Talk:William Legge, 2nd Earl of Dartmouth

Editor copyright
One editor has added a copyright and signed the article - my understanding is that since they only added most, but not all, of the information, such a claim is clearly misleading. If they are not willing to licence their work into the public domain, or it was not the copyright owner who added it, then much of this article is a copyvio and should be reverted to the version as of 10 Nov 2004. Comments? Average Earthman 16:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It may not be a copyvio if permission has been obtained from www.francisasbury.org. But, as you say, if you put up text here, you buy into the agreement that "All contributions to any page on Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License" so there is a clash with asserting David Hallam's copyright. The guideline Don't include copies of primary sources applies anyway, and a deal of it is POV and not very encyclopaedic. RayGirvan 22:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - I've removed it. Andy Mabbett 22:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was all about methodism anyway, wasn't it? That seems rather unbalanced. john k 22:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Picture
The picture that was recenty added is a great addition! Thanks to the poster. Dwain 23:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)