Talk:William Poole (economist)

message: The text used to create this article was copied entirely from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis web site. Since the Federal Reserve is a quasi-governmental organization, I believe that use of the text is uncopyrighted and fair use. The St. Louis Fed has a legal notices page here. --JHP 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I have replaced the text copied from the St. Louis Fed web site (.org) with text from the Federal Reserve System web site (.gov) to reduce the possibility of copyright infringement. Based on WP:PD, I believe the text to be uncopyrighted. According to WP:PD, "For the U.S., federal government works are not eligible for copyright protection (17 USC 105)." --JHP 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you can find something on the website that specifically says that it is not copyrighted, we are going to have to presume that it is. That's the way copyright works- copyrighted until released. J Milburn 03:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * That's not the way it works for U.S. Government works. --JHP 04:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have asked on one of the Wikipedia IRC channels, and the general consensus seems to be that it isn't public domain. Do you have a copyright notice or anything from the website? J Milburn 03:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Uncopyrighted works don't have copyright notices. Only copyrighted works do. Unfortunately, copyrighted works are no longer required to carry a copyright notice, which makes determining copyright more difficult. --JHP 04:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Nope, further correspondence, and it seems you are right. Cite your sources on the article page, and all is well. Thanks for bearing with me. J Milburn 03:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *For future editors who may question whether the text is copyrighted, "§ 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works. Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." --JHP 04:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncopyrighted

message: Poole's car has the vanity license plate "MV=PT"radek (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: Recently, I was skimming through UNZ.org's lists of contents of the various National Review issues in order to see if the names of any authors that interest me would pop up.  In the process, I came across this issue which lists an article by a William T. Poole.  The name struck me as familiar, although I wasn't entirely sure why.  Although Wikipedia lists a number of William Pooles, the William Poole about whom this article is written is the only one I'd heard of prior to today.  My immediate thought was that if this is the same William Poole who authored the aforementioned article, this would provide us insight as to his middle initial, thereby allowing us to improve the way his name is listed in the article.  After some quick Googling, however, what I found was that not only is there a William Poole at Cato, there is also a William Poole at Heritage, and these two William Pooles look nothing alike.  What are the chances that two separate William Pooles work for two separate thinktanks?  Anywho, I was not able to confirm whether this William Poole's middle initial is 'T,' nor was I able to rule out the possibility.  Indeed, I was not able even to confirm whether William T. Poole was either of the William Pooles mentioned above.  Perchance, William T. Poole may be a third William Poole altogether.  Nevertheless, I present my fruitless research here in the hope that my dead-end might aid some future Wikipedian in discovering the middle name of this William Poole.  allixpeeke (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Pooles