User talk:BradPatrick/Archive 5

HAPPY NEW YEAR

As I said in Google Talk, Happy New Year, counselor! ★MESSED ROCKER★ 05:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Academy of Senior Professionals at Eckerd College

Have I jumped the gun here?

What is the status of this article? I don't mean to tread on your toes, but in this brief state, if I don't speedy it someone else will.

Regards LittleOldMe 17:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in a lecture hall with 50 senior citizens, all with advanced degrees; this is the start of a page. Please don't speedy it, flag it if you like, and it will be improved dramatically quickly.--Brad Patrick 17:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JKD Article

Hi Brad,

I read your notice on the discussion page. I agree this needs to be settled. It seems the same person is continuously vandalising the Jeet Kune Do Page by attempting to include instructors that thus far have not proven to have any merit to the article. I have started a dialogue on the discussion page per Wiki polices & standards. It seems this same person is not participating in the debate and just reverting edits without participating or giving the discussions a chance. Also, it seems the same person/persons is deleting the comments on the discussion pages because they do not agree with them; which I would think is a no-no. I am attempting to keep the Jeet Kune Do article up to the highest standard without turning it into an advertisement for instructors or to provide legitimacy for questionable instructors. Anyway any other suggestions are welcome. Thanks FrankWilliams 20:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MR. WILLIAMS, THE WORLD JEET KUNE DO FEDERATION HERE. YOU WANTED OUR ATTENTION AND YOU HAVE IT. PLEASE SEND US YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION OR WE CAN THROUGH OUR LAWYERS REQUEST YOUR INFORMATION DUE TO THE LIBELOUS STATEMTENTS YOU ARE MAKING ON A REGULAR BASIS. IT DIDNT HAVE TO COME TO THIS BUT YOU KEEP REPOSTING AND YOU HAVE GIVEN US NO OTHER CHOICE. YOU CAN REPLY TO THIS OR EMAIL INFO@LEEJKD.COM

--WORLDJKD 21:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great; now you have found each other. Continue your dialogue elsewhere, please.--Brad Patrick 23:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have blocked WORLDJKD for 24 hours for legal threats, vandalism, and edit waring. As the user has been invoking your name as some kind of justification, I thought I'd let you know. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great; now you have found each other: Brad Patrick the matchmaker. Can Wikipedia:Requests for significant other or person to sue for libel be far behind? Joe 18:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Western University

Brad, I was told by Jimbo that it was OK to "proceed with caution" (i.e. ensuring that all changes were fully debated and cited to the hilt). What more was I supposed to do? I don't even have the meat of their complaint. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To expound, this was brought up and discussed at length on wiki-en, and Jimbo did in fact say the above. You can read the first of his many responses in the thread on the wiki-en archives. There is a dearth of communication with regard to WP:OFFICE actions, and requests for clarification are ignored. Guy asked for advice as to what to do, got it from Jimbo (and many other people, excluding Danny), and proceeded as instructed. Working in the law profession, I fully appreciate the need for OFFICE and related processes, but the processes need to be cleaned up and clarified, and they should never stand in the way of writing an encyclopedia. My $0.02. —bbatsell ¿? 21:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so there is an on/off wiki issue (chat vs. wiki), a Jimbo/Office/Danny/Me issue, a time-sensitive response issue, a procedural issue, the merits of the article itself, and probably a few more. Jimbo and I never discussed this particular article in recent memory, certainly not this week, so it's news to me in this case. What I saw from the talk page led me to understand why Guy went ahead and did the edit; what surprised me, though, is that the WP:OFFICE tag is still there. If Jimbo said take it off, then that's that. But I sense a mixed message of "proceed with caution". IRL, we were in Rotterdam for a board meeting and did not have the time to be doing heavy wiki work. I believe the people at PWU deserve an NPOV, well-sourced article that doesn't tar them with the same brush as PWU(HI), based on the information available to me. Given the comments on the talk page and confessed anti-diploma mill sentiments involved, it is a careful line to be drawn. Nobody is putting procedure over substance here either; I think the references in Guy's article are solid. It is the text of the article that caused concern. WP:OFFICE as a working procedure needs improvement, and I welcome further suggestions.--Brad Patrick 22:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not faulting you for anything, obviously you have to defend the interests of the foundation as counsel. My main concern is the lack of communication or clarification with regard to WP:OFFICE. Pages get stubbed and tagged, and then go untouched and protected for, literally, months. That's just not acceptable in my opinion. The process should be much clearer; office gets contacted by requisite counsel, page is stubbed (perhaps some more time should go into this step so that only unacceptable material is removed) and protected, and a note is made on the talk page detailing exactly what the complaint is. Then, administrators can work together to ensure the article is properly sourced, especially with regard to the problem area. Once the problem area is cleaned up and the article is verified from top to bottom, Danny (or whoever protected) is notified to review the article in question. If it passes muster, OFFICE protection is removed. That, in my mind, is the best course of action to take. The fact that it took a 50+ message thread on wiki-en to determine that it is okay to edit OFFICE'd articles cautiously is slightly ludicrous in my mind, but completely understandable — every location has a different explanation of procedure at the moment. The office template says administrators can edit as long as it is discussed on the talk page, WP:OFFICE says they cannot in any case (at least it did last time I checked), and depending on who in the foundation you ask, you get different answers regarding whether every edit has to be approved or not. —bbatsell ¿? 22:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree here - no criticism implied, everyone was doing their best, but there is clearly a problem with missing links in the information chain (Office is new, so that's not a surprise). However, there is one source (Bear's guide) which says that the two institutions are run out of the same office by the same people, the OGA report refers to PWU (CA), and we do know that they are actively working to distance themselves from past controversy - are we sure we are not being used to further this agenda? Guy (Help!) 11:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was just going to edit the Pacific Western University article, but find that it is protected. This tag deserves a thorough and careful description at that article's talk page, but there's nothing. Can this please be done immediately, and in the future whenever such a tag is added? That would be very helpful. Badagnani 01:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this was missed the first time around (on February 6, 2007). I'll post again. Hi, I was just going to edit the Pacific Western University article, but find that it is protected. This tag deserves a thorough and careful description at that article's talk0 page, but there's nothing. Can this please be done immediately, and in the future whenever such a tag is added? That would be very helpful. Badagnani 05:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone out to lunch or on an extended vacation? Maybe this was missed the second time around, so I'll post again. Hi, I was just going to edit the Pacific Western University article, but find that it is protected. This tag deserves a thorough and careful description at that article's talk0 page, but there's nothing. Can this please be done immediately, and in the future whenever such a tag is added? That would be very helpful. Badagnani 05:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Copyright law and Fair Use claims

A question involving whether the provisions in Serbian and Montenegran copyright law for fair use has arisen at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 24#Template:SerbiaFairUse, Template:MontenegroFairUse, as the result of deleting related templates last fall. Can you shed any relevant light? I am additionally concerned because it sounds like the Serbian language Wikipedia may be making use of these, and if the position that led to deletion on the English Wikipedia is correct, that could be a problem. (Not that I read or speak a character of Serbian to investigate that issue.) GRBerry 05:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Living people and commercial endorsements

I'd appreciate it if you could weigh in in this discussion on whether we should expressly and specifically require the removal of all unsourced claims that a living individual endorsed a commercial product or service, due to the potential liability of false endorsement or even libel claims. Cheers, Postdlf 16:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard discussion on East of Eden

Hi. I'm contacting you in regard to a discussion on the Admin's noticeboard aout the East of Eden article, and the fact that an editor claiming to own the East of Eden copyright wishes to have certain information removed from that article. The editor in question, Catbird222 (talk · contribs) has suggested that you may know, or should be informed about this claim. To help straighten this out, I'd be greatful if you would comment on the discussion here. Many thanks, Thε Halo ^Θ 23:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you decide to look into this, see also OTRS ticket 2006111310009195 and its children. Jkelly 00:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Pierce situation

Mr. Patrick, I wouldn't normally think to bother you, but I believe this situation ( WP:ANI#Further on the Professor Tim Pierce situation WP:ANI#Tim Pierce is *not* a professor! WP:ANI#Tim Pierce: Over the top) calls for some adult supervision. I've alerted Jimbo as well, and, having said my peace, I leave it to you to handle as you see fit.Proabivouac 13:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone beat me to it - I have serious concerns about the handling of this matter and also because various statements are being made that could be constructed as libel (forgive me - I'm from the UK, so they might not be with the states) - people are assigning various motives to Prof. Pierce - one has stated that he's done this out of to vandalize out of some vindictive annoyance at Wikipedia (no evidence of this) and various other statements assigning motivation with no supporting evidence. In addition if people are firing off emails to universities, pr departments and the like saying "I am wikipedia administrator X", then the assumption is going to be that this person is an official representative of the organisation - that's not a legal problem (well I don't think it is - as I don't knoe if your laws about "agents" are the same as ours) but it could a PR nightmare.

Nobody is saying this Prof. has done a good thing but "Wikipedia get man the sack" is not really a great solution either. Surely any communication like this (to an employer rather than the individual concerned) should be a matter for the office - not for people shooting from the hip.

Apologies if this should have gone elsewhere - but the matter has really upset and disappointed me. --Fredrick day 21:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The emails related to this can be found here:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Zoe/Pierce

--Fredrick day 22:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Brad. I would appreciate your input on this situation. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:WeTube

Mr. Patrick, community sentiment is strongly in favor of this username and its associated image. However, I am not clear that the community is qualified to make this decision. See:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#WeTube (talk • contribs).Proabivouac 10:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this community sentiment does not extend to the image (which probably will be deleted as a copyright violation). I can't imagine what legal problem the username could present. —David Levy 16:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I hadn't understood that the image would be deleted.Proabivouac 20:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use and Video game screen shots

Hi Brad, did you get my e-mail on this issue? I had not received any form of reply and can just post it here if that's easier. Thanks! BcRIPster

East of Eden copyright infringements?

There have been some disputes regarding the article, East of Eden. You once said you know a lot about Steinbeck controversies, though I don't think this is one of those controversies.

However, perhaps with your legal expertise and previous experience regarding Steinbeck controversies, you would be able to check out the situation and make some comments. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other legal help

I was just wondering whether the Foundation was looking for any more legal help and if so who would be the person to contact about volunteering? Remember 23:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email me.--Brad Patrick 15:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly legal question

While this is sort of a legal question, I felt it might better belong on your user page as placing it here puts it in a more public context and it pertains to a relevant debate at village pump. The issue is whether Wikipedia would be able to legally use .mp3 file format without paying royalties. (The village pump thread is here). According to the way I read the Thomson website it would be acceptable. A lawyer colleague of mine supported me in this view and volunteered that "no one would sue Wikipedia over that anyway", but of course the website only provides a few sentences. In your opinion, what would the legal status of including mp3s on Wikipedia be? Thanks. Cool3 02:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, convert them to an open format?--Brad Patrick 15:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WUSTL images

Hello thanks for your message. I responded to you on the WUSTL talk page-- thank you for letting us know. I am replying here also.

Let's be sure to continue to distinguish between the seal and the shield.

Seal. I think we have agreed that we would not present the seal, in respect to WUSTL's request.
Shield. However, we have not seen the logic behind the shield request. WUSTL's internal guidelines stipulate that the shield cannot be displayed sperately from the text "Washington University in St. Louis." This makes perfect sense, since the shield alone is not recognizeable to everyone as an entity of WUSTL without the accompanying text. We argue that the shield, as displayed in the article infobox, is accompanied by the text "Washington University in St. Louis." We have not and do not intend to orphan the shield from the designation "Washington University in St. Louis." Therefore, since the image is not being abused and WUSTL is not being misrepresented, we argue that the shield falls under a "fair-use" designation.

We have not returned the shield to the WUSTL article yet, since we want to avoid the edit-warring that has taken place in the past. We await your update before proceeding. Kindly, Lmbstl 10:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WUSTL indicates they are willing to let the shield be used, if the image can be watermarked in some fashion to indicate it is trademarked. They are concerned that they will be seen as relinquishing control over their trademarked shield if they allow it. Concerns?--Brad Patrick 15:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't object at all to indicating that the image is trademarked. We have a test version of the infobox here on the WUSTL talk page. Upon mouseover, the following text is displayed: "The Shield of Washington University in St. Louis - ©Washington University in St. Louis." We do not wish in any way to misrepresent WUSTL's ownership of the image, and we commit to displaying the shield image only as long as it is clearly associated with the text "Washington University in St. Louis."

Does Wikipedia have any concerns displaying the image with such restrictions? Wikipedia certainly displays other corporate logotypes, albeit under a "fair-use" rationale. I think WUSTL's desire to indicate image ownership is reasonable. How can this be accomplished? Does Wikipedia have experience in the sort of "watermarking" WUSTL refers to? What category of use or copyright restriction would accompany the shield image? I assume this information would be displayed on the image description page?

Thanks for your help. --Lmbstl 10:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there seems to be no response about he image use. We returned it to the page, and CLyerla, who is the webmaster for WUSTL, is editing the WUSTL article again.

I am so tired of the edit-warring. Can we legally use the image? What is happening with the "watermarked" version WUSTL wants?

I left the following on CLyerla's talk page:

"You referred the shield issue to Wikipedia Legal and WUSTL Legal, correct? Until the issue gets resolved, please stop reverting the WUSTL article. We are open to communication, but you are not communicating, and it is obvious that everyone is stalling. Simply reverting the article won't do at this point."

Thanks,--Lmbstl 03:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ausmus

Hi. A googling of it will demonstrate that a number of sites suggest that brad ausmus was avon old farms player of the year. you suggest he was not. do you have a citation to support your thought? tx. --Epeefleche 20:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Whoops ... just looked at your comment. But isnt it just as possible that he also switched schools, with Brian? --Epeefleche 20:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I graduated with him from Cheshire High School Class of 1987, and we have known each other since we were children. I know I'm right, but what evidence do you think is necessary to show this is correct? Saying Google said it in a thousand places doesn't make it true, Dear User. Nor does it being on Wikipedia. What I will ask you is to show me where the original citation regarding Avon Old Farms is; I'm sure it isn't in any Astros material, it isn't in anything Ausmus ever said himself, and I'm positive in my own mind the answer is an overzealous correlation of Leech/Ausmus by someone who doesn't know where Connecticut is. But that doesn't answer your question. I'm reluctant to scan my yearbook pages over this. --Brad Patrick 20:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so important, and given your position I guess you deserve deference ... while at the same time I don't think that you are suggesting that in mirror circumstances anyone should, under Wiki policy, make such changes.--Epeefleche 23:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar discussion

Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals is considering a new Barnstar to be given to people who make great combined contributions to Wikipedia articles and the Commons free-use image collection. The current draft design for the barnstar incorporates the Wikipedia Commons logo. Please let us know if there is a problem with this usage. Thanks very much, Johntex\^talk 17:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spammer

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Chris_Rowe&diff=prev&oldid=110382418

Wiki eZach| talk 18:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce McMahan Article and Brad Patrick

Hi brad. Just throught I'd let you know that your name is mentioned in the last paragraph of the BM article now, as cited in the most recent Broward article. Thought you'd want to know.

Usernames with trademark names in

Hi Brad, I was wondering if you could clarify if there is an issue with having trademarks in usernames at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Issue with trademark policy. I'm mainly concerned that this has the potential to cause legal issues (not necessarily a direct concern) - especially if the trademarked username was adding potentially libelous material it may make the situation work. Your comments on the thread I've given you would be much appreciated RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Martin and User:Schmetterling

Just letting you know that I sent you and Jimbo an email on this situation. It needs attention ASAP as this user is threatening legal action. And since she is a lawyer, I'm pretty certain it's legitimate. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up.--04:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Images from Wikimania 2006

Brad you uploaded all of the photos at Commons:User:BradPatrick/gallery in 2006 stating that the images were taken by Gus Freedman. However, you tagged them with Template:Self and so asserted that you were the creator. What exactly went on with these images? Thanks in advance for clearing this up.--Nilf anion (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple - WMF hired Gus Freedman to take the photos at Wikimania as works for hire, licensed freely for WMF's use. He was the guy with the white beard running around taking pictures. WMF owns the images. WMF paid for them. Gus provided them. I uploaded them after he sent us a DVD. What are you getting at?--Brad Patrick 03:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just went back and looked at it again; see my edit history on Commons [1]. I think the tagging was pretty explicit.--Brad Patrick 03:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a not a big issue really; after all I'm 100% sure these images are free. The confusion comes from the fact that the license tag asserts that "I, the author of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:", when you personally are not the creator. The self template has the author= parameter for circumstances like this. Depending on the details of his contract, either {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5|author=Gus Freedman}} or {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5|author=The Wikimedia Foundation}} would make sense.--Nilf anion (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truthout

Is there a compelling reason that Truthout.org (complete with at least one grammatical error, no less!) is still protected to such an extreme degree? Jouster (whisper) 07:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soft protected. Go for it.--Brad Patrick 13:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Resignation

Hi Brad, I'm sorry to hear that you're leaving, and I'd like to thank you for all your work you've done for Wikipedia and the Foundation. I just wanted to let you know that I edited the WP:OFFICE page to let people know that you no longer represent the Foundation. If I'm wrong about this or too early please revert my edit. Thank you and good luck with your future endeavors! Jayden54 20:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little quick on the trigger finger there. I reverted it, and added my last day, March 31, 2007. Thanks for the kind words.--Brad Patrick 20:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, I remember our pleasant conversation in Rotterdam. Kudos for your commitment up till now and your intent to stay involved with Wikimedia's future as well. Will you attend WM07 Taipei? If so, I hope to talk to you there :-) Erik Zachte 23:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions, hope you stick around. As a side note you may wish to give up your admin rights as Danny as done, since they were given to you due to your former position, rather than election as most other admins. I would be more than happy to nominate you for RFA. -Ravedave 02:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you stick around after leaving the foundation, good editors are always welcome! To follow up on what Ravedave said, you may want to list your self for removal of permissions granted due to your foundation relationship at meta:. If you want to go "legit" you could get your RFA going before your resignation date, and not bother if you pass! Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. This is informational only, I am not calling for your resignation. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. On the one hand, I see your point (though I think it silly that Danny would have to be nominated as an Admin again; he's one of the greatest contributors in the history of the project - other positions, fine). On the other, I am prejudiced by not having had the luxury of doing a lot of editing given the nature of my work. The important benefit to adminship for me is being able to review deletion history - incredibly valuable to see what was going on in a particular situation. I don't do any blocking or reverting on a regular basis, and I obviously don't have any interest in WP:OFFICE once I'm gone. What do other people think? Do you trust me to be an admin, irrespective of edit count?--Brad Patrick 03:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine. Why go through an RfA formality — for the sakes of satisfying proceseseses per se? I wouldn't worry about it. El_C 03:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you were able to be trusted as WP:OFFICE staff, we certainly have been placing enough trust in you already that we can let you stay an admin. No need to bother. We don't force any of the other non-standard admins (like the ones appointed by mailing list after 5 people said they agreed) to go through RfA again, why force you? --tjstrf talk 03:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Danny does not need to go through RFA again. He is a former administrator and bureaucrat that did not leave under "controversial circumstances", as prescribed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano#Return of access levels, so if he desires the bits back, he just needs to request them to a bureaucrat. I don't see why the situation would be different here; Brad, you will not suddenly quantize to a different trust level, nor become less trustworthy on April 1. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, Everyone is less trustworthy on April 1st :P Colincbn 13:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#RFA for Brad?.--cj | talk 04:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, thanks for all your work here; I appreciate, from the little experience I have in OTRS (which measures to nothing comapred to the trouble you deal with), how frustrating it can be. I also apologise for my actions towards you back in August (which you may have forgotten :) ), which would have done nothing to make your work easier.

So, thanks for helping Wikipedia grow through applying your expertise for the Foundation. Anyone who cares about this encyclopedia will realise that your job was (is) paramount, and a lot of WMF's success is due to your unwavering actions. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 04:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to stir up a bees nest :) I just threw the idea out there. I think it's entirely up to you Brad, and actually I think going up for RFA might get the trolls all worked up. If I were you I would probably ask Jimbo, he seems to know whats best for WP most of the time. -Ravedave 05:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oy... No offence, Ravedave, but who actually cares? El_C 05:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to say don't bother, I'd certainly not calling for you to resign as an admin. However, you might want to go through the whole process just for sake of transparency and showing that you will stick closely to rules. On the other hand, you could feel it is a waste of time (for you, and for others) that will achieve little added benefit. So for which to do? Is up to you, based on which of the two sides of how it can be viewed that you most strongly agree with. Mathmo ^Talk 15:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is bad advice. Brad Patrick mustn't go on RFA, and especially not for reasons of "transparency" (well, at least, you'd have to explain how "transparency" is served here) , but especially not for reasons of sticking closely to the rules: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

And that's enough of that! --Kim Bruning 16:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, will you be giving a more detailed explanation as to why you left? I don't know about the rest of the community, but I'd be interested in hearing if there is more to it than the stuff in the news. Elijahmeeks 05:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, thanks for all your hard work for Wikipedia and WMF. Walkerma 06:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revived discussion concerning fair use in portals

I am contacting everyone who participated in the discussion that became inactive in December. Due to the length of the previous discussion, I have proposed a new amendment and you like you to weigh in so that we may actually have a consensus on this matter as it doesn't seem there exists one either way. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria

Disambig notice on Les Balsiger (activist)

Hello Mr. Patrick. Might I ask if you would please stop back by the Les Balsiger (activist) and reconsider your decision to leave a {{distinguish}} top link disambiguation notice for Les Balsiger (administrator)? I and another editor have expressed some concerns about this on the talk page, and I would greatly appreciate your thoughts. Thank you for your time, Satori Son 17:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]