User talk:Spshu

-- billinghurst (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

1911 Encyclopædia Britannica
Thanks for your contributions. One thing you might want to take care of is that if you're trying to make an article transition to a ProofreadPage backed version, if the Page: namespace part is already marked as Proofread or Validated with a yellow or green banner on top, it's usually better to use that version of the text rather than copy the version in the main namespace under 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/... into the Page: page. Prosody (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this contribution.


 * If you add a page like this rather than as a translucent, please display page numbers to the left of the text like this. This is done using  for the initial page and then   for each subsequent page (incrementing the page number each time) terminating the last page with


 * As per the the guidance in the EB1911 style manual § Internal Wikisource links, please do not over link the text on the page. Within the text body please restrict links to other EB1911 articles (using ). They should only be used for Article Name (q.v.) and (see ). If initials of an author is given at the end of a paragraph or section then add link to that author's entry in the name-space "Author:" (eg Author:Hugh Chisholm). There is one other special case were an author is a subject of an EB1911 article.  All this information on internal links is contained in the EB1911 style manual.


 * -- PBS (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade
Hi Spshu,

Just to let you know, the "Syllabus" is actually a part of the case, prepared by SCOTUS as an overview. It's not clear from the Cornell website that this is the case and they do claim copyright for other "value adding material" there, so it's an easy mistake to make: too wit, I had already deleted the page before I realised what it was (restored now). In any case, since it is part of the case it is public domain like the rest of it so I've removed your speedy deletion tag.PS. Thanks for being on the lookout for copyright violations! Copyright is hard and a lot of well-meaning contributors over the years have added texts that are actually not freely licensed. --Xover (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not run across that in the Federal Register when I originally read the ruling (1989). So how is this official SCOTUS material or apart of the case? The Syllabus does not match up to the official opinion, as that shows it makes no claim that they make any decision about what the 14th Amendment has to say on the subject. Spshu (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you look at
 * Blackmun, Harry A, and Supreme Court Of The United States. U.S. Reports: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113. 1972. Periodical. https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep410113/.
 * you'll find the Syllabus is included in the published version.It is of course still possible that our text is taken from a different source (since our text is not scan-backed) or that some other factor affects its copyright status. But it is definitely not deletable under the speedy deletion criteria. If you believe there is still an issue with this text then you should raise the issue at Copyright discussions, where the broader community can assess it. I haven't worked a lot in this area (hence my initial mistaken speedy deletion) so for any more complicated issue I certainly wouldn't want try to reach a conclusion on my own. --Xover (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)