User talk:Edcolins/Archive02

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

This archive page covers the dates between October 11, 2005 and February 15, 2006.

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/Archive03. (See How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Edcolins 19:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Interference (disambiguation)
I wanted to fix a link that was wrongly pointing to the optics definition but discovered that the proper, communications, definition is given in line, which seems to conflict with the idea that disambiguation pages give links to appropriate pages.

I could try to add a stub page and moving your definition into that, but I'm very new to this and I'm a little wary of doing more than modifying existing pages. I have removed the original bad link. Simply linking the disambiguation page won't necessary remove the confusion (this is SETI@home and the audience is often not very technical, which is probably where the problem arose).

David Woolley 15:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing.

David Woolley 12:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Patentable subject-matter

 * Response on my talk page, -- Jheald 14:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Citation
hi there,

As you may have noticed, I've made a link (and reverted back to your last change) a copple of times, at the "Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions". I've done this, because there was a clear request for a citation by some former poster, and that citation was made (among others, I presume) in the manifesto where it linked to.

Now, some have continuously (and pretty irrationally) reverted this back because it were 'ravings', it wasn't 'notable' or it was a 'recent polemic' or it was not 'representative of opponents of the original directive'.

First of all, it shows the clear and undeniable POV (notice the sentence "who wants to read the ravings of the man who, practically single-handedly, defeated the proposal!!!" as a prime example), which is later being rationalised by bringing in comments about how 'unrepresentative' it is.

I would like to make the following observations:

1)The opposition to the directive was a grass-roots movement, done by many individuals and groups alike; thus, there is no single entity or group of people who 'represents' all of the opponents. The notion that there is someone or some group that can (or has) acted as 'representing the movement', is therefor absurd. (Even the more vocal groups like the FFII didn't claim to be speaking for anyone else then for the FFII).

2)The subjective measurement how 'notable' something is, is by definition POV. The author in question has contacted 58 EU parliamentarians, *before* the *first* reading, and has requested (and been granted) his petition by the EU Directorate General. The importance of this is difficult to estimate, but, I would gather, it was more 'notable' then some poster like to admit. At least the EU Directorate 'noted' it, and I don't think many can say the same. And by the same token, it is clear the author is a swpat-opponent of the 'original' directive also, since before 2003, there was no directive to vote on by the parliament, and he's been active since that time. Thus, it can hardly be called a 'recent polemic' neither, regardless of when the author started his blog.

3)The author made an elaborate and extensive compilation of rational arguments, scientific references, and links/sources in regard to the directive and (the dangers of) swpats in general (see sw manifesto and appendixes); this can hardly be considered 'ravings' by any stretch of the imagination, unless by someone highly biased and childish.

For all these reasons, and because you seem to be dealing with these kinds of topics (and because I don't want to be as childish as the other poster), I'm asking you for advise. First of all; is the need for a citation still there? If so, how do you suggest we (all of us) can come to an amicable compromise? Is this something that ultimately needs a moderator to settle? And, are you one? ;-)

greets

Possible admin nomination
Greetings,

At User:Rick Block/WP600 not admins I observed that you have expressed interest in becoming an administrator. I have been reviewing your edits and participation in general on Wikipedia. What I have found has been very encouraging indeed. You have been very civil, polite, and professional in your talk page additions (I have so far checked back to August 1st of this year). Your contributions to articles have been very strong. You have not been the target of an RfC. Your edit count and time on Wikipedia is far above all the standards listed at Requests for adminship/Standards. I've also observed that you've made 155 edits to WP:AFD (and VFD), 28 edits in Cleanup and 26 in Copyright problems. You have also used welcome messages for new users, and placed test templates on some user's pages in appropriate ways. You use edit summaries 80% of the time, and have an average edits per day >18 (I like to see >10 for an admin nominee). All of this points to an editor who can be trusted, who has the knowledge to be an admin, and has the dedication to the project necessary (in my opinion) to be a successful administrator.

I do have some concerns though. If you would, I'd like to hear your thoughts on these points:
 * Using an automatic search, I've found 102 edits with either "revert" or "vandal" in the edit summary. This is less than 1% of your total edits. This is how I am viewing your anti-vandal work. Vandal fighting is not a requirement to be an admin, but I would like to know what your interest level is in vandal fighting?
 * More than 70% of your edits are marked as "minor". Do you have the "Mark all edits minor by default" box checked on your preferences under "Editing" perhaps? Why so many edits as minor?
 * If you were to accept the nomination, one of the standard questions is "What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with?" How would you respond?
 * Somewhat related to the previous question; why, exactly, do you want to be an admin?
 * I have not found any evidence of conflict that you have been involved in. Have you been in any conflicts (even if you remained utterly cool throughout)? I suspect you would remain cool under such situations, but if you have been in any conflicts and remained cool it would be beneficial to your admin nomination if I could cite the conflict(s) and how you handled them.
 * Do you consider yourself a deletionist, inclusionist or neither? This is not a loaded question. I just personally do not like to see an editor I nominate be an extreme in either direction.

I have very high standards for editors whom I choose to nominate. So far, you've cleared all my standards that I have researched. Keep in mind though that my standards are not meant to be exclusionary to people who want to be admins; it's just exclusionary to my own act of nominating them. I would like very much to nominate you if you clear my standards and are still interested in being an admin. The above questions are not meant to grill you :) I just prefer to see nominations that I make sail through with very few oppose votes (or none preferably). All the best, --Durin 21:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Admin nomination
After extensive review of your contributions and reading your responses to my queries, I have decided to go ahead and nominate you to be an administrator. Before you do anything I ask that you please read what I suggest you do. The template that follows below is the stock template for admin nomination notification, and contains the link for your nomination page. Before editing it, please follow my suggestions as referred to above.

 Durin would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Durin to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Please do not hestitate to ask me any questions you may have about this process. Best of luck in your nomination, --Durin 19:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Additional note: Regarding the answers you will make to the standard 3 questions on your RfA; please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship. --Durin 20:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

As expected, your nomination is proceeding smoothly. User:Boothy443 has voted oppose, but he opposes virtually every nomination he comes across. Note that he voted oppose to every active RfA at WP:RFA so don't take it personally. --Durin 22:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, the instructions have recently been evolving and have caused some consternation among nominees and voters alike. What the time should be is time now +7 days. Time now is when the nomination is placed on the WP:RFA page. If you are comfortable with your answers to the questions (they look fine to me), then I can adjust the time and place it at WP:RFA. There was, briefly, an instruction that the nominee had to do that step, but nominators are included as an alternative to doing this step now. Thanks for accepting the nomination. I think you are a fantastic contributor and tremendous asset to Wikipedia. --Durin 13:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, time now is in UTC, not your local time zone. --Durin 13:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I see now you did it, and did it correctly. Best of luck with the nomination! I'm sure it'll sail through with flying colors. --Durin 13:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Patent misuse
I contemplated adding Patent troll to the Patent misuse article, but I thought better of it. Afterall, the charge against patent trolls isn't patent misuse, but rather that they shouldn't have the patent in the first place. Plus, it seems weird to have to disclaim the fact that the links are not examples of patent misuse, but if they're not, then why are they there? They seem to only relate to the "plain meaning" of patent misuse and not to the doctrine--perhaps in the same way as Biopiracy might also be "patent misuse".

On a related point, I'm contemplating a category: Equitable defenses. As far as I can tell, there is no such thing.Mmmbeer 18:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Possible problems with images of minors
I came across a user page recently for a wikipedia editor who is a minor as defined by U.S. law. On the user page was an image of the editor. The editor used the PD-self tag for the licensing of the image. I am curious if legally speaking there is a problem here in general. Can a minor hold copyright, and can a minor release their works into the public domain? As part of my regular job, I regularly take photographs of people in a variety of contexts. I have been trained and am especially careful in photographing minors; my training teaches me that minors must have a signed release by their parent or guardian for me to use the photo in a number of cases (though some cases not). Thus, it is my impression that minors (at least in my state) can not transfer their rights.

In investigating this, I found a reference at, where it states that minors can hold copyrights. However, individual state law may govern how those rights may be handled in business dealings. Wikipedia tends to use laws as they exist in the State of Florida. Perusing their legislative site, I could not readily find an applicable state statute.

I realize your work is in patent law. I'm hoping however that you might know of someone else who may be able to comment on copyright law here, since you've (presumably) interacted with other lawyers here on Wikipedia. Alternatively, you might be able to comment yourself or know of external resources that might provide some illumination on this. --Durin 23:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on adminship
Though it has not officially been closed, your RfA is now past it's close date/time. With a tally of 27-1-0, it's passed. I'm sure a bureaucrat will be along shortly to close it. Congratulations are definitely in order! If you have any questions about administrator functions, feel free to ask me. I'll be happy to help. If I don't have an answer for you, I'll direct you to where you can get an answer. --Durin 16:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You're a sysop!
Hi,, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp  «Talk»=  Please also add your name to WP:LA  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Congrats on adminship  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   20:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Business method patent
Ed, thanks for the edits on business method patents.--Nowa 16:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Ed, nice addition about the antigravity patent. Sure looks the the PTO screwed the pooch on this one. I added some additional commentary. --Nowa 11:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Ditto my recent additions.--Nowa 12:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Remember Storyline patent
Remember the article that you put up for deletion? Well, I just got around to reading an article that I bookmarked. I'm wondering if there might be reason to reconsider that deletion. (oops, wasn't logged in) mmm beer T / C / ? 21:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Mandyhaberman.jpg
''Debate moved to Image talk:Mandyhaberman.jpg. --Edcolins 16:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)''

They're dead ,Jim
Sorry, that was bit cryptic! If you look at the previous article version, you'll see the article referenced a disambig for a group which doesn't have an article. If an article is created for the group then that section would make sense, but as it stood it seemed superfluous to me. Dl yo ns 493  Ta lk  21:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Indigenous knowledge
Thanks for the heads-up, Ed, and well picked up on the possible copyvio. Curiously, the offending wikipedia indigenous knowledge article and its presumed source text on that blogspot were created on the same day (April 21, 2005), which would seem to be more than a coincidence- it would be quite likely that it was the blog author (Martin Schenke) himself who created that article (under anon ip) and populated it with the duplicated material, a suspicion further supported by the fact the ip used is an address in Sth Africa, as is the blogspot author. Nevertheless, it's more desirable that the wiki article finds its own voice, and now that there is a traditional knowledge article I agree that the two can be combined - at least for now. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  22:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I've missed recent developments in relation to these articles. Can you summarise here please. 203.198.237.30 02:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are referring to the indigenous knowledge article, then (if I may reply on Ed's behalf) the brief summary is that Ed detected that that article's former contents were a word-for-word repetition of this site, and so he removed the content and turned it into a redirect to traditional knowledge. I was pointing out that the wikipedia article and the website's contents might even have been supplied by the same contributor, but even if so it is probably better for wikipedia not to parrot what has been supplied elsewhere. Hope that helps, --cjllw | TALK  07:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Got it, thanks for that. The comments above suggested something like this. I appreciate you taking the time to confirm and pointing me over here for a response. 203.198.237.30 08:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Issac Newton
Careful on what you revert to ;) Sceptre 14:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Doctrine of equivalents and Prosecution history estoppel
Ed, I'd like to know your reasoning as to why these concepts do not belong in the IP template. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Intellectual property project?
Ed, I've been thinking for some time that those of us who contribute to IP articles should band together and form a project, the ultimate goal of which would be, of course, to improve Wikipedia's coverage in this area. I teach a course at UVa on intellectual property for engineers; I've been particularly active the last few days because my students wrote critical reviews of Wikipedia's IP coverage for their final examination. (Very interesting papers!) As I checked out the articles they mentioned, I couldn't help editing, of course, and I ran across your name very frequently. I think very highly of your contributions (even if we would sometimes disagree). I'm sure you know of other contributors with interests in IP who might want to join such a project, such as BDAbramsom. What do you think? Bryan 16:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ed, count me in. I'm a patent agent specializing in business method patents.  In my former life I was a technology manager for a major chemical company.


 * On another note - I'm a bit offended by the "Clean up" post on the USPTO article. I say, if the posters are really that concerned, they should make a positive contribution rather than merely be critical.  How do you feel? --Nowa 22:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll get in on that - although I must confess, I do nothing in patent (no technical background) so it's all trademark and copyright for me. BD2412  T 22:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I will also help out as much as possible with Patent Articles, particularly in relation to the US Patent System. I am not sure yet how much I can or cannot say in relation to adding stuff to articles; however, I am pretty sure if I stick to the fairly common knowledge and what is available to the public I should be fine (in case you couldn't guess I work at the USPTO - J M 20:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearance Search
Ed, Thanks for doing the clean up on clearance search and moving the claims into to claims (I hope you also don't mind be eliminating the moot comments re Insurance IP Bulletin). --Nowa 01:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

expand
Hello again. Just to let you know that the expand template goes on the Talk page, not the article. --Mel Etitis ( \x{039C}\x{03B5}\x{03BB} \x{0395}\x{03C4}\x{03B7}\x{03C4}\x{03B7}\x{03C2} ) 10:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, after leaving that message, I discovered that someone had (without discussion or consensus) changed the template to make it relevant to the articel not Talk; I've changed it back, but it may well change in the future. So, in short, your mistake wasn't a mistake. --Mel Etitis  ( \x{039C}\x{03B5}\x{03BB} \x{0395}\x{03C4}\x{03B7}\x{03C4}\x{03B7}\x{03C2} ) 12:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for move of "kokai"
I'd like to inform you my suggestion for move of Kokai to "Kokai tokkyo koho", and to listen to your opinion. Thank you. --Omodaka 01:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Abstracts
Hi, I wrote on the talk pages a bit on the abtract related articles, partially in response to your unreferenced tags. I thought maybe you had some ideas on a better way to handle the subject and would like to hear it. Thanks.--Paraphelion 13:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm being vandalized
Hi Ed,

It's Arnoud Engelfriet. Since we had contact in the past about my page, I thought I'd contact you about this.

A couple of days ago I was interviewed on the radio, and a journalist confronted me with some seriously slanderous misrepresentations of things I said 15 years ago. The best summary is at http://www.nieuwnieuws.nl/archives/2006/01/francisco_van_jole_pleegt_smaa_1.html (in Dutch).

Because of this my page at Wikipedia is getting vandalized with people adding slurs to my biography. I see people are deleting them as well. Since I'm not all that familiar with Wikipedia, I don't really know what to do about this. I hope you can help me out here.

Arnoud arnoud@engelfriet.net


 * I have protected the page for now. --Edcolins 15:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Protection removed. It is not clear to me whether this incident is notable enough to be covered by the article (Arnoud Engelfriet). I removed the protection for now and we will see how the matter evolves. --Edcolins 19:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ed, I followed the discussion about Arnoud silently and I want to thank you for doing the right thing. Andries 19:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Page lock
WRT: Arnoud Engelfriet. Yeah the page lock was appropriate. Without substantial proof and a willingness to discuss the matter on the talk page, a netural admin (without a stake in the article) can lock the page. PS sorry for the delay in replying. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  04:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome
Hello, and thank you so much for your nice message, welcoming me to wikipedia. I actually joined late 2004, but I have just begun to really make some edits.

I am currently writing a law review on HR 2795, otherwise known as the Patent Reform Act of 2005. In doing so, I have been looking for information for my citations. As a law student, I have a free account on Lexis Nexis, which of course forms the bulk of my research. But occasionally, I have been unable to find something, so I came to wikipedia. Case-in-point: the Japanese Patent Law. It does not appear to exist at all on Lexis Nexis. So, I came here, looked it up, and cited wikipedia! Wikipedia as a source in a law review??? Works for me!

Once I have the information from Wikipedia, I went trolling for a better souce then the Wayback machine for a English version of the Japanese Patent Law. I then discovered a copy published by the WIPO (much better authority!), so I modified the Japanese Patent Law page to include a link.

I am a second year law student at the University of Akron. Having recieved a BS in Computer Science from Clemson University (as well as a BS in Political Science), I took and passed the  Patent Agent's Exam last semester! In addition to my JD, I am also a candidate for the Law School's Intellectual Property Cerfiticate and a member of the Patent Moot Court Team (or more formally, the Giles Sutherland Rich Intellectual Property Moot Court Competition).

I see there is some interest in a coalition of people interested in this area of law to modify related article. I will express some interest now, but I am pretty overwhelmed at the moment, between getting the Law Review Article and preparing for the Moot Court competition. Ask me again later :).

Also, I am looking for summer employment in an IP related area. I will move anywhere in order to do this. Does anyone out there know of a firm needing a clerk for the summer?

Thanks again for the welcome. I look forward to more participation.

kurtm3 16:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Software patents under the European Patent Convention

 * I think Jheald's suggestion is the way forward, and a reasonable compromise. If the anon-IP is unwilling to do this, then I would find that he is acting in contravention of this compromise, and would be POV pushing rather than attempting to achieve consensus as a way forward. This isn't a blockable offense, but it's certainly grounds on which to revert his edits in this regard until he's willing to work on building consensus. Be careful; it's already a slow revert war. --Durin 20:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)