User talk:Altamel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Wikipedia in a nutshell

Hello, Altamel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  —Wknight94 (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oregon Law[edit]

Per your note to another user, I thought you should know that the Oregon Legislative Counsel Committee won't be pursuing any copyright claims re: the ORS. Whew. It's still a bad idea to post the text of bills, of course. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Valfontis: Well, that certainly is good to hear—though under WP:NFC posting the full text might still be a bad idea. I'm sorry to see you've had some trouble with the page author; thanks for maintaining a reasonable level of patience given the circumstances. Hopefully everything works out. Though I have to say, your state legislature is awesome! (you've probably seen this already). Thanks, Altamel (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't even have to look, it has to be Rick Astley! :) And yes, they are. Valfontis (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hello: Regarding this edit: Consensus is that all edicts of government, without exception, including laws of Oregon, are public domain in the United States: Wikipedia:Public domain#Works ineligible for copyright protection and #Public records. This consensus seems to be based on case law and the position of the US Copyright Office. I am under the impression that there is no consensus to remove such material only because a state government wrongly claims it is copyrighted. However, Bills introduced into a legislature, which have not been passed by that legislature, are not laws or "edicts of government". So Senate Bill 166 isn't a law and will presumably be copyrighted for that reason. Best regards. James500 (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Your post on my talk page is blasphemy and lies. How can you say anything is 'fact' when there is no evidence that everything we see isn't just a hallucination or an illusion? reality is just what the world collectively agrees is true. When someone experiences a hallucination we say what they see or hear isn't real because the majority do not sense it, but in reality there is no evidence what we sense is even there. Everything is opinion, even the so called 'facts' on this website. If this is such an 'objective' site, why should the opinion of the minority on what constitutes 'fact' be censored because of the opinion of the majority? Nothing in the end has any proof of reality, and fact itself is nothing but a fragile and false concept. Such clinging to concepts such as that is petty and illogical. Besides, it has a citation. I've done my research on this, this is objectively true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lily1155 (talkcontribs) 04:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


Hereby I present you with a lead image ... Hafspajen (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Very appropriate analogy. Altamel (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Altamel. You have new messages at Lost on belmont's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lost on  Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)