User talk:Edcolins/Archive04

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


This archive page covers the dates between January 18, 2007 to September 10, 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/Archive05. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. --Edcolins 16:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:EP patent[edit]

Template:EP patent has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. GDallimore 10:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:JP patent[edit]

Template:JP patent has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. GDallimore 10:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:UK patent[edit]

Template:UK patent has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. GDallimore 10:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:CA patent[edit]

Template:CA patent has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. GDallimore 10:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:AU patent[edit]

Template:AU patent has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. GDallimore 10:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ronald A. Katz[edit]

Ed, I put in a short article on Ronald A. Katz. For reasons I don't quite understand, it's been nominated for speedy deletion. Could you please take a look and give me your honest assessment?

Oh, and I'll take a look at the patent templates and add my 2 cents on their recommended deletion.--Nowa 01:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian intellectual property lawyers?[edit]

Care to add yourself to that category? Cheers! bd2412 T 04:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ronald A. Katz[edit]

Thanks for the heads up. After reading the talk page, I've elected to remove my speedy tag. Happy wikipedia-ing. Cornell Rockey 23:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Registration service[edit]

I've just created Registration service. Needs some improvement, but seems to be a common enough scam to be notable. What you think? GDallimore 11:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

User page[edit]

I like your user page alot Edcolins. It's visually and substantively pleasing. I am pleased. -Taco325i 23:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


No problem. Keep up the good work—I've cited the statement you tagged on Sertraline as well. Unattributed statements are easy to miss; I'm glad someone is worried about them :) Fvasconcellos 20:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


Nice meeting you - I am also trying to do this: [1] :) Regards. --Bhadani 04:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Nice to see I am not alone: Google search on "According to some" returns 3230 hits - not all are lacking references, but most do. Gosh. There is also [2], [3], and so on... I have discovered this funny (and I think quite useful) task of identifying unattributed statements in articles. --Edcolins 14:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are not alone. If we have to build the project and make this a true encyclopedia, proper attributions are surely required. i saw a who on one of the pages under my watch, Nalanda and got the idea to do this so that editors having information are prompted to attribute the sources of the relevant contents. --Bhadani 16:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

patent template[edit]


There is a discussion at User_talk:GDallimore#Patents_for_sources_in_Atomic_line_filter regarding potential improvements for the patent cite template. You might want to weigh in.--Nowa 22:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Guys, you might want to take a look at ths discussion I've started on Template_talk:Harvard_reference#Expansion_of_template_-_HELP.21 to try to improve patent citing in Wikipedia.GDallimore 04:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted patent templates[edit]


Looks like I missed the discussion of deletion for EU etc. patent delection. Are the results acceptable? --Nowa 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


There's little to resolve about that, RFW really is pretty much inactive at the moment. It's not a bad idea per se but the community doesn't seem interested in it for now. I've removed the link from WP:VAND, but would of course have no objection to reviving this process. >Radiant< 10:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: AfD[edit]

I had nominated it for a speedy, not actually edited it. ffm yes? 22:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for deleting the category in Patsy Sherman. I should have done that or started the category. Here is a WikiCookie

Choco chip cookie.png

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Al95521 (talkcontribs)

Carole E. Handler[edit]

Ms. Handler is notable, and perhaps would be if she were a self promoter. Her legal work as mentioned in the book, COMIC WARS, allowed Perlmutter and Arad to win the prized rights to X-Men and Spiderman after Carl Icahn, a brilliant financier, and [Ron Perelman]] a tough fighter, both took a stab at cutting up Marvel as they have done with countless others. The fact that neither were successful as a result of a flaw in both of their legal team's work, and that this IP attorney uncovered it, sounds like something worthwhile. The fact that she never went public with her own info and sought a story should not exclude her. The role was written up the the New York Law Journal, but to access the article requires access I just don't have. Additionally, and unfortunately, the Spiderman court records were sealed at the time of the litigation and were only unsealed in 2003, many years after the victory, leaving only references as you see them to be made, and not a full fledged story (Business Wire; Apr 21, 2003). I also noticed that you are a patent attorney, so you may also appreciate the notability of this case.Juda S. Engelmayer 13:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Serious Conflict of Interest[edit]

You level a pretty brutal charge. My past affiliation does not make me an interested party for any kind of gain what so ever, in fact, my experience in knowing Carole should not be adversely affect my ability to post a piece on someone I genuinely believe is qualified to be on Wikipedia. She is not a client, I have no financial interest and, in fact, have had little contact with her since my departure in June '06. The fact that you can raise that without having any evidence other than information that I have never once hidden, as my affiliations are pretty much an open book. I posted an article on Joachim Prinz based on my experience at AJCongress, and I edit articles based on my knowledge from research I have done, articles I have written or people whom I have met throughout my career. I am not sure Wikipedia is meant to exclude anyone from writing from knowledge and experience - and I do not believe that my article on Handler amounts to promoting her for any reason, as I know of none at all other than a genuine sense that her past work merits it. Juda S. Engelmayer 00:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Patent Attorney[edit]

She is indeed a patent attorney, but practices more Intellectual Property than patent law, similar but also different. I could take her out of Patents and put her in IP or antitrust.Juda S. Engelmayer 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Catastrophe bond[edit]

Ed, I have an anonymous user who has twice deleted the section on patents in Catastrophe bond. Could you take a look and possibly mediate?--Nowa 18:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

PCT AfD[edit]

So, following your extensive edits, I'll withdraw my AfD for the PCT page. I'm not sure of the etiquette behind this, though? Can I simply remove the AfD tag, or does it still have to be closed off properly? If you know what to do, feel free to do it with my blessing! GDallimore 14:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Kamil Idris[edit]

thank you for advise. Since my source was just the leaked internal audit as you said, I can't add more. I have to put it first on web and it seems that it will be harmful for some friends. Really strange that in the world of free information we can not get the correct information. I have absolutely no problem with Dr driss, but I am scandalised that we still cover such act in the united nations (and II know that there is much more cases....). Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saffeh (talkcontribs)

Caserma Ederle definition question...[edit]

I answered it on the talk page. I hope the definition I gave there helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjewell (talkcontribs) 14:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

OK to excerpt from text from patents into wikipedia article?[edit]

Ed, Do you know if it's OK to excerpt text from published US patents and/or patent applications into Wikipedia?--Nowa 22:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


The "ABE" redirect is not "much more useful" going to a disambig page for some word. "ABE" in all caps is not likely to be typed in as a mistake for Abe. ABE in all caps is most likely to refer to an IATA airport code. That disambiguation page is way, way too long to be useful. I shouldn't have to scroll down half a page to reach the top Google results for "ABE." FCYTravis 20:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:WatermaelBoitsfort.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:WatermaelBoitsfort.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 11:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:[edit]

Ed, This new user has vandalized Catastrophe bond three times. Can we block him for a day?--Nowa 11:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


Touchè my dear Edward... I thinked that renè was scriptid as Reneè Descartes alwise with tho e..kiss Flavio/Tigre Reietta 08:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: World Intellectual Property Organization[edit]

It isn't an edit war. We are involved in a problem with a sockpuppeteer. We are only reverting the edits of the indef blocked socks. Contact admins Deskana and Yamla for more information. Also see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TJ Spike‎ and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check-- bulletproof 3:16 20:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Check it again [4]. It was reverted to the last version by TJ Spyke. I wasn't looking at the history page at the time of the revert. I was looking the sock's contrib page while reverting. -- bulletproof 3:16 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Patent referencing templates[edit]

Ed. Just dropping you a line to let you know that I've now pretty much finished my trio of patent referencing templates. {{Cite patent}} you will have come across, and just has the basic link capabilities.

As I learned more about templates and inline citations, I started working on {{Ref patent}} and {{Citeref patent}}, and it's these two I thought might be of interest to you as you continue your drive to improve patent citations on Wikipedia! Essentially, I've got these two templates to work like {{Citation}} and {{Harvnb}}. An editor can create a patent bibliography using a list of "Ref patent" templates and then create an inline link to the entry in that bibliography using "Citeref patent". See Atomic line filter for an example.

Hope it comes in useful, and do propose any changes to the template titles if you can think of some! The name "Citeref" comes from the fact that the inline links use CITEREF as in {{Citation/core}}. GDallimore (Talk) 17:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


Thanks very much for expanding the Chinese Patent Office article! Whiskey in the Jar 09:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"of course US, it is a subheading"[edit]

While it is clear enough when you look at the contents at the beginning of the article, the problem is that if someone is deep into the article it may not be so clear. So I'm going to revert your changes. If you still think I am wrong then you can re-revert them and I won't change them back. Butwhatdoiknow 18:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess the public has spoken: you were right. (I still say my way was more helpful.)Butwhatdoiknow 13:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

double post[edit]

Sure, I do things like that sometimes too - embarassing, isn't it? Lucky for us, people clean our messes up pretty quickly ;-) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


That was my comment, and not at all libelous! You removed it, I am not going to revert you. But your decision was wrong. Thanks for understanding.

  1. "... lamest day ever" is a personal opinion and a very mild one, without any abusive words.
  2. According to Libel, "In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation." Calling a name lamest, due to personal opinion, is NOT A FALSE CLAIM! Because it is not a claim. Please see The Simpsons about the history of the the phrase "worst, xxx, ever".
  3. Wikipedia cannot be sued for the material presented by its user, not even by hosting the material. It would be the user who will be responsible. It is according to wikipedia policy, and due to time constraints I am not posting the relevant link.

Thus, the reversion is totally uncalled for, and was just a humorous statement. I am not active on Wikipedia these days for the reason of too much politics, constant violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL etc., so I would appreciate if you could assume good faith, and highlight me if I am wrong or right. Thanks for understanding.-- 21:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC) (User:Scheibenzahl)

Kein problem :)--Scheibenzahl 21:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[edit]

Hi Ed,

Thanks for the message indicating that the link we added to to was not accepted. However, we are a little confused by the rejection since there currently is a very similar link to another law firm's website and our website actually has additional features not contained in theirs (e.g. patent grace period calculation and surcharge period calculation). In addition, it is completely separate from our law firm website to help keep it an independent tool for users.

I hope you reconsider adding to your section as people are finding it a very useful tool. Also, I am an avid user of and would love to help the community in any way possible ... hence, any decision you make we will fully support!


Michael —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Patent model[edit]

Hi Ed, generally years do not need linking unless they are part of a full date, "make only links useful in context". I have done some more tidying up on Patent model, a very interesting short article. Rich Farmbrough, 22:49 19 May 2007 (GMT).

Bayh-Dole Act[edit]

Thanks for your comment, Ed. I know about WP's principle about being bold and I am not shy either ;) but I really do not know enough about the BD act to just start writing about it. Anyway, looking at the topics/articles you contribute, we seem to share interests... I write a PhD thesis on the effects of software patents on innovation in FLOSS projects... Keep up the good work! Madmaxx 20:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Patent scientist article[edit]

Hey there. A while back I created patent scientist and so far you have been the only other contributor. I think I created it in a flash of vanity, as it is my current profession, and I can't really find any good sources for it outside of job postings (which I am not sure qualify as reliable sources). I tried to have it speedily deleted, but since you contributed as well, that didn't work. I've tagged it for proposed deletion at the moment, but I'd like to ask you if you have any sources or ideas related to the topic since I can't find much. Thanks! -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 02:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 19:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems with swpat and FS ext links?[edit]

Hi. You've left a sect-cleanup tag in the External links section of the article software patents and free software. I would like to fix the problems if there are any, but I don't see where you've stated what the problems are. Could you give me some pointers? (Or better yet, put some points on Talk:Software patents and free software so that others can also try to act on them) Thanks. Gronky 16:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Patent introduction[edit]

I added the "general" heading to "patent" in order to move the table of contents up a bit (making it easier for users to get to the table without having to scroll down). You removed the heading without comment. What problem were you solving? Perhaps it was the word used - would "Introduction" be better? Butwhatdoiknow 15:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talk page. My edit summary was
"removed "general" header - added "etymology" section - the introduction is fine, and just one paragraph is not sufficient for a rather complex subject (see e.g. United States Bill of Rights)"
and I thought the edit summary may be sufficient to explain my edit. It is a generally accepted layout principle (see Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Lead section) that the first section "should not be explicitly entitled == Introduction == or any equivalent header." "General" is an equivalent to "Introduction" so I took the liberty to revert your edit. The lead section (before the first section header) is four paragraphs long and is, I think, appropriate given the length and complexity of the subject (patent law and economics). I hope this helps and clarifies my edit. Cheers --Edcolins 19:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
That is all very well and good; however, I don't think it provides a response to the problem I perceive. That problem is that the long lead section (combined with the Intellectual Property box) pushes the table of contents deep into the text. Is there some way of pulling the table back up higher so that the casual reader can find it more quickly? Butwhatdoiknow 14:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Yes, this is something that can be done. I have just moved the table of content nearer the top of the article. Hope this is better now. What do you think? --Edcolins 15:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Neat. Thanks. Butwhatdoiknow 15:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi. I have a comment. I disagree with the creation of the One-to-one disambiguation page. All the meanings liking to that page refer to the mathematical one, rather than to the telecommunication one. The first meaning is far and away the most used, and in this situation I believe the right approach is to move the disambig page to One-to-one (disambiguation) and have the page one-to-one redirect to injective function. I wonder what you think. Thanks. You can comment here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I agree with your suggestion, and have just moved the page to One-to-one (disambiguation). --Edcolins 15:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thank you for moving the page and expanding it too. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Law Practice Magazine[edit]

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Law Practice Magazine, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. THF 22:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Resorts Tunica[edit]

What would be a good article for Resorts Tunica. I would rename the article Resorts Hotel and Casino Tunica MS I would need some more supporting info to be useful at all. DaveRapp101 18:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Bayou Caddy's Jubilee[edit]

I agree that Bayou Caddy's Jubilee Casino be deleted. It was poorly written and can be a redirect to Silver Slipper Casino (Waveland). DaveRapp101 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Kamil Idris edits[edit]

I am not sure that the presumption of Coonflict of Interest is warranted simply because the origination IP seems to be coming from Switzerland (and not being savvy inthese sorts of things, I was curious as to how you know it came from there). The edit by the WIPU was wrong, and you appear to have reverted it the very best way possible, expanding on the topic and citing it correctly. In addition, you let the IPU know of the revert in a polite way. You appear to have 'covered the bases', so to speak, so I think you shouldn't worry about it. The user might have just been one of those occasional vandals. If you encounter other problems, keep me in the loop and I will help clarify the situation for the user. Btw, well done. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Claim (patent)[edit]

Thanks for fixing my typos. Bearian 21:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


Heya. I noticed you making a few edits to redirect [[Enlarged Board of Appeal]] so that it is instead [[Appeal Procedure before the European Patent Office|Enlarged Board of Appeal]].

I used to do that, but then read Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. In this case, I think this is a prime example of why such redirects shouldn't by "fixed". The EBA may one day get their own article, so it's best if things link to that article in anticipation of that day, rather than having to fix it in the future. Not sure what to do about the many many links that already have been "fixed". GDallimore (Talk) 01:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

PS Same goes for European Patent Office - I don't think we should fix the redirect to European Patent Organisation when actually talking about the Office. GDallimore (Talk) 01:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of USPTO Genetic Sequence Database[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on USPTO Genetic Sequence Database, by Schutz (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because USPTO Genetic Sequence Database is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting USPTO Genetic Sequence Database, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 22:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Attorneys[edit]

Hey Ed,

I didn't understand what you meant by citations for notable attorneys. The attorneys listed are those who founded the firm. Are you looking for something beyond that?

Let me know so I can adapt the entry to what you are looking for.



Athar A. Khan 16:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oluseyi Bajulaiye[edit]

AfD might be appropriate -- someone cited in news stories is not as obviously non-notable, but I couldn't say if that's enough to prove notability. —tregoweth (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. In that case, whichever one of us gets there first should probably delete it. —tregoweth (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Should wikipedia perhaps have experts on specific subjects, rather than users, however well intentioned, who delete articles without much knowledge of the subject, as admitted above ? This guy has been for six months the seniormost UN official in Sudan, and Sudan is the biggest UN operation at this time. He has been quoted in BBC, Reuters, International Herald Tribune, New York Times... To me, and seeing the criteria, this seems notability. If you did have a UN expert (and I offer myself if you are interested), that person would know. Or you could check the Sudanese media and see that his name is in the papers almost every day. Some colleagues and I are trying to do hard work improving coverage of the UN in Wikipedia, but these aprpoaches I find quite destructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alderney18 (talkcontribs) 10:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor point in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oxford_International_Forum[edit]

Hi there. I just wanted to make a minor point, and mention that it'd be better to avoid the use of 'vanity' when nom-ing, or discussing AfDs. (See WP:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD). I guess some people have gotten upset in the past. --Bfigura (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed. The vanity thing isn't a big deal (at least I don't think it is), but I just thought I'd point it out. And I'll take a look at the sock thing later tonight and get back to you. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Bruno Geddo[edit]

Thanks for restoring Bruno Geddo after I deleted it in error. —tregoweth (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)