User talk:Edcolins/Archive09

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers the dates between October 25, 2011 – June 20, 2013.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to User talk:Edcolins/Archive10. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. --Edcolins (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

block threats....

You're the admin, not me, so I'm sure you know better than me... but I'm wondering if you don't want to soften up the threats to block anyone making COI threats, right? I mean, only because you're pretty heavily invested in the article in question. I just don't want anyone to be able to accuse you of using the mop to clean up an article on which you've spent a lot of time. Maybe a disinterested admin should be called in to straighten things out a bit. Just my thoughts. I'm often wrong. :) Wikipelli ^Talk 21:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipelli, alleging that somebody has a COI to harass an editor and to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is inadmissible. Being firm is the right approach. And it does not matter whether I have been involved in editing the article, I am only interested in improving the article per WP:BLP. Should I be disinterested to the point of not wanting to improve the article? User:Nowa asked for help in a related article (see here) and I came... But of course I would be happy to see more admins contributing to the article. --Edcolins (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree. As I said, I was only concerned that it might leave you open to accusations as well. It's all good. Cheers! :) Wikipelli ^Talk 17:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Template bug?

Ed: Where do I report a suspected template bug? Somehow my name got put in a signature line of a welcome template posted by another editor. I tried various ways to remove it and none worked. User_talk:KSRolph#Welcome--Nowa (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism vs. "societal views"

Please stop doing this. NPOV#naming is not talking about fudging the name of a section or article about criticism to make it sound like it isn't criticism. If the subject of the article or section is criticism of something, then it is NPOV to hide that fact to make it sound like it is a balanced view and not a criticism! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I replied on the talk page. --Edcolins (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Novelty and non-obviousness in Canadian patent law

Hi Edcolins,

I did a go-through of Novelty and non-obviousness in Canadian patent law to try to make it more encyclopedic - can you take a look when you have a chance? Hoping to get the notice removed! If it's still sounding personal, some input into what changes I can try out to improve the article would be most appreciated.

Cdlangan (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Presumption of validity; utility in patent law in Canada

Hi Edcolins,

I'm the guy who created the Presumption of validity; utility in patent law in Canada page, and I absolutely agree that it should be split. The reason I created it that way was because of how the course that I wrote it for is set up. I'm not sure that the professor will locate the entries if the original page is deleted, so please don't get rid of it until January. After that, go for it. There are actually a couple of articles that were written for that class that could be split in January. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleemabdulla (talk 01:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Veterans Fast for Life

with thanks from the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC) You're welcome - hopefully you will have more than 40 hits tomorrow Victuallers (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:Wahnfried

User talk:Wahnfried, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Wahnfried and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Wahnfried during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ♪♫19maxx♪♫ 22:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Edcolins,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup invitation

I've formatted the WikiProject Cleanup page to include members for those that are interested in joining, similar to how other projects have members. Since you've contributed relatively recently to the project's list page, I formally extend this invitation to join WikiProject Cleanup! I've also created a userbox template for members to use on their user pages. Thank you for your contributions to help improve Wikipedia! Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Orange-Book-Standard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Standards (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. When you recently edited Glossary of patent legal concepts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CEMA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

About Author’s Certificate

Dear Edcolins, please try do not re-cut of the USSR history. Author’s Certificate was law act of the USSR. Now it is history. If you would like to participate on the subject of Wiki that will try to study it from Official Large Soviet Encyclopaedia, see http://bse.sci-lib.com/article097541.html and also terminologies of Academy Science of Russia, see http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/econ_dict/2506

Thanks, Inventcreat (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Translation

Seems okay to me, not too literal but the meaning comes across well. (: Auree ^★★ 17:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for picking that up! Cheers, Auree ^★★ 17:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dead link in article 'Hugh Laddie'

Hi. The article 'Hugh Laddie' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?

Dead: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/john-walsh/john-walsh-tales-of-the-city-496184.html

• You added this in December 2008.
• The bot tested this link on 8 April, 10 April, 12 April and today, but it never worked.
• The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

This link is marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots |deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I'll follow this up with the script manager. Thanks for picking up the error and fixing it, Ed. Tony (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Anton Piller Order

Hi Edcolins! Thank you so much for the positive feedback. I will try to find a complete quote from Lock International PLC v Besick. It's a case we were taught during a lecture, so I do not have a copy of the case, but just a point in my lecture notes. But I will try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashinividana (talk • contribs) 03:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

International Patent Institute

Dear EdColins, thank you for your "talk" Most of the information about the IIB, what I added to the page "International Patent Institute", was derived from old EPO Gazettes (I work for the EPO and was witness of the change from IIB to EPO in 1978). This is the reason why I feel, that "my info" should also be added to the page. Shall I put that information (about the Gazettes) underneath the text too? You can believe that all of the information I added to the page is true and in my opinion from historical interest for the WikipediA and the public :-).

Your opinion please, Best greetings for now,

Frits Bruls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frits Bruls (talk • contribs) 06:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
No Sorry Ed, those "EPO Gazettes" are indoor publications (european-patent-office staff magazines) and are not at display in the web as far as I know :-(. Anyway, if WikipediA is of the opinion that publication of "my text" cannot be supported, well then, never mind.
Thank you kindly for your answers (and work) on this! Best regards, Frits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frits Bruls (talk • contribs) 09:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Re.:Bot

Well, That's not a problem.....

The user added កម្មសិទ្ធិ​បញ្ញា , which is a wrong interwiki, you can check here. Look at the URL bar,and there is a "%E2%80%8B" for me. As there is no other links to km, the bot thought it is crazy and deleted it........ Then, the user added កម្មសិទ្ធិបញ្ញា, and there is a little difference, at least that's all block in URL bar for my Firefox now.....here, so it is a correct one and that's it. And Xqbot find it later and fix the arrangement. I hope this help, and thanks for noticing me.....(ha...I always face these unicode problems.....)--Justincheng12345 (talk) (urgent news here) 10:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Enderby (rock band)

Hi Edcolins. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enderby (rock band). Do you have any sources for this article? I'm sorry to report I've had no luck at all when I searched for sources. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

About Author’s Certificate

Could you give your attention to this correct article about Author’s Certificate? For example, you can look through official article from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (see, please, article Author’s Certificate). Yours interpretation of the term Author’s Certificate in the Glossary of patent law terms is not a real understanding of the term. Author’s Certificate and Inventor's certificate are not the same form. You showed the correct source but you have made a mistake in your interpretation. If some similar sings are in a different formulation or meanings it is not that those different formulations are exactly the same. So Patent Department USSR gives an Author’s Certificate but an Inventor’s Certificate was from the local Inventor’s Community. User:Inventcreat - 194.61.162.6 (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You could create an article entitled "Author’s certificate in the Soviet Union" or "Author’s certificate in Russia and the Soviet Union" since it seems author's certificates were available elsewhere as well. Would you know any reliable, English-language sources? If not, please provide a translation of the relevant passage(s) of the sources you use, so that anyone can verify the sources (Wikipedia:Verifiability). Let's start with this, and then we could change or improve the definition in the glossary (Glossary of patent law terms). Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

DataTreasury

Assuming you don't mind being accused of having a conflict of interests again, perhaps you'd like to take a look at DataTreasury. GDallimore (Talk) 16:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

thanks!

thanks for your kind words about the patent article.Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

IPExchange

I saw your you listed on the iBridge entry. How about stating an entry for IPExchange? Steven McIntire ALLEN 01:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcintireallen (talk • contribs)

Teresa Stanek Rea

Holy crap, did I really type "0n" for "On"? I guess I did. Thanks for the correction. TJRC (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Micro Entity Status

Thank you for the CFR and Fed Register references. These changes to the law have not yet appeared in the MPEP, but since they soon will be, I added this to the Wiki articles. Greensburger (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

In response to your suggetion: "Perhaps, we should simply have an article named Large and small entities in patent law to discuss all these "schemes". What do you think?"

If you want to write such an article, I have no objection. But I will not write it. Greensburger (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

EPLA and UPC

Hello. As the discussion I initiated about a possible merging between the two pages has arguably been inconclusive, but me and you are the only parties clearly taking a position for and against it, I am not sure about the right way to proceed.

Even if the two articles are not merged, the EPLA article has to be modified in some aspects. It should crosslink to the UPC and the reference reading "See references in section "History"." should be replaced with the actual references supporting this. I believe you don't disagree with these two issues, at least. I don't mean that after reading this, you must (or you should not) go and address these issues. It is not a very good solution if the EPLA article is maintained by only you.

Another issue, on which you probably will not as easily agree on is the stance of the EU towards EPLA. This should also be addressed in the EPLA article if it is not merged, as now it's a bit POV. I mean the EU, perhaps, did not support the EPLA or viewed it as unlawful, but, it did not also sabotaged it (actively or passively). And, it was indeed judged to be incompatible with the EU laws. However, it wasn't rejected without consideration or abandoned at all. It was brought before the European parliament, it was mentioned in the EU public consideration process and it was used as a work basis for the EU process that led to UPC.

A problem here is that the whole process for a common court and a common patent has not been exactly linear. The EU mechanisms have affected the EPO processes and vice versa, at different times. For example, the EPO stopped the EPLA working group waiting for developments in the EU common patent regulations, while the EU used the EPLA as a basis for the UPC. (These points are sourced in the UPC talk page.)

The main issue at hand is that the EPLA is losing ground to the UPC, as it's a draft versus a will-be-implemented agreement. I searched for "European patent court" and "European patent litigation" on Google and this is pretty evident. It's also evident by the fact that most of the sub-sites the EPLA article linked to have quite died, while new sub-sites have been created on the same main sites for the UPC.

Basically, I argue that, if not merged, the EPLA article needs to be restructured and cleaned up, in general.

However, I do know that the EPLA was an EPO and not an EU initiative, and as a draft had the same _target membership (all EPO members) as the draft UPC, which is not the same one that the signed UPC has (all EU members).

Therefore, I would suggest we open an RFC or use some other process to raise community awareness on these articles and get more feedback on them. The two topics I would like to address are: 1. possible merge, 2. if not merged, improvement on the EPLA article.

I do recognise that the merge argument is inconclusive at present and I do not wish to add more arguments on it other than the ones I have already made. I would however want more feedback on the issue. I hope we can agree on some form of neutral mediation. Heracletus (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. I don't think asking for a third opinion is the right way to proceed, as it would only involve a third person and not more people. And, arguably, we have had a few third opinions, which were mostly neutral on the issue. Also, I could accept that at present the merge proposal is inconclusive and thus (for now at least) a "no", but, I would like more community input on how to proceed with the two articles and their relation.

As the UPC is outside the EU framework, one could argue that all EU websites on it are secondary sources, if you decide to push it. However, my argument was not about secondary sources missing from EPLA (although, that argument has been made -not by me- and somehow addressed by you), it was about three other things (crosslinking, a ref reading "read the other ref's", POV on EU stance). I'm not into doing original research, but, as one can read on the EU material, it is often stated that the EPLA was taken into consideration for the UPC drafts. Obviously, when something is recent, most links tend to be news releases, rather than scholarly articles. I don't think that you can really argue about that, because it would mean most articles about recent events shouldn't exist or be sourced. But, I don't understand why you addressed a possible issue about sources, while I argued about different things.

I didn't mean to accuse you of trying to own the EPLA article, but, it's obvious you're the one mostly maintaining it.

Also, if I have to state this, "as to the merge proposal, I support the merge per these reasons."

Generally, I would want more community input on how to structure in a better way both articles and address their relation. So, I would propose an RFC in general for the two articles, not only about a possible merger. That is because, through our discussion so far, I have identified a number of issues on which we disagree, such as the stance of the EU regarding the EPLA, and which I believe will lead into an edit war, should I edit the article accordingly. Therefore, I proposed an RFC to address all issues. Heracletus (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I did not mind your taking two weeks to reply so much as the fact that you replied there while we were also talking on our own talk pages, making me miss your reply there for some time. I'm happy with the current state of the two articles regarding their relation. After all, a third opinion, that of L.tak, proved enough. Heracletus (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Roba for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roba is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roba until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• controversy," especially for [[historians of science]].<ref name="Kowalski">{{cite web |title=180) Preserving Cold Fusion Documents |last=Kowalski |first=Ludwik |authorlink=Ludwik Kowalski |

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)