User talk:BradPatrick/Archive 3
US government portraits[edit]
Greetings. Back in May, you commented at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/US government portraits. The issue has lain dormant for over two months, and is still unresolved. I have attempted to summarize the findings of fact, in the hopes of resolving this debate. Your comments here would be welcome. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, there is an ongoing debate about the status of CVU (en:Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit) logos and their legal status on wikipedia. The discussion is ongoing on a number of locations including the mailing list and en:Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit. After Angelas comment on the mailing list, I felt the trademark committee is the proper median for this issue to be addressed and hence why I am here. (Please respond on my en.wiki talk page so I know you have responded) --Cat out 18:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
What is the status of this article, which was apparently protected for legal reasons? —Centrx→talk • 01:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC).
- User Ed Chilvers, who is engaged in some sort of campaign against Lauder-Frost (and using Wikipedia for his own purposes) has ignored the block placed upon this article and flagged it up again. Is this a good example of anarchy on Wikipedia or some form of corporate suicide? The article should have been entirely removed long ago. You need to act. 213.122.89.216 19:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Or rather, fans of Lauder-Frost will not allow the article to be anything other than a hagiography. It was deleted out of simple human decency. Guy 21:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Misstatement in interview you gave[edit]
Reading over an interview you gave (mentioned on the tip page for the Signpost), I noticed that you said: "The material on Wikipedia is released under the General Public License". This is incorrect, as I assume you know; the General Public License (or GPL) is quite different than the license Wikipedia text is released under, the GNU Free Documentation License (or GFDL). I hope you will contact Law.com to inform them of this small, but crucial, error. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Gee, thanks for the benefit of the doubt.--Brad Patrick 01:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I can't tell if this was scarcasm, or not, but - you're welcome. I suppose I could have assumed it was a typo on their part; if that's what you meant, I appologize. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This is an article you trimmed back to a stub and protected this past summer; apparently edit wars had gotten out of hand, especially when the school got dragged into an Australian political scandal involving one of its graduates.
As it presently stands, the fact that it's nearly a stub that fails to mention the school's troubled history is itself a sort of POV. At a minimum, the fact that it is not accredited by any of the six regional higher education accrediting bodies is a substantial omission. If the basics can't be included, then I suggest deleting the entire article.
"I don't have a dog in this fight" and have not edited this article before; I just stumbled across the article earlier this month.
I have totally rewritten this article to be factual and have a draft on a user subpage. As I've written it, this article meets all the relevant Wikipedia standards:
Since I am not allowed to edit the article, someone else needs to take this on. I know you are busy as Wikipedia's director -- maybe you can delegate this to an admin you trust to review my proposed article, amend it as necessary and add it to the existing stub. --A. B. 21:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)