User talk:Legin-gross-drawkcab

Mentorship
Hi Nigel! I'd be happy to serve as your mentor. I gather from User:Legin-gross-drawkcab/stub that you're interested in working on an article about computer fonts as intellectual property. That's definitely a very interesting topic; the first step will be finding the scholarly sources that address it. It's covered very superficially at Typeface, but that might give you a few ideas of where to start looking and what keywords to search for. The EULAs and similar documents you link to provide food for thought, but basing an article solely or primarily on things like that would be "original research".

As I told your classmate K.C., I don't know how much research experience you folks have. If you're at a loss for how to get started finding good sources to base the article on, try doing some searches on Google Scholar (or better yet, talk to a librarian at your school library; they're experts at helping you find sources).

I'm looking forward to working with you! Let me know if you have any questions.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Font copyright laws
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

research for an article on font IP
I see you've been putting together some research on font copyright on your "stub" subpage. Excellent! Since there are a number of ways of framing the issues you are interested in, I think one early thing it will be important to figure out will be, what should the name (and hence scope) of your article be? "Digital font theft" is probably not a good choice; that term doesn't seem to be used very much. "Font theft" is used a little bit, but it seems to be a term mainly used by people with one particular point of view on the topic (i.e., used by people trying to prevent font piracy). "Font copyright laws" is probably closer to the mark, although it looks like a lot of the key IP issues are in the realm of design patents and software patents (with copyright a relevant issue for the underlying computer code, but not necessarily the typeface or font itself). Maybe "Patent and copyright protection of typefaces"? It's clunky, but it will probably be easier to find relevant sources and create a robust article for a broader-titled article like that. If you have any questions or need help with anything, please let me know. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The biggest piece of advice I have is, start with the sources you're most interested in, and read and digest as much of them as you can. That will probably give you a better picture of a well-defined topic for your article.  Because Wikipedia is built from what reliable sources say about topics, it's much easier to work with the same terms and scope that some body of literature uses.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi again! I left a message at the talk page of your article, about bibliographic details and the possibility of getting the article on the Wikipedia main page as a "Did you know" entry.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

re: Class Discussion
I had a lot of fun speaking with your class today. Sorry you didn't have time to ask your question. My short answer to the question you posed here is to always remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I often edit articles on controversial topics about which I have strong opinions, and sometimes it can be difficult to write from a neutral point of view. If you are convinced that your position is the best one in a controversy, you needn't be afraid to represent the notable perspectives in a neutral tone and let the reader draw the same conclusion that you did. If your contributions are adequately verifiable, readers who are interested in digging deeper can follow your references and further develop their understanding of your topic. Take a look at WP:WEASEL for examples of non-neutral verbiage that may creep into your writing when you feel strongly about one side or the other in a controversy. For folks who have done a lot of persuasive writing, old habits can be hard to break, but with practice you can get used to writing in the style that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What Do You Think I Missing?
I'm want to add more to this article but I'm struggling. Do I need info on free font usage or classic typefaces? Legin-gross-drawkcab (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! You haven't edited in a few weeks, but there have been some comments added to the article talk page in the meantime. I think there's more that you could include from the law review article by Lipton (which was cited in the font vs. typeface section that you deleted, but seems relevant for fleshing out the article more broadly.)  Your classmates left some good advice, and some other editors pointed out the existence of copyright on typefaces, which partly overlaps with your article.  The next step should probably be to merge the best parts of each article into a single page.  After that, if you're looking for more sources, there are plenty that turn up in scholarly databases searches for "typeface patent" and "typeface copyright".  It's also worth taking a look at Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc., a new article by another student that is very relevant to this topic.  If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page any time, and I'll try to get back to you quickly.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)