedir/http://www.url.com
|archivedate=[[2007-12-31]]
}}
It seems to me that this should have produced something like:
I didn't mention archivedate above, and it looks to me as if there is a problem there. It seems likely to me that at some point a case will be encountered where archive-url and archive-contribution-url will come from different archives (which case is handled) and/or from different archive dates (which case, AFAICS, is not handled).
I'm loath to do anything about the error messages, as the visual impact of the error messages became a big deal over on {{cite web}}, and consistency is a good thing. On the cases that look wrong, there are some I can work with (specifically the choice of links and rendering of "archived from ..." links) and some I can't ("Chapter, in Work" vs. "Chapter, Work"). RossPatterson (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
On the error messages, maybe it's just me; I miss seeing too many error messages when they are mixed with other output without any visual distinguishment. I've found the highly visible error messages from cite.php very helpful in spotting to-be-fixed errors in articles. The {{Error:must_be_substituted}} template also produces highly visible error messages.
On the formatting of citations, I know that various conflicting style manuals exist covering such things and that WP generally leans towards CMS. I don't have a copy of CMS or any other style manuals, so I won't nitpick your style choices -- please consider any comments by me on citation style to be uninformed.
Commenting further on the possible case where the archiveurl and archive-chapter-url have different archive dates, I'm thinking that processing-wise archivedate should be the default for both, with archive-chapter-date overriding that default there if specified. Users could enter just archivedate if both have the same date, and could enter both dates if they differ. Cite-display-format-wise the dates make for lots of messy clutter. I took the easy way out on that in the para above, though, saying that I'm uninformed on citation style and won't nitpick. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
(added comment re error messages format) I hadn't thought to look at this previously, but I now see that cite.php formats its error messages with <strong class="error">...</strong>. That strikes me as both good and defensible. I'm not much of a css hacker, but isn't it possible for individual logged-in users to override that by editing Special:Mypage/monobook.css? (or should that be Special:Mypage/Monobook.css?) -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
(further added comment re error messages format) The following works for me in Special:Mypage/monobook.css (notSpecial:Mypage/Monobook.css) to cause css class "error" (e.g. errors thrown by cite.php) appear as normal-looking text:
(more re error messages format) Just mentioning that I did some fiddling with related text formatting templates yesterday, and it's easy to format error messages like {{Citation}} error: error description in css class=error so that logged-in users can de-emphasize them by editing their monoblock.css files as mentioned above. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Herndon seal.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Herndon seal.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
You recently removed an edit that I made to the Free Software page in regards to Freedomware by marking it as spam. I honestly do not understand why my edit was removed and how it is considered to be spam.
Some background:
At the University of British Columbia in 1999 RMS used the term at a presentation he gave entitled "Freedomware - The GNU/Linux system and the free software movement."
Most recently it has come to be used as a means by which to easily explain to non-coders how FOSS can benefit them in their everyday life. Please see Freedomware Blog, Freedomware-Gamefest A quick search of Nuxified.org for Freedomware also shows that others beside myself are using this term as well with no urging from me. I first used the term in a blog about promoting FOSS to the general public and why it works so well. It was a tongue and cheek word that really struck a chord with a few people. I was surprised because I thought I was going to get flamed alive for introducing yet another term in light of the ongoing Taxonomy war over FOSS names.
In fact someone sent RMS a link to freedomware-gamefest.com and freedomware.name which sparked an email exchange between him and Danijel(libervisco). Mr. Stallman took some of his own time to verify with the FSF legal department that we would not get sued over using the term freedomware publicly. When asked if he would endorse it he replied that he is interested in our effort and will be keeping an eye on our progress. I figured that was better than NO "you smeller of other peoples bottoms!" :)
So I hope this sheds some light on the new usage of the term Freedomware and validates my addition to the Free Software page under Alternative terms for free software. If a specific page was available for the term Freedomware I would have written about it there. But seeing as how a search for Freedomware returns Free Software at 100% relevancy and by hitting the Go button redirects you to that page it seemed like a safe place to add it.
I am always seeking to learn and grow so if I went about adding Freedomware to the page incorrectly I would like to know what I did wrong so I will not repeat my mistake.
I look forward to your response. Thank you for your time.
It's SPAM becuase you're promoting your own blog, and Wikipedia frowns on that. Unless of course you're trying to promote the Nudikini (the top Google hit for "freedomware" is http://www.nudi.com), which would still be SPAM, but of a different kind :-) RossPatterson (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. :)
Ok I can understand why the link to the freedomware.name blog as a reference that I added was removed. But I still fail to see why adding a definition of the term freedomware as an alternative term for Free Software could be considered spam. Or would it be better to have provided the nuxified forum as an unbiased third party source for the term freedomware at the bottom of the page? Ultimately I am asking what needs to be done on my part for this new use for the term Freedomware to be added to wikipedia?
P.S. The nudikini just seemed to be such a perfects fit to the whole paradigm[rim shot]. Now if proprietary software would just return a top link of chastity belt. doh!
The thing to do is to wait for "freedomware" to actually become a reasonably popular alternative term for free/open source software. 41 hits at a targeted search engine, all but 4 of them from a single user, and then all but 5 about one gamefest does not make "freedomware" a notable term. Sorry! RossPatterson (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
That makes perfectly good sense. Thank you for taking your time to explain this. No need to say sorry. It just means that we will need to work on it. Thanks again. :)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Cat Stevens Matthew and Son.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Cat Stevens Matthew and Son.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't an orphaned image, the article had been vandalized a few hours earlier, deleting the image reference. It's been fixed. But wow, that's pretty fast - you might want to slow the bot down. RossPatterson (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Ross—What need I do to persuade you of the folly of your position in support of this technical blight on the project? Tony(talk)09:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You can't. Dates are something the world can't seem to agree on, and almost all software adapts to the user's preference for how they should be displayed. There's no reason Wikipedia should be different. RossPatterson (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for refs-cleanup
.... in Booting. I've found it very hard to find out where these tempates are documented.
Mike mfc (talk) [stupid 'bot' .. that information is in history if needed.]
Regarding your reversions above, I'd appreciate some attempt to open discussion. You're really just forcing your opinion through, without taking the matter to my user talk page, or the page's talk page. It's not the optimal conditions for editing, and I'd appreciate a change in the future. Anthøny00:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Straw poll to merge "Alternative terms for free software" to "Free and open source software"
Hey, over at the Preuss School FA you suggested that I add an IPA guide to the article. However, to be completely honest, I have no idea about how to do such. If you would be willing to do it, though, I can tell you that the school rhymes with 'choice'. Warm regards, SorryGuy Talk 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
GERS
Hello Ross Patterson: I hope this entry doesn't fall on deaf ears. Please help me solve the delema I seem to be having with my entry. After all, "our strong band can ne'er be broken'. Couldn't you possibly check 'The Indicator' for my name and photo in the graduation class of '65. My name Robert Gerson and photo are also listed with the Pegleg track team of that year. I recorded with Jimi Hendrix in 1970 on 'The Cry Of Love' album under the name of GERS and the album, went Gold and was on three different record labels. (Warner Bros., Polydor, and Track Records). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gersracing (talk • contribs) 23:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to, but it's a four hour drive to the nearest collection of Indicators. If you had that interesting a career, you must have been mentioned in at least one music history/criticism/whatever book or article. References don't need to be on the web, they just need to be identifiable and verifiable. RossPatterson (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Gersracing (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ross: Hopefully you received a copy of the 1)1965 Indicator senior class. 2)Jimi Hendrix album 'The Cry of Love' with the credits Gers (Harmonica). 3)Letter from Hohner Harmonica c/o the American Embassey in London England awaiting new Jimi Hendrix Album and asking Gers for pictures of himself playing. 4)Article in Rolling Stone about Gers' band 'Privilege'. Gers (bass guitar, harmonica) Mainstay of group, 'Umble yet 'eavy. 'Bass Player of the gods'. Born in Southern England. Picked up music from the womb. Avid blues recrd collector (2,000 blues LP's). Acquired his first harmonica at age 4 at a Rockaway Playland penny arcade near the beach. Practiced 14 hours a day until his mouth bled. Gers was the first and last mod Bohemian blues rocker from the Village. Played and jammned with Dylan, Lovin' Spoonful, Cream, James Cotton, Muddy Waters, Jimmy James & the Flames, Jimi Hendrix, among others. Split to England, met up with Jimi again and recorded several albums with him, the most famous "Cry of Love". When Jimi left us, formed group with Mitch Mitchell, played Speasy, Roundhouse Country Club, Marquee, etc. 3 - Piece Power Band. Then Played with Jack Bruce, Dick Heckstall Smith, Chris Farlowe, Buddy Miles, Felix Parpalardi and Elvin Bishop. Gers then made the organic scene in Mill Valley where-he teamed up with the S.F. Sound Makers, Boz Skaggs, Bishop, John Mayall, etc. Split to Jamaica, learned beats mon, and came back reggae oriented with a ska bass beat unduplicated by none. Gers, a living legend, surviving 2 near fatal car crashes, from the Fillmore West to Surrey England. Goal in life: to be one of the privileged.
5)Picture of GERS' credits on the Gold Jimi Hendrix Album 'Cry of Love'.
Preuss IPA redux
Hey, I hate to be a nuisance, but the Preuss School FA nomination was closed, as discussed above. When closed, you asking for an IPA was one of the last things to be done. If you have the time, could you please assist me here? Thank you, SorryGuy Talk 19:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you revert vandalism, occasionally but well. Would you like rollback to help you revert vandalism more quickly? Acalamari21:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, but the space and newline removals are, while slightly annoying, very useful both to the project and the bot, it should be a one-time issue as none of these changes should be necessary again. I'm sorry that the edits caused a problem. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually both are factually incorrect, since the topic resolves to a location which happens to have the closest association with the μSA, but is not the same. Tedickey (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
There are two points here: (a) the μSA is the county associated with the rural town, and (b) neither topic develops the μSA aspect. If there were a suitable topic written, it would be better to start with the right name. Tedickey (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
hmm - I said three things ((a) and (b) in one sentence, followed by a recommendation - presumably that's the "latter"). Is it that you might agree with those, but have some additional reason? Using the μSA name seemed like one step forward to fixing the things wrong with the WMA topic Tedickey (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Re:Infobox Weather additions
Hi,
I usually just go to weather.com and look up the info there for the cities. I could copy and paste the links, but I am not sure where to put them. Should I include them at the bottom of the template, or at the bottom of the page? If you know how to do this, please let me know! Thanks,
(Einstein00 (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC))
Whatever you're cutting-and-pasting into the articles contains the following, down near the bottom:
<ref name=worldweather >{{cite web | url = | title = | accessmonthday = | accessyear = | publisher = | language = }}</ref>
I just checked and I can't find that thing anywhere. You said that it should be at the bottom of the page, right? Well, it's not there. I don't know if someone removed it or what, but if nothing else, I can just add the link in brackets after the data. (Einstein00 (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC))
I saw that you removed the empty reference. That's ok. I can add it back, and then I will cite it. Have a good day, (Einstein00 (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC))
Acessyear
Yes, you're absolutely right. But because people regularly put the full date in one field, it seems sense. RichFarmbrough, 22:41 12 March2008 (GMT).
Stuyvesant FAR
Stuyvesant High School has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Five Years (talk • contribs) 00:34, 19 March 2008
I guess I got a sudden rush of adrenalin and a desire to follow WP:BOLD and WP:IAR in an attempt to bring some levity to the recent heated discussions about the notability of schools. It had the desired effect, although calling it pointless vandalism seems a bit harsh. It is, after all, a perfectly legitimate criterion that all notable schools article satisfy. No harm was intended. Truthanado (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that comment wasn't aimed at you. That is the edit summary in the revert, and I know it wasn't you that did the revert. Good editing. Truthanado (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't a war, I was simply wrong. I've driven through that stretch of Delaware often enough that I thought I knew the right answer. In fact, I thought I'd seen the sign just a couple of days before. But references always trump eyeballs! RossPatterson (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know I found and changed your recent edit to this page because the band and album in the converted cite were reversed. Kresock (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, RossPatterson. You have new messages at Stepshep's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi Ross, where did you find the "Utility" design pattern you reverted in "Design Pattern" page? Do you have any links or bibliographical reference to it? --Janesconference (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I submit a link to the Open Source Page and you deleted it.
I wanted just to why. Is my link not coherent with the page, is my review not good?, do i have to place it in other page??
Let me know
Thanks friend —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omar2abid (talk • contribs) 14:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that. Was thinking in a mechanical sense of "is this a disambiguation page" rather than "are there any other G N U acronyms that people might tack 'project' onto the end of". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk20:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't have done, because I only copy-pasted the contents of the sandbox into the protected template. That wouldn't have removed the page protection. Best, PeterSymonds(talk)14:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. The template is still protected, however; are you able to edit it? I've logged out and I can only view the source. PeterSymonds(talk)14:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I see. So I could just copy the entire sandbox into the core (removing the /sandbox from the template itself), would that solve the issue? PeterSymonds(talk)15:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Logo_Z9_2094.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200ptalk01:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Nuke it. If you follow the clearly specified (and linked!) entry in the history, you'll find that the original was updated a few days ago on the German Wikipedia by its orginal uploader, disclaiming ownership. RossPatterson (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Archiveurl again
Hello RossPatterson! I would like to ask you to update your sandbox-Citation template with archive-url as there seems to be no opposition and it is really nothing controversial (it wont change the appearance if the new options are not used). Then we can ask for an {{editprotected}}. Thank you! User:Nillerdk (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC) User:Nillerdk (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you still working on it? Any problems or doubts? If not, I'll myself give it a try, but I don't know yet how the citation template works internally and I'm not really into the world of parser strings. User:Nillerdk (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Great! I've tried it out in my sandbox (User:Nillerdk/Sandbox) and in those simple cases it works exactly as I expect it to. Like the Cite template, it makes the title a hyperlink to the archive, leaving the original url parenthetic. I would personally prefer it the other way around, but it is no big deal. Do you think it is ready for implementation? User:Nillerdk (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I did, but I'm finding some edge cases, thanks to examples from the Citation talk page. I'm cleaning it up right now. The problem with reversing the URLs as you suggest is that the "(archived from the original)" would point to the archive copy, not the original copy. Alternative suggestions as to how to render this are welcome. RossPatterson (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) archiveurl and archivedate (without dash) don't work anymore. Deliberate? I'm fine with the dashes as well... As to the rendering of citations with archived copy indicated, why not: "a copy is archived ..." like:
I prefer this suggested style because: 1) as author I'm actually refering to the original, not a copy of the original. 2) the archives don't always work perfectly (layout usually gets messy) so the most convenient place for the reader to go is to the original. 3) if the original gets (temporarily or permanently) unavailable, the reader can go to the archive. Note that the archive can also dissappear so it is not a strong argument to leave the "safe" link the primary. What do you think about this - does it have side effects? User:Nillerdk (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I got rid of archiveurl and archivedate when I realized that all the preferred parameter names for {{Citation}} separated words with dashes. I believe consistency within the template is more important than consitency between templates, especially in the case of {{Citation}} vs. {{cite whatever}}, since they're deliberately different. RossPatterson (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to something like "(a copy is archived here on 23 February 2006)", although "here" links are usually an indication of poor phraseology. Perhaps something like "(archived copy as of 23 February 2006)" might be better? There's also the question of whether or not it's a good idea to use a different style than the {{cite whatever}} templates, which are slowly moving to using {{Citation/core}} and would have resulting inconsistencies during their slow transition. RossPatterson (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Your formulation "(archived copy as of 23 February 2006)" is of course much better. Thanks.
About the inconsistency: It is not that bad in my opinon, since {{cite encyclopedia}} and {{cite journal}} don't support archiveurl at all. A slow adoptation of Citation/core in cite xx would then only break consistency on articles with mixed {{cite book}}, {{cite url}} and {{cite news}} - and that only temporarily. Consistency in articles also using {{cite encyclopedia}} and {{cite journal}}is already broken (since an archiveurl would be given in a non-standard way). User:Nillerdk (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi RossPatterson. I feel a bit bad pointing this out to you, because you put some work into this page and your edits were obviously made in good faith. Most of your edits, though, made this page less compliant with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Redirects are permitted. Red links are permitted in some instances, such as when the red link is also present in other articles. And piped links are permitted when the piping is used to allow for correct formatting, such as to add italics or quotes to a title of a work. Would you mind reverting those changes? Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks much. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)03:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I'm right on several points and you're right on others, but feel free to revert if you insist. Re-reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), I think I did right by the redlinks and most (but not all) of the pipes:
Do not pipe the name of the links to the articles being listed. For example, in the entry for Moment (physics), the word "physics" should be visible to the reader. In many cases, what would be hidden by a pipe is exactly what the user would need to be able to find the intended article (but see italics and quotation marks, below)
...
A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when another article also includes that red link.
But you're right about some of the pipes:
Use piping if the article title differs from what it should be due to technical limitations per {{wrongtitle}};
Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when the redirect contains the disambiguated term and the target article uses an alternative title;
Well, I can't find the quote now either on WP: Public domain, but it used to be there. The WP reference was added to the article on Oct 27 after somebody referred to WP:Public domain on the Public domain talk page. Referral still there last time I looked. Lupinelawyer quoted the sentence on Oct 21 on the Public domain talk page. It was in WP:Public domain, now its gone. It makes good sense and I believe it is accurate, and not otherwise specified in the Public domain article (or anywhere else I can find now). It is useful information and pertinent. Do you disagree with the substance of the sentence? Don't know who trashed the original. So, do we redo every article everytime anyone changes anything anywhere? Dr. Perfessor (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
*Do you disagree with the substance of the sentence? - It's not up to me to agree or disagree. It's unsupported by any reference in the article. My opinion of its truth would be WP:Original Research, as is yours.
*So, do we redo every article everytime anyone changes anything anywhere? - No. We don't base statements in one article on the contents of other articles. If you can find the reference that supported the statement from WP:Public Domain when it was there, and check the reference yourself, then by all means include the cited statement in Public domain. RossPatterson (talk) 04:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
After much research, I inserted in the article a reference to the ORIGINAL source, a legal treatise on copyright by Nimmer. Same words, same quotation marks, different source. Happy now? Cops... Dr. Perfessor (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:RossPatterson. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
){kind=link}
