User talk:Edcolins/Archive11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

This archive page covers the dates between February 23, 2015 – December 28, 2015.

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/Archive12. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. --Edcolins (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Competitiveness Council[edit]

The article Competitiveness Council has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Supposed disambiguation page. Its contents cannot be reasonably confused (all the names differ substantially from each other) - hatnotes on respective articles should be more than sufficient. Deletion proposed to make way for a move of Competitiveness Council (COMPET).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. kashmiri TALK 16:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Local knowledge listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Local knowledge. Since you had some involvement with the Local knowledge redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Borgesian[edit]

Hi! I never read Borges, so I'm curious, why is Wikipedia a Borgesian project? Pikolas (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a fascinating userpage! I also love this idea behind Wikipedia, but I would dispute that it would ever reach a limit, because new encyclopedic-worthy things are constantly happening around the world, and also our notability requirements could change over time. Pikolas (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exhaustion doctrine[edit]

Could you go to the end of the international exhaustion section of this article and burnish the UK and EU material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PraeceptorIP (talk • contribs) PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help to resolve an issue[edit]

Hi,

I had approached you via email as well regarding this matter. Request you to please help me resolve the issue, or guide me to someone who can help.

My talk page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NupurPathak will explain in detail the whole situation.

I really need someone's help in resolving this issue.

regards,

NupurPathak (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US Patent Law[edit]

Good edits on United States patent law. Thank you. That page still needs LOTS of work, in my opinion. Teachingaway (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, there is still room for improvement. I agree... --Edcolins (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop undoing my revisions to the Joshua Hoffman page[edit]

I have added references to support the information in the Personal Life section. Look and see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.35.99.44 (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it cannot be verified that he "is married to Ruth Hoffman" and "has two grown sons". The links are missing, I am afraid. --Edcolins (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patent Attorney[edit]

Hi Ed, thank you for reviewing. I'm a registered patent agent. There have been no changes to the exam format. Finding a reference in this case defeats the purpose of co-creation or user generated content (UGC), or collaborative crowdsourcing, which is the whole point of Wikipedia. If you still like some verification, I can try to dig up a page from the US Patent Office. let me know.

Best, Hemant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.179.137.228 (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant, thanks for your message. Yes, it would be great to find a source for that statement: "An unofficial score of 70% indicates a passing grade on the exam." See WP:UNSOURCED. --Edcolins (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a source to verify unofficial score[edit]

Hi Ed, thank you for your suggestion. I've now added a link to a US Patent Office page to verify the "unofficial" score.

Best, Hemant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemantphd (talk • contribs) 17:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! I was confused by the term "unofficial"... But now I see what you mean. It is unofficial in the sense that only 90 % of the 100 questions are taken into account. I have added a note to clarify this. --Edcolins (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes, refs[edit]

What's the difference between a note and a ref? How do you code for a note? PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UK, EU, Neth., Fr. - Exhaustion doctrine[edit]

There is a tag at the top of Exhaustion doctrine that says not enough non-US law. I supplied some Canadian and German. Do you think you could enlist a UK Wikipedian to provide a subhead on UK law? How about French, EU, Neth., etc.? -- PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed the article on which you worked "Exhaustion doctrine under U.S. law", so that the (ugly) tag on the top could be removed. I have also started "Exhaustion of intellectual property rights" to present a general overview of the concept, from a global point of view. This appeared to be the most practical way to proceed, considering the detailed information about U.S. law in Exhaustion doctrine under U.S. law. --Edcolins (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Connan[edit]

Why did you send me a prod notification for Caroline Connan? I did not create the article. Wgolf (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse[edit]

Could you please take a look at the Talk page of patent misuse. PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Ange Faugerolas[edit]

Hi Edcolins,

Why did you try to delete the Marie-Ange Faugerolas page? can we fix this?

(Geothebg (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Your proposed deletion of the Article "Hong Kong Chinese Patent Attorney Association" due to the reason "non-notable org."[edit]

I realize that you have proposed the deletion of the Article "Hong Kong Chinese Patent Attorney Association" due to the reason "non-notable org." Please note that this association is NOT non-notable. I don't know if you read Chinese, if you do please read: "http://www.ipd.gov.hk/chi/promotion_edu/20150818/FHKI_Flyer.pdf"

This site enlists the Association (aka ACPAA HKMA/Hong Kong Members Association) as a supporting org for patent training courses organized by HKFI and HKAR government (HKIPD).

This association is of course new because there were not many Chinese patent attorneys in Hong Kong. But now there are many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patentbot (talk • contribs) 10:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the page is on a Hong Kong org, and HK is bilingual. The sites in HK may be in English or Chinese. I respectfully request you not to wantonly propose a deletion without knowing what the Chinese sources read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patentbot (talk • contribs) 10:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the site of HK Government (HKIPD) "http://www.ipd.gov.hk/chi/promotion_edu/20150818/FHKI_Flyer.pdf" shows that ACPAA HKMA is the supporting org for patent training programme. ACPAA HKMA is a short form of "ACPAA Hong Kong Members Association", and ACPAA refers to All-China Patent Attorneys Association. In Chinese the org name is "香港中国专利代理人协会"； literally—— Hong Kong Chinese Patent Attorney Association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patentbot (talk • contribs)

Please see my reply here. --Edcolins (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Patent and Trademark Office[edit]

Hello Edcolins, thanks for acceptance my edit at above at my User-site. Best regards -- Sweepy (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

proposed deletion of "christophe geiger"[edit]

i proposed this deletion as i understand wikipedia is a genuine encyclopedia, not a confidential who's who so i believe you're wrong in terms of notability in as much as many lecturers are in the same position in france and europe (teaching, writing, attending conferences, running research units), this would be crazy if all were put in wikipedia without being deemed as major shapers of IP a head of a key opeative body, for instance head of EPO (european patent office) : it's different, guy plays major role here we talk about a research unit that is not highly regarded in europe and world, despite advantageous location in strasbourg that eases its access to conferences to illustrate my thoughts : eg of high caliber young acaedmia profile that would maybe fit notability guideline : https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/profile/dev.gangjee cheers (90.29.27.185 (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

If you wish, you may go ahead and nominate the article for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The Proposed deletion (PROD) process is a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion, and I personally don't think that deleting the article about Christophe Geiger would be uncontroversial, considering that he is head of the Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies (CEIPI). --Edcolins (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-NewsIt! Speedy Delete[edit]

FYI Re-NewsIt! has been tagged for speedy delete. I have contested.--Nowa (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of Costa Rica[edit]

Per request, I started Constitution of Costa Rica. Apart from the first several sentences, most of it was by auto-translation, so it is still very rough. Please edit if you know more. Teply (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to the entry for "Benoit Battistelli"[edit]

Ed,

Referring to the recent message which you left on my talk page, you stated that my recent edit to Benoît Battistelli "seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now."

I would like to comment as follows. The edit in question related to a controversy about suicides of a number of at EPO employees. Obviously this is a sensitive topic. I agree that the first edit I made was not very well done. The second one was - IMO - more balanced as it attempted to give both sides of the story. The "facts" of the matter are as follows: - There have been five suicides of EPO staff during Battistlli's presidency; - The staff union has called for an independent investigation; - EPO management has apparently invoked "immunity" to prevent any independent investigation; - Battstelli takes the position that the staff union is trying to inappropriately "instrumentalise" these events to attack him.

This is a matter of public interest which has been reported in the Dutch press and it has also been the subject of recent questions asked in the Dutch Parliament: http://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/kamervragen/detail?id=2015Z16418&did=2015D33473

I'm inclined to agree with your assessment that this is not a Battistelli-specific issue. Perhaps the more logical place for it would be in the newly created "labour relations" section of the EPO page. I plan to re-insert it there. Please review the edit on the EPO page taking into account the comments I have made here. I'm happy to respect your editorial decisions and your assessment of "balance", but as I have stated above this is a matter which has been reported in the press and in the latest version of my edit I tried to include both sides of the story, i.e. both staff and management, based on the report in the Dutch press.

Yours sincerely MM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montebourg montesquieu (talk • contribs) 09:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent addition to EPO page[edit]

Ed,

Referring to your last message about the EPO page, another source would be the French newspaper Le Monde which published an article about this in April 2015. The link to the Le Monde article is here but the full article is subscription only: http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2015/04/06/un-si-bon-office_4610059_3232.html

A PDF copy with translations can be found here: http://www.suepo.org/public/ex15152cp.pdf

Another article was published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung also in April 2015. http://fazjob.net/ratgeber-und-service/beruf-und-chance/ingenieure/126252_Burgfrieden-in-der-Steueroase-Europaeisches-Patentamt.html

A PDF copy with translations can be found here: http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/FAZ-2015-04-24.pdf

If you want, I could add those links as sources ?

That would give three sources from prominent European newspapers: De Volkskrant, Le Monde and the FAZ.

Regards, MM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montebourg montesquieu (talk • contribs) 21:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inventive step[edit]

Do you feel up to revising the incredibly bad and outdated US section of this article? I took a stab at it but eventually became so appalled by its badness that I gave up. PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist[edit]

Ed, you have been inserting {{Reflist|2}} into a number of articles in place of the plain Reflist. Could you explain why? I looked up the template documentations and it said that practice is deprecated. Thus:

Using {{Reflist|2}} will force creation of a two-column reference list, and {{Reflist|3}} will force creation of a three-column list, and so on. This feature is now deprecated in favor of the option described above, which is better suited to flexible formatting for a variety of display screen sizes, ranging from mobile phones and tablets to wide-screen "cinema" displays. Forcing a fixed number of columns has been disabled in mobile view.

So, what's the point? Cheers. PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Links to outlines removed from Claim Charts further reading section[edit]

Hi, I was just about to add a link to the "further reading" section of the Claim Charts page, which I had added earlier this morning, when I saw it had been deleted. It appears that the two links I added to extensive outlines regarding Claim Charts were inappropriate. Is it because the linked-to material is an outline for a forthcoming book, rather than a finished product, or that the form of link (further reading vs. footnote) was inappropriate? For example, could I just redo them as footnotes, if I add some appropriate text from which to hang them?

The link I was about to add was to someone else's blog on the history of claim charts: http://www.patdek.com/blog/2015/5/29/the-claim-chart-origins-of-a-patent-litigation-tool

Thanks much, Andrew Schulman (undoc@sonic.net) 50.0.170.199 (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking advice on notability for page creation[edit]

Hi,

I wanted to reach out and get your advice as an active editor in IP also involved in article creation. I am a new employee at Patexia, and we think we may have come far enough as a company at this point to pursue a Wikipedia page, but I wanted to ask your thoughts before moving forward and requesting a page.

My colleague explained the issues with our first request for a page, mainly that we did not have sufficient notability at that point, and also that one of our employees made a contribution to the page. Below I have provided a list of key recent articles covering Patexia that have come out after the last request for a page. This list of course excludes analytical articles published by our CEO or other employees.

As you are an expert on the standards for a new article, any feedback or suggestions on how to interpret the guidelines re: Patexia would be highly appreciated. Do you think that there is sufficient coverage here to pursue a page at this point? Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Zoe


ZoePatexia (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)ZoePatexia[reply]

Self-published sources (Claim charts)[edit]

Thank you Ed. Generally removing links to self-published material makes sense, and is likely one reason for the unreasonable reliability of Wikipedia. I suppose it also pushes writers like myself towards putting their material into Wikipedia, rather than having arguably self-promotional links to their one site. But that results in a possible LOSS of reliability: it would be much easier for me to simply put questionable material into Wikipedia, than to link to my own questionable material that would at least be clearly demarcated as "just some guy's site" rather than as "what Wikipedia says." Also, how rigidly does Wikipedia restrict links to sources published by others? I can think of several self-published sources that are regarded as being reliable (albeit often a bit eccentric). One example: Edward Tufte and Graphics Press. I can see why you made the decision, and sure, generally better to err on the side of exclusion, but I think the rule is fairly arbitrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.170.199 (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice re:Patexia[edit]

Hi Ed,

Thank you for the advice. As you suggest, I will not try to start an article about Patexia.

However, I did want to clarify one thing in case there is a future attempt that cites Ms Ciccatelli’s articles. While Ms. Ciccatelli may have a private business producing content for clients, Patexia worked with her exclusively in her capacity as a Contributing Writer covering the patent litigation space for InsideCounsel. We did not pay for the articles or engage in a business relationship with Ms. Ciccatelli in any way. The only collaboration that took place was our CEO responding to interview questions for Ms. Ciccatelli when she approached us for more information.

I appreciate your guidance on this and will leave it to an independent source to hopefully recommend an article in the future.

Thanks

ZoePatexia (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)ZoePatexia[reply]

Proposed deletion of Visegrad Patent Institute[edit]

The article Visegrad Patent Institute has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys: Removal of references[edit]

Ed, you have reinstated a number of references to the former presidents of FICPI, ref 4, 5, 6 and 7 and have stated that their removal is not constructive. These references take the reader to obsolete versions of FICPI's website. I also removed the link next to Bastiaan Koster and that now states "citation required". If links are required, I suggest linking all of these to one reference: [1] FICPI's current website. Should a reader wish to contact FICPI, then an existing Bureau member would be the first point of contact, not a former President. Notinwatford (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://ficpi.org/organisation/governing-bodies/bur-2015-2018/

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to sell my idea[edit]

Hi I am Mahdi Mohammad rahimi fard I am from Iran and i love design especially car design But I couldn't be a designer because of many reasons Anyway I have an idea about design a New car . I think about my idea from ten years ago . Now I want to sell my idea and for that I should patent that. I want to patent that in Germany because of many car company in that country Then I saw your edit on European patent and I Think maybe you can help me I have just an idea that I think about ten years on that and want to sell that You know many things about patent that I don't Please help me, I know idea can not be patent Maybe it's utility models I need your guide about : How fill utility models applications to save good benefits Germany patent office or European patent office or what is better How can I sell my idea Thank you very much Mahdi62a@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.55.33.103 (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your email. Please see Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer and Wikipedia:Reference desk. --Edcolins (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edcolins/Archive11&oldid=1076064528"