User talk:Revmagpie

This user may have left Wikipedia. Revmagpie has not edited Wikipedia since 7 May 2011. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

User talk:Revmagpie

Dew and the Ripper

Where does Dew claim that Smith was attacked by only one individual? Do you have a reference? Colin4C (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colin. If you read Dew's memoires as if it's the only account of Smith's murder you've read (ie ignore the inquest testimony or anything else) then there is nothing in there that even vaguely suggests multiple attackers.Revmagpie (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CoI Admission

I wanted to take a moment to thank you for noting your possible CoI with the inclusion of the tripod page. I am glad that you were very honest about that, and - with all the hefty remarks that get tossed around in the discussion page, you've also managed to keep your cool. It is appreciated. I am glad you are working in the page, and I am glad to be working alongside you. We probably won't always agree, but I think we can work from a point of mutual respect. Again, thanks for your honesty and level-headedness. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you:) I have few opinions on the case strong enough to start a fight over:) Revmagpie (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something that just occurred to me: do you have a source for where you picked up the transcriptions? I am not sure we can use a "fan" or personal usage site, but we can use your site as an intermediary if the material there is specifically cited. Did you yourself transcribe the newspaper stories from images of the papers? If so, from what site/book/etc. did you copy them from? These are some questions that come to mind. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arcayne. Yes, I transcribed almost all the articles on my page from microfilm copies of the original newspaper articles, which I have in my research files. These I got from the local University libraries, which have an extensive newpaper and periodical archive. The few articles that I did not personally transcribe were passed on to me from a fellow researcher who asked me to include them on my page.Revmagpie (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you add the specific sources to the webpage asap. That makes you the mid-way point for the initial sources you used. We can copy the text, so long as the sources are exact. I'd also like t ask a somewhat indelicate question here: are the misspellings in the articles yours, or are you transcribing the articles precisely as they were printed? If the mistakes are yours, you need to run them through spellcheck before we can even think of using them; otherwise, the source fails for both verifiability and Notability. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the articles exactly, keeping misspellings, typos and attempting to stay true to the original formatting. For later transcriptions I was not quite as anal-retentive about the formatting, because it made some articles more difficult to read when transcribe from a newspaper onto a computer screen.Revmagpie (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long delay in response

Sorry for not responding to your post on my talk page a while back. I stop by the site less often recently and just missed it. I don't know if you still need the question answered, but figured I should try anyway.

I don't know of any specific legal decisions regarding the copyright of material later declared illegal. If it was during a period that renewals had to explicitly happen, and it was still illegal at that time, there would likely be no renewal just for practical purposes, so that might make it public domain that route.

You mentioned it being illegal to republish due to the comics code... If you are suggesting that not meeting the comics code alone would make something illegal, I don't think that's how that worked. I know later on some publishers just decided to drop the code entirely or on a case by case basis as necessary (if a code-approved comic had one issue with a drug-theme, for example), so I don't think that was a true legal situation.

You mentioned obscenity also, and that may be more where the problem was. Obscenity laws have always been very hit or miss and depend upon prevailing local standards. A lot of things are accused of being obscene that would not get to a consistent legal ruling as such. Even things determined by a court to be obscene could be ruled otherwise in different areas at different times. I don't think that has an effect on the underlying copyright status.

You also asked if a publisher renewed a pulp novel if the cover would have to be renewed at the same time. In most cases the copyright covered the product as a whole, cover and content, so if the novel were renewed the cover would go along with it. Similarly, if the cover were renewed the cover wouldn't be either. There are cases where that might be different, but for these older publications separate copyrights would by necessity be mentioned in the original.

It'd be easier to answer if I knew more of the specifics, not that I am a lawyer anyway.

DreamGuy (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]