User talk:BradPatrick/Archive 2

Congratulations!
Can't honestly say I'm surprised, but I wanted to be the first to congratulate you. See you bright and early tomorrow. Danny 22:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Likewise! (and I'm *definitely* not surprised ;-P --AlisonW 22:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Add a me too! Congratulations! I think you'll find about three mops waiting for you in the office, with buckets to match... Amgine 22:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well.--Eloquence* 23:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Brad, congratulations, I'm sure you'll do a good job! --JoanneB 04:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! Here's a mainspace article about you as a present. (Remember, don't edit it unless you want the media lunging at you.) --  Zanimum 13:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm humbled to have a place on the main space. Mercy buckets (with apologies to my French colleagues).--BradPatrick 02:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No prob, comes with the territory. I've reupload your image to Commons, with the title "Brad patrick original.jpg", and I added a cropped version of your pic to the article, "Brad patrick cropped.jpg". Adding your photo to the press release also. --  Zanimum 12:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I should have fixed that before. I appreciate the clean up efforts. :) --BradPatrick 04:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, Brad! And welcome to the main articlespace. I only hope I will get on there in the future for activities other than my criminal ones. ;-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Carlsontwins.jpg
I would direct your attention towards the request made that you address this issue again. __meco 20:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

FAQ
Just so you know, I took the liberty of restoring that FAQ you had put up earlier. --Michael Snow 05:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I put it in its proper place - User:BradPatrick/FAQ is open for business. Thanks.--BradPatrick 04:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on founding Wikipedia
"...and Brad Patrick of WikiMedia - the founder of WikiPedia, will be among the panelists to discuss how consumer-driven content is transforming traditional media models." 

This is the only press you've got, so far. Would you be able to set the record straight with this organization, even though the press release is already out (albeit only on Black News Wire) wrong. -- Zanimum 12:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * NAMME has been notified. Thanks for the catch.--BradPatrick 14:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No prob. Mitch Kapor was once the founder of Wikipedia, too. --  Zanimum 15:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:List of Virtual Boy games
Thank you for both letting me know that the issue had not been resolved on the article that I protected, and for your comments there. I think that it is just true now that it has become common practice to accompany "List of x" articles with galleries of images. Combined with that is an increasing trend towards reliance on unfreely-licensed images, and, most remarkably of all perhaps, an unwiki-like resistance to their removal. I suggest that there really needs to be some sort of cultural shift back to the idea that free, reusable content is better, and anything that makes us less free and reusable is moving away from our goal. I'm not sure how to accomplish that, however. Coming up with more processes and longer, more specific guidelines does seem to have kept things better organised, for what that's worth. There would never be any community consensus for a ban of unfree content to decorate lists, but I think somebody needs to have a conversation about the idea, regardless. Jkelly 16:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am happy to support that discussion. User:Eloquence has been strongly encouraging that view on Commons and Foundation-L recently, and I completely agree we should be dissuading fair use arguments wherever possible.  Sometimes, they cannot be avoided, but it is important we continue to push forward with the Free Culture Movement ideal wherever possible.--BradPatrick 16:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking about the conversation that we begun, but I notice that you are currently involved in some other conversations about Wikipedia's "fair use" practices.  It is not clear to me that trying to have a conversation about it as administrators and free culture advocates is going to be easy to separate out from those conversations in which people seem to be expecting you to be wearing your counsel hat.  Given that, I'll just note that I'd like to return to the specific issue about making our "list of x" articles more strictly freely-licensed and reusable, but I wonder if it might make sense to wait for a bit.  Jkelly 16:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Works of the US government
I'm not sure if you're the right person to ask/bother, but I'll give it a try...

There are two parallel discussions at Possibly unfree images/US government portraits and at Commons:Template:Deletion_requests regarding the status of official portraits (paintings) tagged as "works of the United States government". I nominated these images for removal because as commissioned works or works for hire, they are not created by federal employees and therefore not PD under the rationale that they are "works of the United States government". However, the opposing disputant wants a "copyright attorney" to weigh in on the issue before we go on a "deletion rampage". Could you take a look? --Jiang 22:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations on your new position. Must be a pleasant change of pace from law firm practice, eh? Anyway, best of luck. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use
Hello, I was wondering if you could direct me to where official fair use policies are discussed and added to Wikipedia. I am looking to involve myself in the process and help with this matter. Thank you. Havok (T/C/c) 07:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not get me wrong, I am for free images under GPL. But much of the edits I do, happen in the gaming article space, and as such getting "free" images of screenshots from games is near imposible without breaking some sort of copyright (if the game itself is not GPL ofcourse). As I stated on the talk page of List of Virtual Boy games Wikipedia has somewhat cornered itself when adding a policy which removes the right to use fair use images (as in screenshots taken from games) along side the fact that one can not ask Nintendo - for example - for permission to use their images under the fair use banner. I would really like to get this resolved for both Wikipedia and its editors. Impossible? Maybe. But that shouldn't dither us from trying. A policy with let's users ask the developers/owners for permission, but also keeping the image away from the GPL tag at the same time could work. But that would require that the original research policy be changed somewhat. I am sorry if I am not making any sense. If some of my points are unclear please ask me what I ment. Thank you for your time. Havok (T/C/c) 12:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please point me to your sources for these policies. The issue of "permission" in accordance with "fair use" is not quite making sense. The point of US-based fair use is that you don't *have* to ask permission - fair use is permissive without the approval of the author/owner.  If you do have explicit permission for use, the question is then under what license, and that requires compatibility with the GFDL (GPL is the General Public License, i.e., software).  That's where I'm not following.  WP:NOR wouldn't necessarily conflict, so I need help with where you are getting these arguments.  Thanks.--BradPatrick 21:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There was a "war" going on in PlayStation 3. The image which was used as the main one of the console was wrong, and it was changed to a promo picture by Sony that was uploading under fair use. This image was removed stating "Fair use isn't allowed as long as a free image exsists." even if the free image was wrong they kept insisting the free be used. I then contacted Sony PR and asked them if I was allowed to use the image on Wikipedia, they said yes, I could. When I told them this, they stated that "Original research isn't allowed" and they went with the free image. This isn't a problem anymore seeing as a free image has been found that shows the "new" system. Now when it comes to screenshots, these can't be "free" in the same sense, seeing as they can not be take with a camera (well they can, but that would look crap), am I for example allowed to ask the developer for permission to use the images on WP? And I highly doubt they would release the images under GPL. Thank you for you time again. Havok (T/C/c) 07:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Give me what you have from Sony in writing. "Trust me" isn't going to work here, sorry.--BradPatrick 16:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I only have it electronic (e-mail), but if their permission is enough then I shall ask them to fax me their policy when it comes to promotional pictures. Havok (T/C/c) 18:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

FAQ omission
Hello Mr. Patrick, congratulations on your new position! I was reading your FAQ, and there was one issue that it seems you (perhaps purposely) avoided. Do you think you'd be available to answer the occasional legal question? I can see how it could quickly become overwhelming, but I'm just curious what you think you might be willing to do. For example, a user has proposed a guideline on music samples, and few of the users discussing it are familiar with law (myself included). Do you see yourself answering the occasional legal question, or is this something you'd like to stay away from? ~MDD4696 16:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have direct responsibility for the legal affairs of the Foundation; that does not mean I have any direct authority over the community. That said, I have reasonable expectations that major policy questions will need to be reviewed and such, but you are correct, I do not have the task of answering every question of any legal relevance of anything anyone on any project could dream up in my portfolio.  So, my role is (a) keep WMF out of trouble, (b) comply with what needs complying with, (c) review new transactions and relationships for legal issues, (d) advise the Board, (e) manage pro bono counsel efforts, (f) anything else I missed off the cuff.  Hope this helps.--BradPatrick 21:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Discourse on Fair Use
I have raised a question about the application of Fair Use on Wikipedia in regards to your intervention in the case of the image on the Carlson Twins page on Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use. __meco 00:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use and all that
I was wondering if you'd be willing to help put together some simple materials on Wikipedia's relationship to the fair use clause? Basically I'm happy to try and write it up as I understand it and then send it to you for comments/critique/corrections/etc.? This could be done off-wiki if there are any liability issues. My basic desire is to have something simple to point confused users to so that they can at least have the basic knowledge of the law and our policy in order to discuss these things more sensibly. Let me know if you are interested. --Fastfission 14:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The Hunger Project
A few hours ago I sent a message to the info team about a libelous statement that has been placed on this entry. Anything you can do to expedite its handling will be much appreciated.
 * RE: above: A few hours ago I sent a message to the info team about a libelous statement ... This is clearly the POV of the previous user.  All statements have been properly sourced and referenced with endnotes, from a source (NOT Mother Jones) that duly published said statements in reference to a different article.  A NOTE was placed before the reference to alert the reader to its integrity:"NOTE: Sourced quote from Raising Hell: How the Center for Investigative Reporting Gets the Story., David Weir (journalist), Dan Noyes, the Center for Investigative Reporting".  The Center for Investigative Reporting is a reputable source. There have been no lawsuits against above source for statements within its work, which comment on other sources that were reprinted properly with permission.Smeelgova 20:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Danny, I have been advising Jcoonrod in my role as an advocate. I see that upon receiving communtication from him you did attempt to edit the Hunger Project article. I do not know if you are aware but User:Smeelgova has effectively now reverted all of your edits. Would using WP:OFFICE be the best option, I understand your reluctance to use such measures too frequently, however if you try to simply apply changes on this account it appears Smeelgova will revert them? --Wisd e n17 23:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Smeelgova is on thin ice, especially with a Mediation pending.--BradPatrick 23:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand the issues at hand, however I am not very familiar with the WP:OFFICE policy. Please explain why I am on "thin ice", even though I have cited references and sources for the aforementioned quotations?Smeelgova 23:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reverted to prior version by user User:Danny, pending mediation.Smeelgova 00:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Feature picture copyright
There is some confusion over copyright at Featured_picture_candidates/Eiffel_tower_nuit which is a Featured picture candidate. You opinion would be appreciated. Thanks -Ravedave 02:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Seahawks fan?!?!
Impeach Brad now! Who's with me? ;-) -- LV (Dark Mark)  00:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, man, don't make me come over there and kick your little yellow and black @$$ and shove the towel up your .... The wounds are still fresh.--BradPatrick 02:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh noes, I probably dislike the Steelers more than the Birds. Don't make me block you for personal attacks and threats. (Ohhh... the thought of blocking the Interim Executive Director just gave me shivers down my spine.) ;-) See ya. -- LV (Dark Mark)  02:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots
Brad, I've been seeing a lot of removal of screenshots from games the past few weeks, would you mind telling me if using a screenshot to show the game, breaks Fair Use? Ed g2s keeps saying that screenshots that don't have any polictical commentary is not fair use and is to be removed per. the fair use policy. The same goes for screenshots from movies/tv shows as well. Thank you for your time mate. Havok (T/C/c) 19:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A really bad article
Brad, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuarial_Outpost

This whole article reads like a vanity piece or an advertisement. Nothing is sourced or verifiable except for Avi's passionate defense of his contribution. Maybe he should disclose how much money he contributed to the site as a site supporter. Is Wiki really a place for non-significant sites to be able to advertise themselves?MarkTween 06:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that I've cleaned the article up to be less length. I can't speak for Brad, but the site has survived our AfD process with "no consensus". If you'd like to submit it again, you're welcome to it. Also, if you like to help clean up the article to include less "cruft", you're welcome to it. --  Zanimum 19:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Just what you wanted to discuss...
I was hoping I could get your take on fair use as it applies to images used in the Carlson Twins article. So far, two images have been deleted based on their not having a sufficient rationale for fair use. I recently posted a message on the article's talk page, to which you kindly replied. I wanted to get an understanding of how these images fell outside of fair use, without further stirring the pot back in the talk page. I see both images as having met the test to be considered fair use. That said, I've never graduated from any college that didn't have Community in front of it, :-) and you hold a law degree from a presigious institution, so, going against the mob mentality of the project, I'll defer to the judgment of an attorney over my lay opinion. Here's what I asked:


 * From my take on events, it seems like a misunderstanding occurs in how copyrighted materials are treated under U.S. law. There is an established fair use exemption to normal copyright protections, as contained in 17 USC § 107.  For example, I can include a photo illustrative of the subject I am discussing, without needing the permission of the copyright holder.  The particular fair use exemptions in this case would be:
 * The use of the image is for non-profit educational purposes, with no commercial gain.
 * The image has already been extensively published, to the extent that inclusion in an encyclopedia article has no effect on any right of first use or right not to publish asserted by its copyright holder(s).
 * The image represents a modest and insubstantial portion of an entire portfolio of similar works featuring the same subject, and is merely an illustrative element in an article that draws its infomation primarily from other sources. Thus, it is neither a substantial portion of the original body of work, nor is it a substantial portion of the derivative work.
 * The image's inclusion in an encyclopedia article represents an infinitessimal diminution of its value, if any diminution has occurred at all.
 * This is, as I understand the law, a fair use of the image. I understand that the Foundation's view is different, and I'd like to be able to get some perspective on this.  Would someone be willing to explain why this use of the image is seen as a copyright infringement?  --Ssbohio 18:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have considered the idea that even if this is fair use, it may still be wiser to delete than to fight with the copyright holder, but I'm really concerned about the images' being claimed as WP:copyvio's when my best understanding is that the images use can be supported as fair use. Could you enlighten me? --Ssbohio 14:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC) (who isn't an attorney but who is in a prelaw program, with all the prestige and glory that entails)

No rush, but...
... I am still waiting to receive the paperwork to formally transfer the rights to the Wikisource logo over to the Foundation. -- Zanimum 19:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Brad
We share the same last and first names - I was named after Confederate General Patrick Cleburne and for a time many years ago while working for Lykes Electronics in preparation for starting school at St. Pete JC I rented a very nice and large apartment from one of the Patrick families that live here in Tampa.

As General Counsel you may be interested in the following concern since many participants in some of the Wikimedia projects are confused as to the legal position of the Wikimedia Foundation in terms of its own accountability:

"...the State of Florida does not derive any sales tax revenue from the Wikipedia. Consequently the people of the State of Florida expect a little something in return for their kind generosity of granting a charter to the Wikimedia Foundation to allow it to operate world wide and solicit tax free donations from out of the State. Such beneficial compensation could be in the form of providing reference material or serving in some educational capacity for the citizens of the State. In absence of this the people of the State of Florida might prefer that the Wikipedia find some way to pay taxes instead of just being a community that receives tax free donations which the donator can then use to further indirectly reduce benefits to the State by using their financial contribution as the basis for Federal income tax deductions. In other words the people and the State of Florida may not like the idea of an organization living off of them unless the organization is going to make a contribution to the State in one form or the other. The State is already overburdened by educational institutions and prisons and prison inmates who likewise pay no taxes and cause financial losses without providing any financial gain. Perhaps you need to be thinking in terms of the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation which includes the Wikipedia Project is obligant to the State of Florida and its tax paying citizens and not the other way around." [See: Etatism and Dirigisme in regard to the basis for such clarification as to the relation the State of Florida and the Wikimedia Foundation have to each other.]

If you have any questions or need any clarification please feel free to correspond. (pce3@ij.net is my real email address.) ...IMHO (Talk) 23:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfree content and lists
Hi. You mentioned above that you would be interested in a discussion on unfree media in lists. A conversation about it is taking place at Fair use/Fair use images in lists. Jkelly 22:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Two things

 * 1) On my RFA (now closed with no consensus), you expressed concern over my stated views regarding fair use.  I replied:I very much appreciate your comments. I never intended to act in contravention of Wikipedia policy regarding fair use, even if I disagreed with it; given Gmaxwell's reasoning here, I'm not sure I do disagree with it. While it may be academic at this point with regard to directly handling image deletion, I still do involve myself on copyright pages regularly, so: do you think the statement "fair-use images should never be used if a free image would be possible unless their use is absolutely necessary; if a free image is impossible, or a fair-use image is absolutely necessary, fair-use images are acceptable provided we stay well within the bounds of the law" is a reasonable summary of what fair-use policy is or should be? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Since the RFA is now closed, I would appreciate it if you would respond here.
 * 2) A while ago I came across a Florida legal case where the judge explicitly declared that Florida's public-records laws prohibited anyone from claiming copyright on most works of the state.  I summarized the outcome on PD-FLGov (making use of exact wording where possible).  Since there was a lot of confusion about PD-CAGov, and you're a Florida lawyer, I figured it would be a good idea to ask you to glance it over and see if you think it's legit.

Thanks. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the update. I will have a look at the FL tag.--Brad Patrick 21:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation 2006 Budget?
I was recomended that you might know more about the current status of any 2006 budget for the Foundation. It's not published, but 2006 is half over. Any details you have on this would be greatly appreciated. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Undeleting Crosstar.png
Hey Brad, just a friendly reminder that the Office protection on Image:Crosstar.png has expired, and Jimbo suggested that you handle undeleting it when the time came. Kaldari 17:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is still a developing situation involving a new legal threat. Stay tuned.--Brad Patrick 17:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Understood. BTW, I'm the person who created the image, so let me know if there's any way I can help. Kaldari 15:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Trademark dilution
Hi, Mr. Patrick. There was a concern regarding use of Wikipedia's logo mentioned on at Village pump (miscellaneous); just wanted to pass the message on to you. The site's not working for me right now. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Gregory Lauder-Frost
Hi, Brad. I've tried sending you a couple of emails, but perhaps they're not getting through. Could you stop by and update Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost? Progress on the article has stopped for nearly a month, and I'd love to see an update and hopefully a statement of the legal principles we should be working from. Thanks, William Pietri 18:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

LoC
Wow! I hope you can convince them that it is in their interest to pay all the hosting, hardware, and staffing fees. I'm positive that would be well within their mission, but even so, there's no way to tell whether the bureaucracy will part with the funds. On the other hand, the whole of the Wikimedia Foundation is miniscule compared to a lot of esoteric projects they routinely do to serve populations not even a hundredth of a percent of the number of people served by Wikipedia each day.

Don't tell me how things are going, as I don't want to jinx it or expose anything. Just please know that you are very sincerely appreciated by a huge number of people, including myself, who are hoping for the best in this new partnership.

Thank you very much. BenB4 09:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for clarification
There is a discussion here[] which began as a question of what is "appropriate" but it shifted to a debate about what is legal. While the article in question is very minor, even silly, the questions being raised (and the actions being taken) are more serious. While "what is appropriate?" is always a matter of opinion, "what is legal?" should not be. I know you don't usually comment at the Village Pump, but given your professional background and status in the community it seems that a few words from you could easily resolve this issue. I realize you've probably got bigger fish to fry, but if you could take just a few minutes for this it would go a long way towards clarificatoin for all of us. Thanks Brad :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: While a consensus to use Linkimage has been achieved on this specific topic, there is ongoing uncertainty about Wikipedia's legal responsibility/potential liability in this area. Any clarification from you will certainly go a long way towards preventing future misunderstandings on related topics; even a link or pointer would be useful if you haven't the time for a lengthy reply. Personally, I don't really care what the answer is, I'm more concerned with having the "right" answer on a legal topic. Totally off topic - I spend a fair amount of time in the Lower Keys; any interest in boating/fishing/Scuba diving? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Urgent Email
Can you check your email, as there's an urgent task that needs to be undertaken by you only.  Killfest2 — Daniel.Bryant  09:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I approve of the action you requested in email.--Brad Patrick 12:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Email
You have an email from me. I don't expect/need a direct reply. Kevin_b_er 23:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Searchlit and external links
Thanks for the note regarding Searchlit links and User:Searchlit. Since you're involved, I would guess that there is more to the story than I have in front of me, and I certainly will trust your judgement on the matter. If you're looking for all the articles to which the link was added (all, at least that I am aware of) also check the contributions of User:75.34.16.239 (talk • contribs). To me it does look like site promotion (see External_links number 3), but I trust you will make the best decision here. Let me know if there is any way I can help, or anything further that needs to be done. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker 07:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:LOGOS etc
Hello, could you take a look at the discussion on the logo talk page, this mediation case (if it interests you), and this oldid. It'd help extremely to have a legal perspective. Thanks! --Keitei (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Images used under limited license
Brad, I've noticed that the images Image:GOJ 03.jpg, Image:GOJ 07.jpg, Image:GOJ 08.jpg and Image:GOJ BOOKTWO.jpg are tagged with Limited license. I also note that on each of these images there was a notice to contact you prior to taking any action on these images.

The licensing on these images is incompatible with Jimbo's decree regarding "used with permission" images, and its following policy at WP:CSD I3. The last of these images could be tagged with bookcover. The other three I am uncertain we can use under this policy. I'd also like to note that these images are not used anywhere on Wikipedia.

What is your stance and if you feel the images should be kept as is, why the exception to the rule? --Durin 13:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Eastman Johnson
I am glad that you liked the article on Eastman Johnson. I have not finished yet, but felt that it was in a stage that was better than it had been and was at least well cited. The curator of the Tweed Museum said he would send me images for the article so I am excited about that.

Please let me know if there are any other articles that need my touch. Thank you for noticing my contribution.Lkinkade 11:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

COPPA and Wikipedia
A question came up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cute 1 4 u about whether there are any issues with COPPA when we are made aware that a user is under 13. Would you care to weigh in? &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 20:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Help with understanding Pacific Western
I stumbled on the Pacific Western University article a few months ago simply by surfing recent changes. I honestly thought that the article had been improved by my efforts in a NPOV sense by the time you stubbed it - almost every sentence was cited by either the GAO, Pacific Western itself, another university, or The Australian, which I believed to be a not-insane news source. I am not at all interested in an argument, but help understanding why my attempts to improve and NPOV an article led, essentially, to its abrupt removal. What was the "unsourced, defamatory and/or libelous information" at the point of the stubbing? Sirmob 23:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use
There seems to be a disagreement about the use of fair use images in galleries. Is it illegal or not, as the policy states nothing about any of it? Havok (T/C/c) 07:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the first sentence of this talk page. Act accordingly.--Brad Patrick 11:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)