Talk:Coalition for Patent Fairness
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Speedy Deletion
[edit]I am in the process of substantially modifying this page. Please give it a day or two and then judge.--Nowa (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Based on your creation of the page, it appears your ultimate goal is to disparage the Coalition for Patent Fairness. While I agree to some extent (personally) with the views you expressed, Wikipedia is not the place to express them. The article must be written in a completely neutral manner to merely identify the subject matter and discuss their notablility. If that's not your intent, and you instead want to use the article as a way show people that the CPF are a bunch of buffoons...you're probably better off just letting the article be deleted. Gromlakh (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you saying that Wikipedia should not have an article on CPF?--Nowa (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, I'm not saying that at all. In its current (revised) form, I'm not sure there's enough there for it to really be kept. Speedy deletion was declined because it's no longer an attack page, but that doesn't mean it would necessarily pass an AfD at this point (even though the group probably is notable enough to merit an entry if done properly). It would have to be expanded. My point was simply that you need to ask yourself if you're really the person to do that. If you can expand the page with pertinent information in a neutral, non-attacking manner, then that would be excellent. If your feelings are too strong on the issue and you will not be able to approach it neutrally for inclusion, then you're not the person who should be working on this article. Gromlakh (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- If there is anything about CPF that you feel should be included, I welcome your additions.--Nowa (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, I'm not saying that at all. In its current (revised) form, I'm not sure there's enough there for it to really be kept. Speedy deletion was declined because it's no longer an attack page, but that doesn't mean it would necessarily pass an AfD at this point (even though the group probably is notable enough to merit an entry if done properly). It would have to be expanded. My point was simply that you need to ask yourself if you're really the person to do that. If you can expand the page with pertinent information in a neutral, non-attacking manner, then that would be excellent. If your feelings are too strong on the issue and you will not be able to approach it neutrally for inclusion, then you're not the person who should be working on this article. Gromlakh (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you saying that Wikipedia should not have an article on CPF?--Nowa (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe the article no longer contains any defamatory information.--Nowa (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, you moved it to the talk page, which isn't any better and is still defamatory. I've removed it for that reason. Gromlakh (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough.--Nowa (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Coalition for Patent Fairness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080210181015/http://www.patentfairness.org/about_the_coalition/who_we_are.cfm to http://www.patentfairness.org/about_the_coalition/who_we_are.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)