User talk:BradPatrick/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome 2 spinone photo 3 Your message 4 Wikipedia:Public domain 5 Richard Arthur Norton's image uploads 6 Congrats 7 Okay, you caught me. I'm not an attorney, I'm a rodeo clown 8 eMail 9 Doppelganger 10 Vandal who harasses User:Alkivar 11 RE:Sgrayban unblock 12 Updated Cabal caption 13 Deleting Image:Carlsontwins.jpg 14 Would it be too much trouble for you to look at the Fan fiction article? 15 ego reverts

[edit] Welcome

[edit] spinone photo

Thanks so much for the photo, Image:Spinone italiano Daisy.JPG. Do you by any chance have a larger version of the photo? This one is a little smaller than would be ideal. If so, you can just upload it with the same name (go to that image page and you'll see the "upload a new version of this image" link). Elf | Talk 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're lying. I advised for a double license. And if you were playing the game right, this pic should be on Commons. Pffft. notafish }<';> 00:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Bizou, mon peashooter. I have corrected my evil ways!--BradPatrick 00:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

I think that you're talking about a comment I left at W:AN/I. If so, I didn't doubt the existence of the lawyer (is it you?), only complained that referring to "a lawyer" who said something on a mailing list, without any further details, wasn't adequate reason to criticise my comments about out-of-process deletions. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You found him. I haven't done a good enough job keeping my head down on Foundation-L.--BradPatrick 00:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Public domain

Howdy Brad,

this is a one-time attempt, and if you tell me that you don't want to get entangled in © issues here on-Wiki, I'll just let it drop silently. So far nobody has found serious errors on Wikipedia:Public domain, but then, no professional lawyer has ever looked over it, as far as I know. Interested to take a look and give feedback or improve it? A second, and really more current issue is to get {{PD-USSR}} right. See Template talk:PD-USSR for pointers about previous discussions. Input from a professional might be very helpful... Lupo 09:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

All right, I have asked him. Lupo 08:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Arthur Norton's image uploads

Please look more carefully. I'm getting somewhat annoyed at having to explain this time and again. None of his image uploads are summarily deleted. They have been removed from the articles, but not deleted. They are being checked individually now. See also User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), and also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey, and User talk:Carnildo, and, of course, WP:AN. As to his claimed desire for discussion (according to the OTRS mail you quoted): he misunderstands two things: first, his images are not being "punished", and second, he has, with his blatantly false licensing claims, damaged his credibility to the point that I don't see why I should trust his say-so on any image. If that means that we inadvertantly will get rid of a few images that we could have otherwise kept, then that's entirely his fault, not ours. Lupo 08:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My point is that his say so isn't the criteria on some of the images. *Any* image of the 1850 census is non-copyvio. The baby/bathwater argument is aggressive, and based on your interpretation of his credibility. Demonstrable credibility or not, I was confirming (which you have) that these are being looked at individually and not bot-deleted en mass.--BradPatrick 14:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the census images are obvious PDs. Others are not. Some are very likely PD, some are mistagged, some are copyvios, etc. If you'd like to help checking them, there's an excellent tool that helps a great deal. But it's still slow going. Also, I'd like to know what our position is on verbatim copying of press releases. (See his talk page.) Lupo 15:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

And with some, I just don't know what to do. See Image:Ivermectin.gif. Lupo 16:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats

Congrats on your new position. Keep WP on the up and up, ya know? See you around. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, welcome aboard, and please don't worry about us talking behind your back ;-). NoSeptember ^talk 18:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Ral315 (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am surprised that the wikipedia lawyer wasn't an admin already. Also, nice work on the Gospel of Judas picture, too bad NGS won't let us keep it for more than 90 days. --metta, The Sunborn 11:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi

With regard to Konigun Ninjutsu, why are you removing discussion of this subject? I'm going to assume as a lawyer that you have a particular reason, yet Wikipedia discusses many court cases before they are finished. Is Wikipedia involved in the court case? If so, and we need to abide by some injunction we should say so. If not, why should we stop reporting the facts in a neutral way? DJ Clayworth 17:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, you caught me. I'm not an attorney, I'm a rodeo clown

Okay, you caught me. I'm not an attorney, I'm a rodeo clown. Hmmm. Do you report anonymous administrators who use Wikipedia "with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person" to the local U.S. Attorney's office (President Bush signed this new law on January 5, 2006), or does that portion of what you are "obligated to do" get lost in shuffle? I feel obligated to report you to the Florida bar. We rodeo clowns have a sense of proportion. Donna Nelson GeeGoo 17:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep it up. You're only going to make things harder for yourself.--BradPatrick 19:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a legal threat. Careful, you might get blocked. 62.118.249.75 21:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] eMail

Tossed you an eMail to your work account. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 16:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doppelganger

Brad:

I created User:Brad Patrick just a few minutes ago as a preemptive doppelganger; just thought you should know. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 19:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And I've done the same with User:BPatrick and User:Brad.Patrick if you can think of anything else please register it with a nice throw away password -- Tawker 20:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal who harasses User:Alkivar

See Wikipedia:Abuse_reports#70.49.111.121. Because of the seriousness of this vandal's actions (repeatedly posting a user's home phone number in edit summaries, implicitly inviting real-life harassment), this should be a case where the Wikimedia Foundation itself officially contacts the ISP (= Sympatico, Canada's largest ISP) rather than well-meaning volunteers contacting the ISP as private individuals. -- Curps 20:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I just read your message at the top of the page, sorry for leaving the message here instead of e-mail (I rarely use e-mail). -- Curps 20:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting what I wrote. I'm not saying that ordinary users or ordinary administrators should presume to speak in the name of Wikipedia; they can't. What I'm wondering (and grumbling) about, is why hasn't anyone ever been designated who can? Limited to the narrow area of formulating terms-of-service complaints to ISP abuse contact personnel, of course.

How do you suggest dealing with people like the anti-Alkivar phone number vandal... this is a real-world harassment issue, not some mere editing dispute. If this guy's ISP got in touch with him and told him to knock it off or get booted for violating terms of service, then he'd knock it off. But how to get them to do so? I suspect any complaint by an ordinary user will be brushed off, something along the lines of "ask your site's webmaster to get in touch with us". Before the ISP acts, they'll probably need to know that the person contacting them really is making the request on behalf of Wikipedia.

Right now there's no such person who can do so, barring some extraordinary and rare personal intervention by Jimbo or board members. There really ought to be some not-quite-so-exalted person who could do so. The Arbitration Committee was formed quite some time ago to delegate dispute resolution without requiring Jimbo's personal intervention every time; could not something similar be done here? Right now it seems that there's a problem, but there's nobody minding the store.

-- Curps 05:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Sgrayban unblock

Greetings. My apologies that I inexplicably overlooked the very last (no least!) entry on User talk:Sgrayban. As I have just informed Danny, the user assures me that he has no intention of taking legal action against the foundation, that he will adhere to WP:NLT and any other applicable policies, and that he, voluntarily, withdraws from all article/s in dispute. With this informal probationary period charted, with the consent of some of the other involved parties including the blocking admin, I have unblocked him. Which brings me back to my original oversight: if you or Danny feel that the arrangement with the user should be revoked or modified, please feel free to suggest, or to take, any course of action you see fit. Once again, my apologies. Regards, El_C 04:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI Sgrayban remains unblocked. Given the weirdness of his threats against Adam, Jforrester, and some others, I doubt that this is a good idea. I'm certain that this user's only interested in causing disruption. (If I could, I'd reapply Jforrester's block myself.) 172 | Talk 16:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

He is re-blocked. See my comment on my talk page and on Danny's talk page. My sincere apologies. El_C 17:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

He wrote to me and commented on your page. His actions will speak louder than his words. Everybody play nice now.--BradPatrick 18:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updated Cabal caption

I took the liberty of updating the caption on Image:St Pete meetup - Cabal.jpg since you were the only person that these kids did not know. Perhaps you should get an entry in the Face Book or MySpace.com or at least a photo on your userpage so that they can get to know you better. It is a good thing. AWM -- 71.6.14.2 03:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting Image:Carlsontwins.jpg

Hi BradPatrick. On April 26, 2006 you deleted Image:Carlsontwins.jpg, providing "Not acceptable fair use argument. Deleted." as the deletion comment. This is not a criteria for speedy deletion. I would like to know why you did not follow procedure and list the image at Wikipedia:Fair use review or IfD. Thanks. ~MDD4696 14:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Since this issue doesn't seem to settle, and a recent posting expounding on the legal details concerning fair use in this case has been submitted on the Carlson Twins talk page, I request that you address this issue frankly. __meco 07:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would it be too much trouble for you to look at the Fan fiction article?

Hi! Well, I've been meaning to search out a lawyer to look at the Fan fiction article, specifically the "Legal Issues" section. It seems to have been edited a lot, sometimes by people who are clearly NOT lawyers and who have no idea what's what in copyright law ANYWHERE (at one point, it even said that self-published fan fiction was "totally legal" in Japan, which is NOT the case; it's either illegal or in some sort of gray area, it's just that the Japanese are somewhat non-confrontational and tend to view the dojinshi market as a breeding ground for new talent, and thus choose to ignore or encourage the thriving underground in dôjinshi which often features some form of fan fiction).

Um, anyway. Would you consider taking a look at it, or maybe giving me a hint where I can find people who are genuinely qualified to tackle that section? Copyright law is complicated and messy sometimes, I know, but it can't be half as confusing as the "Legal Issues" section on that page is! :P Runa27 06:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The following comment has been posted to both your and my Talk page, in order to make sure you're pinged, and I have a copy my comments to help me keep track of what I've said...

Thank you very much for taking a look at it! I know what you mean by the lack of sourcing; in the recent Peer Review I requested, people noted the exact same problem. Thus far, since I'm too twitchy about touching the legal section, especially without knowing of any good citations for it, I'm working on backing up the major theories as to the origins of it in the history section and two major approaches to modern fan fiction broached in the current draft of the introduction. In the course of my research efforts online I almost immediately found a draft copy of an academic paper from a Dr. Judge, Phd., of a law school (I can't remember which one, since that link is bookmarked on my home computer right now, and not this one, but I'll update you over the weekend after I've been back online on that computer and been able to look it up again) that brought up the "descended from oral storytelling" theory with cited sources, as well as (this is the main focus of the paper, actually) describing the history of 18th-century printed fan fiction and some of the hullabuloo that arose from it, and copyright law of the time - which effectively provides an I assume reasonably reliable history for what's arguably some of the earliest of modern fan fiction and the surrounding legal and ethical issues of the time. What's more, from the look I took at it last night before bed, it seems to list a lot of specific trends (such as writing and publishing unauthorized sequels before an author could meet demand for one themself), and specific, apparently high-profile cases, such as an unauthorized sequel case involving Robinson Crusoe. Since it was marked as a DRAFT, and since it was requested on the paper itself that the author of it be contacted before any citations or quotes, I've emailed Dr. Judge regarding it. I have yet to hear from her, but I believe I emailed her 12 hours ago or less, not to mention it's the weekend, so that's understandable. :P Again, thank you VERY much for taking the time to look at it! Runa27 19:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ego reverts

Somebody has been reverting good edits from ego, even using automation to keep his crummy page on top. For example, these two edits were clearly against trying to improve a page & in favor of keeping a favorite page on top:[1] and[2]. As I understand it, this game isn't supposed to be a contest, but trying to write the best encyclopedia possible. --Chuck Marean 21:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no vested interest in these articles other than trying to ensure they adhere to WP:RULES, and I'm confident in stating that the other editors are not trying to "keep [their] crummy page on top." None of us own these pages. Please refer to the comments and suggestions made on your talk page and on the articles themselves. Cheers. --mtz206 (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that I fail to understand why this is something to be brought to Brad Patrick in specific, Mtz is, IMHO, correct. With respect to the first diff, the page at present doesn't contain an External links section; if Chuck wants to create one, surely we can discuss, consistent with WP:EL, what ought to be included, but the fashion in which he adds the links is plainly against policy and custom (and, to the extent that Chuck bolds each entry [formatting each a subhead], unencyclopedic). With respect to the second, his case is stronger here, but it's eminently clear that Mtz is not acting in bad faith (of course, without such clarity, Chuck ought to assume good faith, especially in view of Mtz's evident [and proper] disinterest vis-à-vis any specific links), and that the issue, as Mtz suggests, ought to be brought up at Talk:List of web directories; reverting something other than plain vandalism oughtn't likely to be done prior to consultation with other editors, with whom one ought to collaborate in any event, and surely not with cursory edit summaries/less-than-substantive talk page comments. Joe 00:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Your complaint is not the kind of thing I deal with. Nothing personal, but I am not a one-man ArbCom. It sounds like you have a problem that needs to be resolved by all regular dispute resolution channels. Thanks for your work on Wikipedia.--BradPatrick 14:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)