User talk:Edcolins/Archive03

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

This archive page covers the dates between February 16, 2006 and January 17, 2007.

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/Archive04. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. --Edcolins 19:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Spamming

I wasn't sure who I should contact about someone spamming articles. The anon IP in question is 205.160.207.254 and it is tied to Ziff-Davis and was linking ZD sites for reviews to computer related articles, including the mice article and keyboard article.

Like I said I was not sure who to contact, so I guess I am trying to bring this to someone's attention and trying to find out who I should go to in the future. -Thebdj 01:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipatia?

Ed,

Ever give thought to using the methods of Wikipedia to improve patent examination? It seems to me that Wikipedia does a fairly good job at:

revealing a consensus opinion about a particular subject

recruiting volunteer efforts at researching a particular subject

neutralizing the efforts of an editor with undue POV

Perhaps we could harness this methodology to create open source type patent examination. If it provides useful information, examiner's will start using it as a resource.

I know that the USPTO and IBM et al. are looking at a comprehensive open source type method for improving patent examination, but I was thinking of something a little more grass roots.

Any builds on this idea?--Nowa 12:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Patent application/Patent prosecution articles

Hi. It seems to me that there is a bit of mess of patent articles at the moment, with significant overlap between them. I'm having a go at improving things, and have started with the Patent application and Patent prosecution articles. I have created a (very) rough outline of what I think should be in each of the articles at Patent application/temp and Patent prosecution/temp articles. I should be grateful for any comments, and even better editing, by yourself. As I said, they are only rough drafts that, at the very least, require signficant proof-reading before being done, but it seems like a good time to open out to a wider audience. Once these are done a number of the other patent law articles seem worthy of a significant rework to remove duplication. Kcordina ^Talk 12:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Your kindness

Just wanted to say thanks for your welcome to the Wikipedia community. I started with concerns over the omission of a significant figure in ballooning and will try to stay attached to Wiki in areas where I have sure knowledge and experience. Remarkably the reason that a certain individual wasn't mentioned in various articles (and reflected in Wiki pages) was that he had to sign a contract that stated that his (absolutley crucial and central) contribution in ballooning record flights, could be, in effect, air-brushed out for the sponsor's glory. This was applied even to the extent that the sponsor (I am avoiding names here!) was to be credited as sole "pilot" under circumstances where he had none of the requisite skills, and had he really been the pilot, he would now be the late xxxxx xxxxx! What I have posted is as close as I can get to a fair and honest report of the real contributions without provocation to all the parties. As they say history is mostly written by the victors, but it makes me upset to think that it can often also be written by the rich (or probably more accurately, their acolytes).

Anyway thanks again for your very encouraging thanks and your own efforts and contributions. It certainly makes me feel a part of something that, so far, I have found to be a wonderfully noble enterprise. poshpic 13:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Patent Royalties

Ed, I added a bit of background on patent royalties to Royalties. Care to add / amend anything?--Nowa 23:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

requesting review

hello,

i understand that all three links i added were to articles written by me but I request you to check the links..

http://www.easternbrain.com/2005/12/26/intellectual-property-rights-in-mergers-and-acquisitions http://www.easternbrain.com/2005/12/17/intellectual-property-valuation-issues-in-mergers-and-acquisitions/

these might be helpful for people looking for more info on the subjects as they are very briefy covered in the intellectual property page here.

Best Regards, Vishnu

New patents page?

Hi. Please take a look at Talk:Patent#Legal concepts of patents article? and offer any thoughts. Kcordina ^Talk 08:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

Ed, Aren't publications by the European Union available for upload to Wikipedia? I put the US govt publication tag in because that seemed to be the best option of those available. --Nowa 20:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:cease and desist

No need to delete the history... though I'm not really sure the point of keeping it. I don't think anything said rises to the level of disparagement or any similar tort. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 11:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

software patent

Ed, It seems to me that software patent needs some major cleanup. I noticed you've worked on it in the past. Any suggestions?--Nowa 02:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Kamil Idris

It was a mistake. Sorry about that. Rkevins82 17:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar!

➨ ЯЄDVERS awards this Barnstar to Edcolins for cleaning up of and general maintenance on forgotten articles, thus improving Wikipedia.

Raymond Devos

Dear Ed. I'm assuming you haven't even read the extra articles I referenced. For instance, in [1] you will find this interesting paragraph.

"Raymond Devos était né en Belgique en 1922 - une année seulement après Georges Brassens, autre magicien des mots qui jouissait un peu de la même cote d'amour du public et des amoureux du langage. Et donc, malgré sa nationalité française, la mention «belge» est restée pour toujours dans les bios et les dictionnaires: «En fait, nous disait-il lors d'une interview en 1994 à Paris, je suis quand même un faux Belge.»"

If you need translation the respected journalist from La Presse specifically adresses the question and specifically quotes Devos himself as saying "I'm still something like a fake Belgian".

I have a hard time trusting your good faith on this one. Pascal.Tesson 23:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. In fact, I owe you one myself. I got a bit carried away. Pascal.Tesson 12:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Deletion

What is the problem with the image deroeck_degucht.jpg? It is a self-made image, with all rights released. It shows Vincent De Roeck together with Karel De Gucht, two politicians of the same party VLD and sharing some viewpoints.

What is vane about this? The picture is not photoshopped or whatsoever. I believe the only "vanity" in this matter is your vane arrogance of deleting this image.

- July 2nd, 2006, 15:35 (GMT+1) by Evert Gruyaert, chairman Liberal Students Association, aka User:Berchemboy.

Welcome

Dear Edcolins,

Thank you for the warm welcome! I'll make use of your offer and come back to you for further questions.

Kind regards,

--Wahnfried 06:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Patents article

Rationale for EPO, PCT, and territoriality disucsson on the Patents discussion page, and a rationale explaining that these can literally be million dollar issues. Let's figure out what your objection is, and then we'll work from there. User:Boundlessly

Coexistence of EP and national patents

This is definitely going the right direction.

Could you please FAX a copy of "Singer/Stauder, The European Patent Convention, A Commentary, Munich, 2003, under Article 2" to +1 212 728 9757, or email an image to DBoundy@Willkie.com. Thanks User:Boundlessly

Thanks and two suggestions: Patent Act and Plant Patent Act

Hi Edcolins,

I really appreciate your help on the Plant Variety Protection Act article and your encouraging note with all those helpful links. . Two substantive suggestions follow:

1. The Plant Patent Act really deserves more than a stub. People constantly use the phrase "plant patent" to refer generally to either the Plant Patent Act or the Plant Variety Protection Act, even though the two statutes have zero overlap.

2. The United States Patent Act -- yes, the Patent Act -- does not appear to have its own article. Not even a stub. The article on patents is helpful, but it has a global audience and a scope that necessarily extends beyond the U.S. Patent Act.

Thanks again for your help.

--Chenx064 06:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, Edcolins. I can take a shot at the Plant Patent Act article, since it is a modest extension of my work on the Plant Variety Protection Act. But I am a full-time legal academic and need to finish some projects outside Wikipedia's space. Sometime in August, I project.

I'll try to convince people I know to take a shot at United States patent law.

Best regards, --Chenx064 05:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Patent System Weaknesses

Ed, Do you have anything to add to this section Talk:Patent_troll#Weaknesses_in_the_patent_system_leading_to_...? Should there be some presentation of current thinking about systemic problems in the patent system that encourage patent troll behavior? Is there a way to modify the language so that it is less offensive? --Nowa 20:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

European patent law / European patent Convention

Ed - these two articles had grown largely redundant, so I combined most of the work we did on European patent law into European patent convention and left behind a link. Could you double check that it's still right? I did not intentionally remove anything - but as an American lawyer, I may not have recognized the importance of something that I thought was two redundant statements of the same thing.

Also, this footnote bothers me - Singer/Stauder, The European Patent Convention, A Commentary, Munich, 2003, under Article 2 The view that a European patent issues as independent national patents in each designated Contracting state is very convenient from a practical point of view. Some however consider this view as incorrect: "The view that, after grant, a European patent breaks up into a bundle of national patents in designated Contracting States may appear plausible, but it is incorrect both in law and systematically". Can you look in Singer/Stauder and see if they identify anything that the national daughter patents share (besides the number)? If there's nothing tying them together, why do they say that "breaking up" is "incorrect?"

Thanks User:Boundlessly

La Libre Belgique

Hello Ed, and thank you for improving the style of the article. It reads much better now. RedZebra 21:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Egmont pact

I saw you created the redirect Pacte d'Egmond.

I took the liberty to create the redirect Pacte d'Egmont... ;-)

--LucVerhelst 12:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Egmont Palace : hint received... --LucVerhelst 13:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

(And thanks for cleaning up my "mess" in Egmont pact. --LucVerhelst 13:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC))

Hola

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is given to recognize particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia, and to let you know that your hard work is seen and appreciated. evrik 23:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

EPC

Your Revision as of 15:19, 7 August 2006, moving the list of authoritative texts to "external links" - can I suggest that you back that change out? The body of the article made pretty clear "Here are the documents that together have force of law to define the EPC, and that are integral to the treaty." Moving the list to "external links" suggests that this list is in the same class as the other links, "further reading for fun, but not authoritative." This deemphasizes a really critical notion, that these sources are integral to the treaty, and togheter consititute the universe of sources that you have to consult to get the answer, and once you've looked at all of them, you know.

Remember how the law works - you have to find all the statments made by those who hold offices that gives them the power to pronounce what the law is (and ignore all the riff-raff who don't, like treatises :-), and you don't really know what the law is until you've looked at all of them. The old structure helped accomplish that, and the new one is a bit more diluted.

As always, I'm just a U.S. lawyer, and I'm not licensed to have an opinion on this. Think about it, use your judgment. Thanks

Welcome

Thanks for the kind welcome. Abc def 21:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Thank you for the kind welcome! I have just started law school, with an interest in intellectual Property. I suspect that we will be bumping into each other often! Branciforte3241 19:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

European Patent Convention

Hi Ed - be REAL careful in "cleaning up." For example, in "cleaning up" European Patent Convention, you removed the enumeration of Art. 53(2)(a) (b)(c)(d) classes of subject matter that are "not considered inventions" and moved other bullet items into their place. The result is simply wrong. Do you want to fix it? (As a reader, I want to know what the enumerated categories of "not consideed inventions" are - they're really important to my clients, so I think they should be restored. As you recall, I am extremely skeptical of any removal of genuine information.) Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.138.184 (talk • contribs)

Re: Alexander I. Poltorak

The article Alexander I. Poltorak was an exact duplicate — and therefore falling under WP:COPYVIO — from http://www.patentclaim.com/About_Us/Poltorak.htm .

It was created at 01:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC) and deleted at 10:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC). It therefore falls under speedy deletion criteria A8. In keeping with process, the creator was notified (by you).

While the creator asserts that he/she has permission ("I have direct permission"), I don't find that this statement is insufficient to have the material remain. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, which guidance on what is needed to confirm permission.

• "If there is a claim [of permission or ownership], ask the claimant on the article talk page or their user talk page to alter the website to indicate that use is permitted under the GFDL, or they may also contact the Wikimedia Foundation from an associated e-mail or postal address to release it. For further information, see the introduction to Wikipedia:Copyright problems and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.

However, it is my suggestion that for a biography, it is a good idea have it re-written, not just a copy and paste.

• "Replace the article's text with new (re-written) content of your own" — Copyright problems' page.

As you noted in your message to the article creator:

"..if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Alexander I. Poltorak. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Alexander I. Poltorak, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia."

I'll leave an abbreviated version of this note on the talk page.

— ERcheck (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you feel that, with appropriate permission, restoration is appropriate? Or, as suggested in the template note above, with proper release, should the creator can simply reenter content? — ERcheck (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Belgians

Well, when I close, I look at three things: (1) is there is clear consenus (2) the raw "vote" totals (3) the relative strength of the arguments. In this case, there was no consensus. The vote was even. Therefor I would tend to close with no consensus, but before doing that I would try to evaluate the arguments. For instance, if a vote is 7-7 but all the Delete comments are "nn, delete" but the Keep commentators make cogent and convincing arguments, I would close as Keep, notwithstanding the "vote". In this case, it was my opinion that the Delete commentors made the stronger arguments, granting that my evaluation may of course be wrong. My reading is that the argument that categories are more maintable than lists is quite a strong point. However, on re-reading the arguments, I do agree that the arguments in favor of Keep are also reasonably strong, that I did perhaps err, therefor I will change my comment as you suggested. Herostratus 12:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for wasting my time

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LochVoil

Instead of messaging me to change a portion of the text in my article you delete my entire article thus flushing the 30 mins I spent creating it?

Furthermore referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Articles , which you might want to re-read, particularly:

"Also, please note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation. Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets; it would also be considerate to notify the original author — remember, everyone was new once."

"When tagging a page for deletion under this criterion, a user should notify the page's creator using wording similar to {{Nothanks-sd}} or an equivalent message. Before deleting any page under this criterion, an admin should verify that the page creator has been notified — if not, the admin should do so." —Preceding unsigned comment added by LochVoil (talk • contribs)

It is restored now... --Edcolins 13:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for resolving this issue quickly and amicably LochVoil 13:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Just thought I'd say thanks for adding patents to Template:IPL-EU. Ever since I renamed it to "Intellectual property...." I had every intention of adding patents as well as trademarks, but just kept thinking "Ugh! I'll do it later... or tomorrow or something. I'm just not in the mood to do it now". So thanks for doing it! - ^Рэд_хот 13:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the European Union patent law is probably a good idea. I'm not so sure about the Romanian thing though. Has Romania fully implemented the EU copyright directive? (I know some EU members haven't, but as they're already memebers, they should be included anyway) - ^Рэд_хот 14:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The other reason I'm not so keen on putting in Romania is that most other templates to do with the EU, don't (there are a few, such as the one for members, but most don't). - ^Рэд_хот 14:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I think a stub would be easy to create. I've done that now, but it mostly makes reference to the relevant directives. So wherever you noted your request for its creation, you might want to change it to a request for expansion. - ^Рэд_хот 15:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirect for deletion

The redirect you created H.R. 2795, the Patent Reform Act of 2005 has been proposed for deletion. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 September 12. Not sure why anyone would bother, or why they wouldn't inform you ... Nfitz 03:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Footnotes and style

you asked on my Talk page -

Please see Wikipedia:Help desk#Footnotes and style. Does this correctly reflect your opinion? --Edcolins 10:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this question is too unfocused to permit an answer. The "Footnotes and Style" page states some things to agree with, some to disagree with, and soem that are perfectly resonable in some contextas and not in others - agreement or disagreement with the page would be very context-dependent. Can you ask another question?

I note also the exchange you had with LochVoil - I thought the issue of deleting others' contributions was resolved... Boundlessly 18:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Splitting copyright infringement to piracy (information)

It appears that the mess regarding articles discussing information piracy was much more extensive than I'd suspected, most related topics (RIAA, Bittorrent, copyright infringement of software, etc.) have lengthy discussions of pros, cons and lawsuits that in my opinion should be merged into one comprehensive article. As you have taken an interest in this issue in the past, I thought that you might want to weigh in on the discussion, even though you didn't agree with my original proposal to split the article. I would appreciate your feedback, even if it's just to say that you've never heard a more moronic idea in your life. --IntrigueBlue 06:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Patent Attorney / Notable Blogs

Thanks for your message --

WP:EL suggests creating a category in DMOZ and linking to that. Since this is an encyclopedia, I believe this article is not so much supposed to be a resource page for patent attorneys (or patent law), as it is a page about the patent attorney/agent profession -- so the blogs included would have to be very specific, mainly providing information about the profession. Most of the blogs had to do with patent law news or general IP issues.

Feel free to add thoughs to the discussion I proposed a while ago on the talk page [2] that nobody responded to...

Best, Emcee 16:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

Hey Ed, Looks like you've been busy. Nice work!--Nowa 22:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

horsefrog on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of horsefrog. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 221.242.210.242 13:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Keurig

Responding to the ""simple to use": who said that? does it come from a survey?)" comment, it was me. I'll take full blame for that. I have one of the machines at my work and it seems pretty much idiot-proof; You put your cup under the machine, open the tray, insert a k-cup, close the tray and push a button. However, that's probably OR on my part that it's easy. I'll see if I can dig up a ref for it. EvilCouch 18:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Good edit. It looks cleaner now. Thanks. EvilCouch 10:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

merge??

You added merge tags to Lab notebook and Inventor's notebook. However you didn't leave a comment on either discussion page suggesting why you wanted these articles merged. You didn't even leave a comment on either discussion page noting that you had proposed a merge, or date the merge tags. Could you please return to the articles in question and finish your merge proposal? TStein 13:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Belgian Ignorance

I'm Belgian as well (Flemish) and I read with much interest your notes in Talk:Leopold_II_of_Belgium#Belgian ignorance because it conveys exactly the same feelings I've had about my past education (only a few years ago, as I'm 23 now) ever since I started reading up on the Rwanda genocide. I was in school up to the year 2001, so that means there is a time span of 7 years of history classes in which the opportunity existed to teach us about what happened in Rwanda, and what the role and historic context of the Belgians there was. Not a word about it was said, and I had several teachers in those years. The consequence is that most people my age don't know what the Rwanda genocide is about, and what Belgium's role in it was. The same goes for the history of the Congo. A few months ago, I walked with some friends past a shop in which they sold a buste of Leopold II. I jokingly told my friends that I wondered if they had bustes of Hitler and Stalin as well. Most didn't understand what I was saying. I find it hard to believe there is any deliberate censorship, but I do wonder what is going on here. Wouter Lievens 09:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:BITE

You tagged a noob's article for deletion without telling him anything about rules etc etc. That is WP:BITE and discrge new users from contributing. frummer 06:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

thank you for taking my point, i tried to put it as nicely as pos so as not to fall in to WP:BITE myself. I think wikipedians need to know more about it. I'm starting a Union of Soft-Spoken Wikipedians soon. frummer 19:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Bundle for deletion - Category:Law firms in Israel

I am planning to nominate all law firms of Category:Law firms in Israel for deletion, as a bundle. They are all failing WP:CORP, in the same way. Since you have been involved in similar cases, would you see this as a good idea? Thanks. --Edcolins 23:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I do. I only nominated the firms that were given in the initial AfD that I noticed for Z&Z (forget the name now). I have read all of the other stubs and it appears they were all boilerplate additions by Elite compact (talk · contribs) as inappropriate stub creations. I would support a deletion of the entire category as the articles now stand. ju66l3r 00:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

User: Dell purely you

Can you mabye try and get this guy banned. I saw him restart a new nickname and I suspect he is using two or three differnet ones. He just blaned a entire page. JFBurton 16:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Im not sure, but I was watching Recent Changes a few minutes before he started blanking pages, so I imagine he changed his nickname. Any luck with him? JFBurton 16:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

cleaning up Israeli law firms

You crusade with Israeli law forms is on one hand somewhat valid, and on the other hand suspect of alterior motives. Please show some sincerity and continue the cleanup with all disputable law firms stubs. --Shuki 21:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is up to each of us to decide what we choose to work on within wikipedia. Each cleanup/deletion should be done on the content of each separate article. This is the basis of assuming good faith. I have been watching and discussing Edcolins' suggested deletions and have agreed with all of them on the basis of the article alone. There is no suspicious editing, which would suggest that he is motivated to wipe Israeli law firms off wikipedia whether they warrant it or not. ju66l3r 17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin Noticeboard comments on this subject

You may want to read and respond at this discussion on the Admin Incident Noticeboard. There is a concern from Oakshade (talk · contribs) that your Israeli law firm edits may be based on anti-Semitism or anti-Israeli PoV. Although he did not alert you to his concerns before bringing it to the attention of the administrators, I figured you should know that it has been brought up so that you can contribute in that discussion. ju66l3r 02:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)