User talk:Benandorsqueaks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Benandorsqueaks, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- ElBenevolente 04:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Richard's paradox (in reference to copy vio notification)

I did use Nagel & Newman's book as a reference when rewriting that article, so this might explain my particular choice of phrases being similar to Nagel and Newman. Indeed, the flow of the argument is also taken from Nagel and Newman, since I felt their order of presentation was very good for their discussion of Richard's paradox. But I do not feel that there has been a copyright violation there, as the source material was merely used as a reference when rewriting the article due to its ideas on how to present Richard's paradox most efficiently and readably. If such a use of reference were considered a copy vio, then when writing an article on calculus, you wouldn't be able to reference a calculus book's presentation flow, or when writing an article on history, you wouldn't be able to make the same points that some recent book you'd read had talked about. Because I merely took the ideas from Nagel and Newman and used them to write the article, rather than quote from the text, I feel that this does not constitute a copyright violation. Of course, I am no lawyer, so I may be wrong. Nevertheless, I feel the article is free from copyright violation, and, if edited, should be for readability issues only. A copy of this response is on Talk:Richard's paradox as well. — Eric Herboso 21:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)