User talk:Lordpasternack

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Lawsuits section from RDFRS article
I removed your message from my talk page because text like that should be placed on the article talk page, namely at Talk:Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. For your information, the text posted was "Regarding this section of the article - I feel that it is encyclopaedic to document significant legal disputes and controversies involving an organisation. Especially regarding allegations of embezzlement or fraud - involving the founder and Executive Director of an organisation, respectively.

Much of the facts of the cases in question also have very significant impact on other topics discussed in the article - ie. the reported "online store" started in 2007, was actually in no way legally affiliated to RDFRS, and this was the express intention when it was formed in 2007. RDFRS did not commence running their own online store until 2010.

Some of the merchandising items discussed are also the intellectual property of Upper Branch Productions - as are the science vignettes discussed. Said merchandise is no longer available from the RDFRS store - and they eventually had their sister YouTube account terminated (and a subsequent channel terminated), after repeated counts of YouTube removing and reinstating copyrighted video content, following complaints from Upper Branch Productions, and uncorroborated counterclaims from RDFRS.

If nothing else, the article needs to be cleaned up to cover those basic factual issues. Perhaps it could be cleaned up by simply omitting reference to said merchandise items and science vignettes - but I still feel it is important to summarise the legal disputes to give a fuller context to the article, and indeed the organisation in question.

Perhaps brief information regarding the legal disputes could simply be incorporated into the section regarding RDFRS's merchandising business - or a section could be added titled "Upper Branch Productions", to give a less contentious overview of the legal wranglings which have had a measurable impact on RDFRS, and which give some insight into the running of RDFRS.

If you still disagree as things stand currently - would you be willing to find it reasonable if information were added at a later date, if an explicit legal verdict were reached in Upper Branch's favour, against RDFRS?"

If you want, please post something to the article talk page but be patient because it may be a while before anyone has time to respond. To start, you might give an overview of what needs to be changed (what text currently in the article is misleading or incorrect? what needs to be added? why?). Also, please respond to my message that is on the article talk page. Brief posts are more likely to get a reply. Also, review WP:TP to see how to add a signature (add a space then four tildes to the last line of your message, and include a colon as the first character for one level of indent). Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)