User talk:Edcolins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Patent troll[edit]

Thanks for reviewing my contribution to Patent troll. I saw the article about LOT in the SF Chronicle, and went to Wikipedia for more information. When I could not find it, I added the section to patent troll. That is what I like about Wikipedia. When something is wrong or missing, I can fix it.

Thanks for your other corrections to this article and your many contributions to Wikipedia, including being an administrator. Comfr (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Edcolins (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

CIPA Past Presidents[edit]


Can I ask why you have added a 'citation needed' tag to the list of CIPA Past Presidents spanning 1944 - 1990?

Thanks Member Wise (talk) 06:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference for complete list added. Member Wise (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

User Talk:Jytdog vandalism[edit]

I wanted to let you know that the vandalism you recently reverted on User Talk:Jytdog was recently reapplied by a different, but similar, IPv6 address. It probably merits further monitoring and, possibly, a block ban if it persists. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I also noticed possible long-standing vandalism using the same image at User talk:7mike5000 and User talk:Beegneekolai. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. The first one (User talk:7mike5000) seems to fall under free speech. I've reverted the second one. --Edcolins (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Something to Remember You By (disambiguation)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Something to Remember You By (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnecessary page, refer to WP:TWODABS.

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. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 06:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Software patents under TRIPs Agreement[edit]

Hi Edcolins,

I'm not quite sure what the problem is that you see with my edits. As I found this page it read like a debate between two editors and I was attempting to render it into a single voice. Hence, my use of the term 'offending' - this was not a subjective judgement on my part, but merely an observation that the quote had in fact been objected to by another editor.

The problem with the quote is this. Although it represents a comment by a recognised authority and is thus a useful reference for characterisation of European law, it also introduces the non-legal issue of economic motivation. I submit therefore that it is quite proper to base a paragraph on it, rather than reproducing the quote.

The issue that this article discusses is the treatment of patents under TRIPS and the section in question is concerned with the relevance of Article 27 to this issue. The difference between US and European views of this would seem to be highly relevant.

Also, if you are going to remove that paragraph, then you remove the context for the following one, which becomes a non-sequitur.

Hope this helps to clarify,

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalfro (talkcontribs) 20:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfair competition[edit]

[[Unfair competition]] has become a disaster. Do you feel up to fixing it up? PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have removed some material lacking any reference. --Edcolins (talk) 07:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


Please see Talk:Exhaustion PraeceptorIP (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I've replied on that talk page. --Edcolins (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 July[edit]

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

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) 00:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Edcolins (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Edcolins. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


Hi. You added ["sic"] to the title of a newspaper article cited in the O family (North Korea) article. I'm a bit baffled by this, as I can't see why this is needed, so I've reverted it: the title given is the correct title, as it is given in the source article, and I see no need to correct it. -- The Anome (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Amy Goodman[edit]

Hi. You thanked me for my edit. However, it was just rephrased by an IP address from Tyler, Texas. Usually I would revert it, as it was done by an IP address as opposed to an established editor, but they seem to be rather informed--they know what "NPOV" means. Can anyone really argue that it is not pure censorship to arrest journalists?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, this edit appears to be irreproachable. Linking "doing her job as a reporter" to Censorship in the United States –although a good-faith attempt at informing the reader– might be regarded as slightly biased indeed. --Edcolins (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, I guess you unlike it now. Anyway, on second thoughts, I tend to agree with you that we should wait until reliable third-party sources use this specific phrase. It was not part of the text, just a wikilink, but I agree with you. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)