Talk:impeccable

I have found different forms of thought or copyright police in other venues. Generally, Eean, they don't have their research in order. For instance, a word in general use, being used as ordered by any number of thousands of dictionaries, and being used in a not-for-profit or non profit manner, does not infringe upon a copyright holder.

I.E. if I am to tell you that this sentence is impeccable (beyond doubt, clean as a whistle, not subject to error) and you tell me I have violated a copyright, you would be mistaken.

You should allow the users of this product some latitude instead of applying what little authority you have to try to shut them down. If you are going to remove a word that I entered, purely to help discuss another entry, then have the good sense to replace the meaning of that word with something that you think is not a copyright infringement.

Keep up the good work.

I've restored the deletion. A claim that something is a copyright violation should at least say what was being copied. Eclecticology 00:13, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A google search returns several identical entries, whereas a search on dict.org (which has most if not all of the GFDL compatible dictionaries out there) does not return the specified definition. If I don't say where it comes, assume you can find it easily with Google. Please re-remove the offending content and check out the google and dict.org combination next time. And just common sense "and being used in a not-for-profit or non profit manner, does not infringe upon a copyright holder." clearly the user does not understand the GFDL, not really their fault, but it does discredit what they're saying. --Eean 07:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)