User talk:BradPatrick/Archive 4

Another user (apparently I shouldn't say whom) has offered (apparently I shouldn't say where) an adequate explanation on your behalf of what you wrote at Talk:Water Fuel Cell#No Legal Threats, but what about creating a boilerplate template with wording carefully chosen to avoid confusion in future cases of this kind (although I hope there won't be many)? I humbly suggest something like this (to be placed in the talk pages of articles A,B,C):

:The WikiMedia Foundation has received a cease and desist letter from Company K. Please avoid mentioning topics X, Y, Z in this article until further notice. This request applies only to articles A,B,C. Your cooperation will speed the process of resolving this matter in a manner consistent with the goals of the Wikipedia.

:--Brad Patrick, (date and time) General Counsel, WikiMedia Foundation

Just an idea.---CH 08:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

: For what it's worth, I started on something similar at User:William_Pietri/Legaldispute for a different situation. That's now past, but perhaps it would be helpful to you. William Pietri 01:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd offer a different version:

:The WikiMedia Foundation has received a cease and desist letter from Company K. Please do not reference this in this article or discuss the dispute on the talkpage in order to avoid further legal problems. Your cooperation will speed the process of resolving this matter in a manner consistent with the goals of the Wikipedia.

:--Brad Patrick, (date and time) General Counsel, WikiMedia Foundation

--ScienceApologist 21:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Brad. In reference to your removal of some legal information from the McKenna article, an editor finds it necessary to have your comments regarding this removal included in the article. I have removed the information twice, as it can be construed as a WP:BLP violation (negative info sourced by a self-sourced cite). A minor revert war is now in progress over it. You might want to express your opinion about this inclusion on the talk page. I did not think that it is a good idea for this section to be included in the article. Here is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_McKenna&diff=79276966&oldid=79275618 diff] of the section in question. - Crockspot 20:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• There is further discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Paul McKenna. - Crockspot 12:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You asked me to check your user page for your contact information and Wikipedia to find out how many registered users the site had after eight months. I am unable to find either. Could you point me in the direction of the location of each? --24.73.51.219 23:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

:You can email me by clicking "E-mail this user" over here <-----, assuming you are registered. As to statistics, start at Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia%27s_growth and root around from there.--Brad Patrick 16:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

::Ah, that's why then. I'm not registered because I'm trying to limit what I register to and I haven't seen much need to edit pages so far. Also, after looking around on that page, I see only statistics regarding articles, which is unrelated to the statistic I am looking for. I'm trying to compare Wikipedia's usercount to DSmeet's (soon to be ABXY's) usercount after an equivalent duration of existence. --24.73.51.219 19:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've fielded several questions on IRC lately regarding the importance of privacy regarding the checkuser permission, and in order to give those who have similar questions some answers, wrote up a draft of m:Checkuser Privacy on Meta. If you have a moment, would you mind giving it a peek and seeing if I've covered all the important bases and if there are any beans issues that perhaps I'm overlooking or places where it should be expanded? Or for that matter, if the whole thing should be scrapped? :)

Thanks for your time! ~Kylu (u|t) 02:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is full-protected, since August 15, with the message "pending rewrite; legal issues". Can you check on the status of this? —Centrx→talk • 22:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

:It has been noted that Truthout.org is an WP:OFFICE action. However, the article itself is not categorized as such. Might this be updated while issues are resolved? -- Kesh 03:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:: I updated the {{tl|protected}} to {{tl|office}} --Trödel 15:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

(cross-posting my question from the policy pump)

Why are we honoring Nazi and Al-Qaeda copyrights? Examples:

• :Image:OctopusNAS1.jpg
• :Image:AQ00105.jpg

Is it even legal under U.S. law to honor these? Does the Foundation have an opinion? - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:IANAL, but as signatories of the Berne Convention I'd imagine the copyrights are still quite in force in the U.S. TINLA. ~Kylu (u|t) 18:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

::As a signatory to the Berne Convention, yes the copyrights are very much in force. In fact the copyrights of content created by a (recognized) terrorist would still belong to him. But such a person or organization cannot make a legal representation for himself in the US. 222.165.172.184 15:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McGill_Ghetto&curid=3793366&diff=80465197&oldid=72605242 here]. Does simple reversion suffice? Possibly should the dif be deleted? Does Wikimedia have any obligation to contact the police about this? JoshuaZ 20:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:It could be a hoax on these people to get them in trouble or just a joke. —Centrx→talk • 20:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:Revision has been deleted, the anon contributor has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:74.57.8.247 blocked for 24 hours] by Antandrus. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::Looks like the situation has been corrected. Thanks.--Brad Patrick 11:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Brad I'm looking for help with a user abusing the system, would you be so kind as to contact me? --Edited By a Professor of Life 01:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

:Your situation is already being handled elsewhere. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Brad, could you take a look at this and give your opinion? Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals ... It hasn't been clear to me for some time why it is ok to use fair use on the main page (which is just a portal IMO) but not in other portals. Some examples of fair use images on the main page:

• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 23, 2004
• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 19, 2006
• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 12, 2005
• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 12, 2006
• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 26, 2006
• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 31, 2005

There's a poll on the talk page of the amendment, but I think that is rather silly, I think we should follow the advice of the Wikimedia lawyers, which would be you :) So I think your input here would be very helpful. Take care, jaco♫plane 20:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for responding. I actually agree with you that we should not seek to compromise our ambition of creating a Free encyclopedia, even if the law permits us to use fair use materials. I just hope that the same standards will be applied in the future for the main page as for other portals, since the inconsistency can be rather frustrating. Cheers, jaco♫plane 05:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that talk:John Doolittle article could do with a little homily from foundation on undue weight as applied to knocking copy. Guy 22:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello there, and thanks for all the work you do for us! I was wondering if you could weigh your legal opinion in over here: there's a discussion regarding blanked pages and the legal responsibility of reverting editors to make sure that the article that they're reverting the blanking to is free of libel. As none of us are lawyers, some clarification could be helpful if you have a free minute to put your thoughts down (the idea of being held liable for reverting vandalism is something that has some ramifications for us, so I know that I at least would love some "official" guidance on the issue). Thanks very much for your time, Snoutwood (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:Your participation would be appreciated. There are statements to the effect that editors and admins who revert articles to versions that may contain unknown libelous content could be held responsible for that content as if they were the original author of it. That standard would have a chilling effect on the patrollers who revert obvious vandalism, and have the paradoxial effect of leaving more defamatory content in articles. -Will Beback 04:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

: Whoops... sorry, I missed the banner on the top of this page. Sending you an e-mail. Snoutwood (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you ever saw my response to your "food for thought" response on my user page to the PWU query I'd left on your talk page a few weeks ago. I've asked this article be unprotected, at least briefly to allow adding the draft article I prepared. Feel free to veto, edit, approve or ignore as you see fit. --A. B. 22:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Brad.

I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but I have already, through my new page and recent edits patrolling, become quite familiar with the guidelines.

I have recently started reminding fellow new page patrollers to go easy on the newcomers by also placing the speedy deletion template on the user's talk page. However, the [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-September/010610.html shoot on sight edict] is being used as an excuse to be rude to the newcomers.

May I request, if it has not already been done, that the policy guidelines are updated to reflect the sentiments expressed in the edict? If they have been updated, would you be able to point me in the right direction, as I have searched unsuccessfully?

May I also suggest that if Wikipedians were less aggressive and more welcoming that the number of phone calls from "self-aggrandizing authors screaming bloody murder" would be reduced.

Regards

LittleOldMe 12:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I’m writting this message to you, and to User:Mindspillage and User:Joy, because I still don’t have a full knowledge of how to proceed about Wikipedia administration/mediation/arbitration.

Well, I see there’s a kind of probelm regarding the creation (by myself on november 8) of the article 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia, which I’ve redirected to NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. There’s an edit war going: pro-Serbian users are trying to delete my redirect, and even when people (including myself) manifested against the deletion, the user which requested the deletion made the request again.

Please if you can help me to solve this question.

PS: Above all these problems, I don’t know about you, but I think sometimes there’s a kind of “Serbian Volunteer Guard Cabal” of users here in Wikipedia that try to make Wikipedian articles related to Serbia, Kosovo and Yugoslav Wars appear clearly pro-Greater Serbian/pro-Milosevic POV, making these articles to show an interpretation of facts very different from most of the press and academic sources around the world. A similar thing is happening now on Transnistria article, that show a clear pro-Transnistrian government POV, with a long war of arguments going on the discussion page of the article. Well, I don’t know what you can (or can’t) do about all of this, but if you have some answers pplease write to me. Best regards, --MaGioZal 13:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

:I am so completely not the right person to address these issues...sorry.--Brad Patrick 20:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I've sent an email to you regarding a foundation legal issue. JoshuaZ 00:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I posted the following to Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser#Fishing expeditions

{{User:Trödel/box|Honeydew|black|||1cm}}

I know that we generally don't just run checkuser to see who posted certain comments, but came across this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Centrx&diff=prev&oldid=89259989 death threat] and thought I would bring up the issue. Should checkuser be used to identify and block vandals that perform specific eggregious acts. For example:

• posting user's name address phone number and children names (in the edit summary as well)
• death threats
• threatening lawsuits against Wikipedia

My view is that we should in some cases - i.e. we shouldn't have to identify potential socks if there are multiple instances of any of the above. I know a "I'm going to kill you" said in haste (or as an excited utterance) is probably not a true threat. But wikistalking followed by a threat to kill - we should treat as a potential threat and deal with the user more harshly. --Trödel 20:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)