User talk:PraeceptorIP

Welcome!

Hello, PraeceptorIP, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bearian (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:LAW

Hi there. We have lots of articles, such as Auslegeschrift for which we could use another legal hand. Would you be interested in joining our project here? Bearian (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bearian. I don't know German law, but I would be glad to help you on any US IP law issues - in particular computer-software related issues and business methods--also derivative works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PraeceptorIP (talk • contribs)

The Doctrine of the General Talking Pictures Case

Hi, I missed your note from 11/13/08, becuase ytou placed it at the top, not at the bottom. I can userfy it for you. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It is still in mainspace. I'll see what I can do with it. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Moved legal details to page 'Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984'

Hi!

Thanks for your addition to chip IP protection in Integrated circuit. I suspect it's a little more detail than the usual reader would want, but it's perfect for a more detail discussion of the topic. So I moved the text to the new article Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984, and put just a general summary in the Integrated circuit article, with a link to the details.

I hope you are OK with this. Thanks again for the contribution, LouScheffer (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hugh Laddie

Thanks for your message. Nothing unfavourable was written re Hugh Laddie. There was just a misunderstanding due to the use of a shared IP address (you can find more information on this by clicking here under the "3 December 2008" heading).

Inviting Alastair Wilson to edit articles here would be excellent. I actually never had any contact with him before his message on my talk page. Since you know him, may I suggest that you drop him a short note on his email address? You will surely make a greater impact than me. You can find his email address here, at the bottom of the page. Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Mallinck.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mallinck.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Doctrine of non-derogation from grants

Thanks for the message. Always happy to help out on law related articles. – ukexpat (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure I'll take a look at LB (Plastics) Ltd. v. Swish Products Ltd.. Not sure what I can do, but at least I can add an ibox. – ukexpat (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the pole lamp pic in Sears v. Stiffel! Could you point to the source from whence you got the pic? (I didn't see it on the picture page.) Tempshill (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Canon K.K. v. Green Cartridge Co.

Thanks for your message. I have just added a hopefully better category! --Edcolins (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Neilson v. Harford

Nice article! --Edcolins (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your questions: "Is there any narrower category than UK patent law? Do you have KB cases or Exchequer cases?", I have created this new category, Category:Exchequer of pleas, and there is already Category:High Court of England and Wales. True, none of these categories are specific to patent law, but please feel free to create any new categories (see Wikipedia:Overcategorization though). Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In re Bilski

Thanks for the wording cleanup! For the life of me, I couldn't write proper sentences yesterday. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 19:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Greetings professor!

I was a student in your Computer Law class in the Spring of 2008. Can't reveal my name here, but I believe I told you at the time that I was a Wikipedia administrator (and here I am). Great to see you here, and thanks for your contributions! bd2412 T 19:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Case assessments

Hi. Thanks for your comments. I've only been assessing case articles that are low enough on the totem-pole that it seems pretty obvious how they should be assessed. As far as rating the more advanced articles, I think it will take a group effort or some expertise in explaining the more esoteric aspects of the law and whether the article fully explains the relevance of the case. I would echo MzMcBride's comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Supreme_Court_cases that standardization is key in improving articles past a "B" level, but I think it's probably even more than that. The articles that I think are really good explain the facts and the law clearly in a way that could be understood by a layperson, and maybe have a picture or two. I see that you know BD2412. He is probably one the most, if not the most experienced editor I've encountered as far as the Supreme Court case project goes. I'm sure he would also be a good source of information if you ever have a question about some of the intricacies of the process. Welcome to Wikipedia by the way.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I've taken so long to get back to you - I somehow got it into my head that I could efficiently knock out entries on every one of the 3,200+ federal judges that have been appointed since George Washington's days. I have looked over your contributions, and they are quite frankly a cut above what is typically found here (unsurprisingly, given your background and depth of knowledge). By the way, are you aware of international equivalents to the Anti-plug molding law? Those should be mentioned in the article, as we have quite a few British and Australian readers who may not understand the concept to be U.S. specific. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, professor. I responded to your query on my talk page, but I have not heard from you so I am responding here. You can email me at BD2412(at)hotmail.com, or at my GW email address. Maybe we can get together for lunch one of these days, and I can tell you everything I've learned about Wikipedia in my years as an editor and admin. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Implied license

Thanks for your email (and sorry for not responding earlier). I cannot really help on this one. So, I have asked GDallimore, who may be able to help. Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Double patenting

U.S.-specific information is missing in the article double patenting. Would you have by chance any knowledge to add there?... Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, great! --Edcolins (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co., Inc.

There is an (old) discussion on the talk page of McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co., Inc., on the notability of this case. Have you ever heard about this case? --Edcolins (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide perspective on copyright

I don't have any strong opposition to migration of US material to UIS copyright, but that means readers have to look in two places much of the time. I have no problem with looking at two places for two different subjects. Adding US-centric material to the wrong article dilutes the value of the global Copyright article. TJRC (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Yale Law School, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Page moves

Anytime you need to move a page to a new title, click the "move" button at the top of the page. You will have the option of moving without leaving a redirect, from an initial typo or similar error. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Transformativeness

I have updated this page per your comment to User:DreamGuy. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Copyright

Hey, I'm not an admin so I can't protect an article. An article can be protected from IP-based edits (semi protection) and you can go to WP:RPP to request an admin look at the page, but I personally don't think the amount of vandalism on the article is enough to be eligible for semi-protection. You can have a go though. - Chrism would like to hear from you 20:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Exhausted combinations and nonstatutory subject matter

I am just wondering... What is the advantage of avoiding the holding of nonstatutory subject matter by using an exhausted combination, if the claim is going to be rejected as an exhausted combination at the end of the day? I probably missed something here. Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I see now. --Edcolins (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Bilski

You must be excited about Bilski going up. Planning on writing an amicus curiae brief? bd2412 T 20:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The CASRIP brief filed in the CAFC, but re-done.

http://www.law.washington.edu/casrip/newsletter/vol15/newsv15i1RhsBilskiBrAsFiled.pdf

Thanks. bd2412 T 20:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Double patenting

Please see talk page for this article. With respect, you are wrong about US law on sec. 101 and a patent for an invention. I know of no contrary view on this (under US law). Cheers. PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Leroy Archer, Jr.

A few months back we had a bot copy over all the date from the Federal Judicial Center to create articles on every person who has ever been a United States federal judge (well, except that their database leaves out Court of Claims judges and the like). So, it created an article on Archer at a slightly different title. The difference in information was very slight, I think not more than including the judge's hometown and including links to B.A. and J.D., but I merged them anyway primarily because the merger created a redirect from the old title to the new (which was needed), and to make sure that all edit history relating to the topic was in one place. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yale Law School

There is no page yet for Robert Post, the law professor. You may want to create one -- I'm going on vacation for the next couple of weeks and I won't be here. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 22:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kafka machine

The article Kafka machine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article is entirely WP:OR, describing a hypothetical example that the article's author uses in his teaching. No evidence of being a general pedagogical example in general use by any other instructor. Does not meet general notability requirements, see WP:NOTE. Nicely written and illustrated, it is perhaps suitable for a for a blog or private web page, but not an encyclopedia.

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TJRC (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:P-roll.gif

Thank you for uploading File:P-roll.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. 72.88.107.31 (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:WashClthg.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:WashClthg.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Jebusite

I saw your comment, that David did not conquer the Jebusite. I agree. I read Moshe Yahalom books and I think the bible has contradicting accounts. just curious, why this subject interests you and what are your sources? --Michal 15:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zahav511 (talk • contribs)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Neilson v Harford 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:

• No Patents on Conventional Implementations of Natural Principles and Fundamental Truths'', [2012 Eur. Intel. Prop. Rev. 502, 503-04 & n.17.</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Cy Coben edits

Do you have any sources for Cy's father being a wholesale meat man, or for his original name? It may be true, but we need a source for it. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Cy's father was my grandfather. I will try to see what I can find for you. RHS PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• When I searched online, I did see one copyright entry that connects Cy Coben and Seymour Cohen, but it is hardly convincing evidence. If you can't find anything better, we could add a reference saying something like, "Private communication from Coben family in possession of user PraeceptorIP", but other Wikipedians would be perfectly justified in removing something like that. Brianyoumans (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Brian: My grandfather, Harry Cohen, died at the end of August 1931. My mother (oldest sister of Cy/Seymour and Harry's daughter) used to work in Harry's shop in NYC, where he sold meat to restaurants. According to my mother her father was a big strong man who could carry a whole carcass on his shoulders, and was well known in NYC. It is likely that he had an obituary in the Jersey City (where he lived) and/or NYC newspapers at the end of August or beginning of September 1931, which would say he had for many years been in the wholesale meat business in NYC. I do not know how to access 1931 newspapers, however. Do you? I guess I could check Ancestry.com, but as we are not Mormons it is unlikely that doing so will provide any useful data (and would not likely say anything about his work).

I once asked my uncle Seymour why he used the name Cy Coben and he told me that the name Seymour Cohen did not go over so well in Nashville and some of the other places he worked. I would therefore conclude that it is fair to say that he used the Cy Coben name for "professional reasons."

I suppose you could now say that the private communication is in the possession of user Brianyoumans.

-- PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back

I haven't run across any of your edits in a while, but just noticed you on one of my watchlist articles. Just a little welcome-back note. TJRC (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Schilg.jpg

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Schilg.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 03:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.

Thanks for your message on my talk page. F.n. 14 seems ok now. --Edcolins (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International 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:

• on which patents may not be granted. Recent Supreme Court opinions use the term "patent eligible" (and its converse "patent ineligible" almost exclusively in this connection. The opinion in the ''

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Thelony was accepted

Thelony, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

~KvnG 15:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking at the article trying to stub-sort it. Please provide an introductory sentence in the standard Wikipedia format of "A thelony is ...", or perhaps "In [context] a thelony was ...". The word doesn't appear in the Oxford English Dictionary, to my surprise as it's in your sources. Is there an alternative translation perhaps? I note that the English-language sources, the Billingsgate and London info, are annotated "The text has been modernized by Prof. Arkenberg": has it been modernized into an idiosyncratic word which OED don't know about? All very puzzling. PamD 19:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

And the link to Bible Hub, your final ref, doesn't seem to be working. PamD 19:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

These notes suggest that "thelony" and "toll" are indistinguishable. PamD 19:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I've had a go at creating a lead sentence which puts the term into context. You might like to improve on it. PamD 19:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

footnote 27 - Software patents under United States patent law

Fixed... --Edcolins (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Morse Telegraph Repeater Circuit.gif

A tag has been placed on File:Morse Telegraph Repeater Circuit.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference errors on 3 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Restraint of trade page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Exhaustion doctrine

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I'll see what I can do... --Edcolins (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:DDR chart.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:DDR chart.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MicroCov.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MicroCov.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Derivative work, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, TJRC, for your comment, What do you suggest is the correct procedure to correct misspelling, typos, and clear errors?
• I did not delete anything. I did add (sic) in R&J because there is no such thing in copyright law as "derivate" -- the writer probably meant "derivative work" -- the (sic) is just an insufficiently polite way to say that, I guess. How would you recommend telling somebody (politely) that he needs to consult some kind of authority (or how do you fix mistakes)? Thank you in advance for any advice you care to provide.

You could just comment after the post, like this. The original poster is free to amend his own post in response. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Viking Age may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 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:

• & Co, pp. 1-7; P.H. Sawyer, ''The Age of the Vikings'' (2nd Ed. 1971), London: Edward Arnold).</ref><ref>"It has been suggested that the expansion of the Viking age was spurred by a population

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Notes, refs

In some articles, explanatory footnotes and citation footnotes are separate (see WP:FNNR), but considering that you are typically combining both in footnotes, separating those is unnecessary and confusing. Sorry for the disruption. I have reverted my experimental edit of yesterday. --Edcolins (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

UK, EU, Neth., Fr. - Exhaustion doctrine

I replied on my talk page. --Edcolins (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

oh my

i just saw the link at the bottom of your userpage. Along with my work on health-related content (which led into GMOs and biotechnology and IP) I also work a lot on conflict of interest issues in WP. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Writing_about_yourself_and_your_work and within that, WP:SELFCITE. Also the very last bullet of WP:EXPERT. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

PraeceptorIP, first, let me advise you to ignore Jytdog, he has a tendency to overstate the possible COI of others while understating his own advocacy on GMOs, etc. I see nothing wrong with the edits that you have made, but if you want to avoid problems with mass Wiki-hysteria, you can post any edits to the cases that you were directly involved in on the talk page. I would be honored to post the edits for you.

Jytdog, this is no different that allowing climate scientists from editing in the climate change area. Second, removed an entire sourced section can be considered disruptive. GregJackP Boomer! 09:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do read WP:SELFCITE; please also see this recent discussion on the Talk page of our COI guideline about that section, and please note the stance I took there vis a vis others - I am a moderate on the issue of editors who cite their own work: Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Archive_20#Citing_yourself.

Somewhat separately, as I have written to you before Praceptor we love WP:EXPERTs but only when they use their expertise to make articles more NPOV and better sourced - not when they use Wikipedia to promote their own views (making WP less NPOV) nor when they add WP:OR to Wikipedia. Both of those are tempting, but both are abuses of editing privileges. We topic ban people who continually abuse their editing privileges - please avoid those temptations. It is never a happy thing to topic ban people. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that you might want to read it again. Praeceptor did not cite to his own published work, he cited to a case opinion by SCOTUS. Since he did not cite to something that he wrote or published, WP:SELFCITE is not applicable. Second, being involved in a campaign to drive away productive editors is discouraged by policy. I would recommend that you be careful, lest your campaign on GMOs and your advocacy cause a WP:BOOMARANG. Praeceptor's edits were factual and NPOV, and did not involve WP:OR. GregJackP Boomer! 18:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Great page!

Sulfurboy (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

griseofulvin

Praceptor, do you know what actually happened in the matter at hand following the supreme court case? Am looking for sources. Amazing amount of people referencing the case in abstract discussion but little discussion of what actually happened next... Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I was counsel in that case. But I have a neutral POV. PraeceptorIP (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Holy cow. please read WP:COI and follow it. Please do not directly edit content about litigation in which you were actually involved. Please. Please reply and agree to refrain from directly editing on such content matter. If you don't, I'll need to bring this to WP:COIN for discussion by the community. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Ignore him Praeceptor. If he takes this to WP:COIN you will have plenty of support. As long as your edits remain neutral and factual, as they have been here, you should have no problem. GregJackP Boomer! 18:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

GregJack you are entitled to your opinion of course but you do not seem to be aware of what WP:COI actually says. Here, I will quote it, for both of you:

• "If you are involved in a court case, or you are close to one of the litigants, you should not write about the case, or about a party or law firm associated with the case."; and
• "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, or friends. If you or they are notable enough, someone else will create the article.... If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly, from adding related advertising links, links to personal websites and similar, and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions"; and
• "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion."
• And per the LEAD of WP:COI: "Conflict of interest is not about beliefs or biases. It is about a person's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles conflict. Deciding that someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person or her actual beliefs"

One cannot predict with certainty what the community will say, but I am pretty confident that the community will find that Praceptor is ignoring all of that, in spirit and in letter, in his editing here. Praeceptor, do let me know if you will refrain from directly editing content where you have a COI, as we define that here in WP. If you, Praceptor, disagree, we can get community input at COIN. Thanks very much. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

PIP to jyt:

♦WP:COI says "But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while making sure that their external roles and relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia."

In the Glaxo case, I was counsel for the govt 40 years ago. There are no live issues regarding that case. Nobody has any economic interest in the subject matter any longer. The patents have long ago vanished, as has any dispute relating to the case. It is a matter of ancient history. It is like the Norwegian Blue Parrot. There is no live COI 40 years later.

The content of the WP article is an almost verbatim extract from the Sup Ct opinion in the case. I doubt that anyone could find any statement in the WP article that is not neutral POV. No position is advocated in the Glaxo WP article. There is nothing but reporting of the published facts, with citations to the pages of US Reports where they are published.

♦WP:COI says "The COI can be managed, with or without disclosure. For example, someone with a conflict might ask others to watch closely whenever he does something where his COI might impair his judgment."

You have been watching closely. Do you see any instance of impaired judgment or non-neutral POV? Or are you just imagining a remote and theoretical possibility that it might occur? May I respectfully suggest that you get a grip on yourself?

♦WP:COI says, in the present tense: "If you are involved in a court case, or you are close to one of the litigants, you should not write about the case, or about a party or law firm associated with the case."

I was counsel for the US 40 years ago in the district court and Supreme Court. I am not involved in the court case because there no longer is any court case. I am not close to the US or Glaxo. I do have detailed knowledge about the subject matter, however, which may be of value to WP.

♦WP:COIN says that an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor (not the case at this time) "may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia."

There is no outside interest here to be advanced or being advanced (at least, on my part). If you think there is, what is it? Spell it out. My only interest is that WP should have high quality content.

♦WP:COIN says: "For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy."

You have not been doing that, where you dispute content. You simply delete it sin decir agua va. I have asked you to discuss things before deleting them, but you do not accept that proposal. (You may have noticed that others have also said that and similar things on your Talk page. I think "imperious" is one of the terms used, although I am not sure I would want to use that word.) Please reconsider your deviation from WP policy. I believe your personal editing policy is becoming a detriment to WP, and it would benefit from a personal re-evaluation of what you are doing. You must be getting vastly more complaints than average for WP editors. Why? Are all the complainers misguided or worse? Please think.

♦WP:COIN says:

The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content.

Please consider the above COI statement. You may have overlooked it. I think (please correct me if you feel I am wrong) every edit involved here should have been considered uncontroversial, for the reasons stated above. Try to be objective.

I would be pleased to continue discussing this matter with you. Perhaps we can overcome our differences of opinion in a civilized, nonimperious manner.

PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for talking Praeceptor. I appreciate it.

I have actually refrained from going around behind you and changing things- I am not closely watching you. I would not do that without invitation. I worked on both the Bowman article and the GSK article before you did and have them both on my watchlist - that is how I encountered you both times.

That said, I reviewed your recent contributions, following our encounter at Bowman (which I already had on my watchlist), where it was pretty clear that you were working on building your POV on patent exhaustion and other matters into that article, based on your recent publication. And when I looked at your past contribs, it looked a lot to me like you were going through Wikipedia in a pretty systematic way and weaving in content on your ideas about patent exhaustion. That is ...not good. I have been considering bringing this up with you, but had not decided what to do yet. Then you edited the GSK article, which was also already on my watchlist. (I am interested in biotech innovation generally)

As I told you, I work a lot at COIN, and there are a lot - and I mean a lot - of experts who come edit Wikipedia to cite their own work, or push their ideas into WP. While a classic COI analysis looks only at financial "interests", the concept of "interests" goes beyond that. Academics or professionals who come here citing their own work and ideas, are very much caught up in a conflict of interest between the mission of WP and their goal to promote themselves, their ideas, their legacies... something about themselves. This happens all the time. (I can show you examples where you will cringe on the other person's behalf if you like)

There are also a lot - and I mean a lot - of experts who volunteer their time in Wikipedia, and have taken the time to really understand the spirit of this place, as well as the letter of policies and guidelines, and work on writing encyclopedia articles that are well sourced and NPOV - they use their knowledge of the field and the literature to build the encyclopedia. No chatty footnotes, no original research - instead, disciplined Wikipedia encyclopedia writing Writing here is different from other kinds of writing. When these experts log in to WP, they set their own interests aside.

(Wikipedia is strange in many ways, most of which stem from the foundations of this place as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and where anonymity is allowed and protected. WP is really obsessed with citations - as sources are the only authority for content. Unsourced words in a Wikipedia article are just random noise - think about it. There is no author's name at the top, to whom the reader can attribute the ideas. Please think about that - ponder it. Unsourced content could have been added by a 16 year old with barely a grasp of the content, or by an old hand in the field; it could have been written by someone whose intent was to mess with WP generally, like these people did - they intentionally inserted errors just to see how long they would go unfixed. It could be random vandalism, or written with intent to defame someone. So everything needs to be reliably sourced. As I have to said to you before, this place is really strange and unlike any other scholarly reference work).

There is a very very fine line between experts filling in gaps in the encyclopedia (I don't know how well-treated "patent exhaustion" is, in WP), and pushing a POV into those gaps or into already-existing content. (At the GSK article, you were filling a gap, there, which was great. And I learned about something of which I knew nothing, and I am grateful to you for that. I won't get into the other issues involved with that content, as that is somewhat separate from the COI discussion, which we should focus on and resolve)

People who have a COI often say: "I am able to neutral". That is ... hubris. What COI does, is create a tendency to bias. What appears noncontroversial to a person with a conflict, often does not look that way to someone without a COI. Wikipedia has a COI guideline for several reasons. Like any scholarly project we need ways to identify and manage COI, and we need to actually do it - identify and manage COI - in order to retain (and deserve to retain) the public's trust in us. Issues of COI are tricky in WP, because of the radical structure of this place, and because anyone can instantly publish. So we look for editors to make self-disclosures and to exercise self-restraint.

Praeceptor - you are clearly an experienced, distinguished, and highly respected expert in IP law in the real world. It is an honor to WP that you are participating here. Really it is. But please, be mindful of the genre and the strange nature of this place. Just like the rest of us, you cannot add original research to articles, you need to source everything, you need to bring secondary sources, and (unlike the rest of us) you need to be especially careful to avoid giving UNDUE weight to your own ideas on things.

Going forward, will you please consider - when you develop content where you have a COI due to your involvement in the events or ideas being described - offering the content as a proposal on the Talk page, instead of adding it directly to the article? Everybody wins, if you do that. It is a community-building thing to do - an act of respect for WP and its mission - along with a content-building thing to do. And as happened with the GSK content the dialogue ended up with improved content, with secondary sources included. Proposing it on the talk page first would have allowed that process to unfold without drama. Will you? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a matter of degree, I guess. Putting every proposed edit on Talk first would be excessive, I think. But with big ones it could be reasonable, as it would with small controversial ones. (I try to avoid controversial statements if I can; I think I have succeeded.)

But as the COI page says, not everything on which you are an expert or were involved in (such as GSK) gets into a COI problem. There was none in the GSK piece. It was all neutral and non-advocacy. Adding the additional newspaper or magazine commentary content could have been done afterwards just as effectively, and without raising a storm. (Actually, I disagree with adding them and think they dilute the presentation. But I see no reason to revert them as uninformed junk. If you want to add such things, do so and be happy. Let others judge their relevance.) I think there is no blanket rule that takes care of all cases. But it certainly is worth considering whether to float an item on Talk. I have done that sometimes.

Contrary to what you (perhaps) suggest about "exhaustion," I do not have a POV or agenda and I am not "weaving" it in. I think that I simply adhere exactly to the current position of the US Sup Ct. I did not agree with the Court's decision in the Bowman case, but I refrained from saying why the (unanimous) Sup Ct decision was wrong. (I think they were wrong on "making" but right in saying "no exhaustion." I also think Breyer got it right in his dissent in the JEM Ag case when he said they didn't have to slide down a slippery slope. But the train has left the station on that. No point rehashing that issue in WP.) In general I do not deviate at all in WP articles from what the Sup Ct says the law is. (Almost all the time I even agree with them.)

I think it is proper to quote a number of sources, where possible. You will recall that you deleted the Shubha Ghosh cite, whom I don't agree with but think him proper to cite in a balanced presentation. Then you became alarmed when that deletion left me the only commentator quoted. When a number of commentators are cited, I consider it proper to include myself among them if I had something relevant to say. For example, when I quoted a number of sources that raked Justice Thomas over for his Alice v CLS Bank opinion, I thought it proper to cite myself defending his (9-0) position. That was a balanced presentation, even though it was something like 5-1 commentators against him. When I do this I follow the WP COI guidelines.

Well, no point beating a dead horse. I will consider further what you said. I hope you will consider what I have said.

PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for replying. (first...I did not delete the Ghosh citation, btw. It is still there.) I am not asking you to always post to the Talk page first - you cannot have a COI for every aspect of IP law, and I imagine that there are articles you have edited, that have nothing to do with any work you ever did. Please just consider posting to the article's talk page, when the sources are your own papers, or the content is about a case that you worked on. That's all! Your contributions to law articles are very very welcomed. (please just source them well; and suggest the changes on talk where you have a personal interest.) Thank you for considering. Really. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you consider leaving him alone? He's a benefit to the project and is a subject matter expert. I've looked at his edits and they are NPOV, factual, and non-controversial. On the other hand, you, completely against policy, deleted an entire section of sourced material. Later, after I had provided additional sources, you mangled the case cite so that I had to go back and fix it here. Jytdog, if you don't understand how to cite a court case, ask, I'll be happy to help. It starts with the case name A v. B, followed by the vol. number, the reporter, the page, the court and the year. If you are putting the pinpoint in the superscripted ref, you still need the starting number of the case in the original citation. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 01:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing

This constitutes canvassing. Please read the notice below. Thanks

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)