User talk:Edcolins/Archive06

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

This archive page covers the dates between February 10, 2008 to November 15, 2008.

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/Archive07. (See How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. --Edcolins (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Patents Editing
I'm fairly new to this - and although I did not consider the references I put in as "unrelaiable", yours are much better. I didn't know it was all right to link to another Wikipedia entry, but if it is a properly reference one, then the intent has been achieved.

Thanks!

Bill Anderson (Skelta)

Talk:Maurizio Giuliano
I replied to your question at Talk:Maurizio Giuliano. Cheers, --CCorward (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of self-published sources for factual objective non-substantive material
Hi Ed. You might be interested in the discussion I initiated here, about the above subject which I think is relevant to some of our discussions. Cheers,--CCorward (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect Esp@cenet®
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Esp@cenet®, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Esp@cenet® is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Esp@cenet®, please affix the template 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. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation given not online, but available
Thanks a lot Ed for your usual vigilance ! Yes, the citation about Antarctica in the Giuliano article's photo is not in the article. However, you will notice that I have indeed inserted this note in the reference to the article cited: "NB: The photos and captions referred to in the text are available on the paper version but not the online version". That is to say, if you had the paper version of that issue, you would see some photos with captions, and the captions contain data too. If my understanding of Wikipedia policy is correct, a reference does not need to be online in order to be used, as long as it is verifiable, regardless of the fact that you may need to go to a newspaper archive to verify it. So if I don't hear from you or you don't object, I will remove that "failed verification" in a few days.

By the way, I am learning a lot from you on format and policy, thanks. :-)

Cheers, --CCorward (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

please include the news concerning the patent troll tracker, for archive purposes re:digitalshamen
protected free speech?

http://stage.theflyonthewall.com/entry.php?symbol=CSCO

Periodicals story about CSCO Rick Frenkel, director of intellectual property at Cisco Systems (CSCO), has been found to be the "anonymous" blogger behind Patent Troll Tracker, also known as PTT, reports the Wall Street Journal. A patent troll is used to describe organizations that acquire patents and use them in court cases in the hope of winning damages from companies that manufacture and design products. Cisco is often a target of such suits. Cisco is a member of the lobby group Coalition for Patent Reform, that wants a bill passed to end the troll activity. :theflyonthewall.com

http://www.networkworld.com/community/taxonomy/term/47

Cisco lawyer reveals himself as Patent Troll Tracker blogger amid 'threats' Submitted by Cisconet on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 8:58pm. A Cisco patent lawyer has outed himself as author of the blog Patent Troll Tracker, a vocal critic of so-called patent trolls, a derogatory term for companies that acquire and license intellectual property and assert them in court to win damages from vendor companies. Patent Law blog has posted up this picture of Patent Troll Tracker Cisco IP Director Rick Frenkel. In his blog posting of Feb 23.

Read more

Cisconet's blog 3 comments Permalink Read more about:Cisco intellectual property patent trolls patents Rick Frenkel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.154.215 (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia local wiki (wikimetro.org) feedback request
I am a Wiki developer, have spent the past 12 months developing wikimetro.org in asp.net as a local wiki and would like to ask for (expert) feedback. www.wikimetro.org a local wiki 04:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Jeff Brauer

Sorry for any inconvenience caused Thanks and Regards, Jeff

Primary source reference
Thank you for doing that. I think the entry is better for it. Just so you know, it is my intention to add references in the Wikipedia entry from the references used to update the billanderson.com.au "primary source", but this will take some time.

Regards, Skelta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skelta (talk • contribs) 20:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

DataTreasury
Ed,

I may need some backup on DataTreasury.--Nowa (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ed,

Please see my talk page.--Nowa (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

ED.


 * Riddle me this: why on earth would nowa ask you for backup on DataTreaury, specifically in reference to the felony conviction? How can we deduce this? nowa asks you for "help om DataTreasury" and immediately thereafter posts that he cannot find the felony conviction on the FL website. What in your past history with nowa would make him think you would know about a felony conviction, when all your earier coorespondence with nowa was regarding patents and your patent expertise...  the plot thickens...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.156.251 (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nowa, Ed: just to keep you two in the loop: GDallimore (Talk) 10:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * User talk:66.65.156.251
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents

Categories
Sorry for my enigmatic edit history on EPOrg. Seems the Catmore was already on the EPOrg category. That's enonugh highlighting of the main article, surely. Having done that, you would want to be able to find the EPOrg article under "E". GDallimore (Talk) 22:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: the section on Invention in the Visual Arts on the Invention page
Hi,

In reply to your comment on my addition to the Invention page, if you click on the links I provided, you will see information about the inventions cited in Wikipedia already.

For example, if you click on Alexander Calder you will read that he invented the mobile, if you click on Leonardo da Vinci you will read about his scientific inventions, click on Kenneth Snelson and you will read about his inventions and his patents on them, click on Man Ray and you will read that he invented the Rayograph (named after him), click on Picasso and you will read about numerous inventions he created, etc.

Before you accuse me of adding original information to Wikipedia, please try the links I already provided and read the text at each of these links. You will find that I did not invent or originate any of the information I added to Wikipedia adn that these links serve as great references. In addition to the fact that the information I wrote in Wikipedia is already detailed in other Wikipedia entries, the information I added to Wikipedia is actually very well known among professional in visual art, e.g, ask an art historian.

If you still feel additional references are needed, please let me know specifically where. You comment is extremely general. Thank you.

--Sara USA (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Invention in Visual Art on Invention Page, a Opposed to Other Pages
Hi,

I appreciate your reply however the requirements you placed on my Wikipedia entry are not placed on contributions to other Wikipedia pages such as the page: "Invention (music)", and the "Inventor" page. I would assume that the requirement for external references is the same for all Wikipedia pages. Please explain.

Thank you,

--Sara USA (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Distinguishing Invention in the Arts from "Invention (music)"
Hi, Can you please make a clear and obvious distinction between the content under the "Artistic Invention" heading on the "Invention" wikipedia page and the content on the "Invention (music)" wikipedia page?

The problem is that the title of the "Invention (music)" page is misleading because it leads one to believe that the page is about invention in music (e.g., invention throughout the history of music, innovation in music, the origin and creation of different kinds of music, invention of musical instruments, etc.) which belongs under the "Artistic Invention" header on the "Invention" page. The reality is that the "Invention (music)" page covers a much narrower scope because it defines a term in musicology for a particular kind of musical composition called an "invention."

Please change the title of the "Invention (music)" page both on the page itself and also directly under the main title of the "Invention" page. My concern is that people may go to the "Invention" page and instead of scrolling down to read about the broad topic of "Artistic Invention" (which will hopefully be expanded to cover the broad subject of iinnovation in music throughout history), they may click onto the very narrow, different topic of the musical term invention on the "Invention (music)" page thinking that is all wikipedia offers on artistic invention.

I hope I have explained this clearly to you! Can you change the title "Invention (music)" to "Invention - A Kind of Musical Composition" since the "Artistic Invention" section of the "Invention" page will hopefully have a list of innovations in musical composition? Although I am not an expert on music, examples that may be appropriate may be innovations like the first jazz composition, the first rock and roll composition, etc.

Also, the link to what is now titled "Invention (music)" page that is currently directly under the title on the "Invention" page should be moved and inserted under "See Also" at the bottom of the "Invention" page. I see no reason why a link to the invention as an obscure musical form should take priority over the other links under "See also" on the "Invention" page, for example, the link to patents and the link to the various lists of inventors are both crucial to the "Invention" page. Why are these links under "See also" at the bottom of the "Invention" page and the link to this obscure musical form prominately positioned at the top of the "Invention" page?

Hope you will fix all of this! Thanks.--Sara USA (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Definition of "Invention"
Hi, There is another problem at the top of the "Invention" page which I cannot gain access to fix myself. In the definition of invention it says that an invention is an object, process or technique. The word "object" in common usage in the US implies a form that is relatively small, e.g., objects are considered to be forms that can be lifted. A wall is not generally considered to be an object, nor is: a building, an airplane, a monument, other huge immobile forms, a system (like a large system that runs throughout a building or throughout a landscape), etc. Yet any of these forms can be inventions. This must be why patent offices allow patent applications for what they call "compositions of matter" (instead of objects). The term "object" in the Wikipedia definition of invention must be expanded. I suggest adding something to the effect that an invention can be: a composition, a form, a tangible form, a composition of matter, or something like this.

Thanks. --Sara USA (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion continued here: Talk:Invention --Edcolins (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Invention page
Hi, I just edited the Invention page as I described to you. I have dealt with inventions and patents for decades. When I wrote to you before I did not see how I could edit this top part of the wikipedia page myself. Thank you for telling me how! --Sara USA (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Your input welcomed
There are a large group of individuals working together to try and disparage the Charles Michael Collins patents on self-replication in the Self-replicating machine article (major patent involving software). An evaluation of the attack on it by the authors of the book "Kinematic-Self Replicating Machines" (KSRM) is underway and facts are being ignored such as the fact that the KSRM authors are as well infringing as they try and "bust" it. They cite broad portions of the discription and are trying to attribute that broadness to the patent overall and not just what resides within the claims.
 * Relevant links:

The attack page within KSRM: 

Collins's site debunking the attack (click on red link bar therein): 71.114.31.98 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Invention page categories
Hi, How can the Invention page be in the Arts category? Also it seems really narrow minded that the Invention page is "within the scope of the Technology WikiProject, a group related to the the study of Technology". Can ths be expanded? Invention encompasses much more than technology, e.g., Artistic Invention?

Thanks --Sara USA (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much. You are very helpful! I know that I may have to defend having invention in an arts category but the facts are totally stacked in favor of this as one can see if they read what is already on the Invention page and if they then look at the references listed, such as the link to the Invention and Innovation Center of the Smithsonian Institution http://www.invention.smithsonian.org/home/ and this book: Patenting Art and Entertainment by Gregory Aharonian and Richard Stim, (2004). Again your kindness is v appreciated! --Sara USA (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

London Agreement
Just so you know, Sweden ratified the London Agreement on 3 April 2008. However, this has only been confirmed to me in a private letter from a Swedish firm of patent attorneys. If I find a publicly available source, I'll update the article. The EPO website is the most likely place to confirm the news and I'm watching that as a matter of course. GDallimore (Talk) 08:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarification: The Swedish Government agreed to ratify on 3 April, with the necessary legislation coming into effect on 1 May - which probably explains the lack of updates on the EPO website before now. GDallimore (Talk) 08:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Belgian-American Newbie
Hello Ed. I am also an Ed and a newbie at Wikipedia. As I get more and more familiar with the lay of the land, I begin to question where I should devote my time. My initial Wikipedia searches were on the topic(s) Belgium/Flemish/Language/Low Countries. I started to do some minor editing in that realm. My basic goal was to bring clarity without any change to the authors initial idea. Of course, minor grammar changes led to bigger sentance structure changes. But, changing syntax can lead to problems. So...I stopped and considered. I investigated the History of the article,"Communities,etc...Belgium" and saw that the article was far removed from where it had started. The reason I'm reaching out to you is that you were one of thr early editors. I also see that you a patent attorney. My oldest son is a patent attorney. It seems that what happens at Wikipedia is comperable to the life of some failed inventions. It starts out as a mousetrap but ends up a TV remote-garagedooropener that can't catch mice. To many chefs spoil the broth. How do I not become just another chef? I also don't want to be impertinent. I hope you will reply.--Buster7 (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not so new anymore
Hello again, Ed. I wonder if you could take a minute and check-out a page I'm working on at WikiMedia. I call it Wikiknights. Any advice you might have is appreciated. No rush, anytime. Thank you. --Buster7 (talk) 03:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/wikiknights thanks...--Buster7 (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Buster7 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Just thanks for your very valuable contributions! Swen 16:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

MPEG-2 patents
Edcolins, can you take a look at the MPEG-2 article and see if you still think that the patent holder's section still needs work? Thanks. Jrincayc (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Patents for notability
Hi Ed. I wanted to get your opinion on something since you're the most patent-oriented WP user I could think of...can someone use having a patent or patents as a point to establish notability? Also, I would like your opinion on whether or not my take on this subject is correct or if I'm barking up the wrong tree here: Articles for deletion/Steven Chayer. If you don't feel comfortable contributing to the discussion there, that's perfectly fine, but I would like to hear your thoughts anyway. Thanks! Cquan (after the beep...) 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Patent Attorney Edit
Could you please advise why you removed the link to the Australian Patent Attorney Directory from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patent_attorney&direction=next&oldid=218749639

Thank you.

Dan

Danlarkam (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Patent Trolls
The reference was in the article about NiMH batteries. Go check for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.130.10 (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Invention Promotion Firms
Ed, I couldn't find any listing of an attorney named "Arnold S. Thompson" or his law firm in Martindale Hubbel or Google. Arnold S. Thompson's comments should certainly be taken seriously, but he may not be a attorney.--Nowa (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Invention Page - Lets Delete New Overview Section
Hi Ed, This new Overview section on the Invention page is a repeat of the section above it which already provides an overview of the topic. Can this new Overview section be deleted and any content it has that is not in the section above it simply be added in there? This way the page will only have one overview section. Having two is silly!--Sara USA (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sean Ellis
Hi

I've been working peripherally on an article about a film directed by Sean Ellis (Cashback (film)). The article about the director was deleted last year, but I think it might stand for recreation based on some research I've done.

Rather than starting from scratch, is it possible to get a look at the content of the article that was deleted and try to improve that? Perhaps you could upload the content to my user page User:GDallimore/Sean Ellis and I'll work on it there. Sorry if that's a trial for you.

Many thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 15:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ed GDallimore (Talk) 09:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thought I'd draw your attention to this in case you wanted to provide any input Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_16. I think the article was unfairly speedy deleted. GDallimore (Talk) 16:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Invention Page - The Best Way to Delete New Overview Section?
Thanks Ed! As a person who acts with real authority on Wikipedia, would you please delete this repetitive Overview Section on the Invention page? I do not have any authority on Wikipedia. --Sara USA (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for deleting repetitive text on the Invention page Ed! --Sara USA (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Software patents
Hi - I notice that my edit to software patent was reverted (I don't think by you). That in itself I don't think was particularly unexpected - given the controversial nature of the topic. Whilst I have no intention of starting an edit war, I was surprised when you cautioned me for inserting an unverified sentence into the article.

I thought, perhaps given the sensitivity of the subject, to proceed with caution. However, I was a little annoyed by the opening paragraph of the article - which I would have thought, in an encyclopaedia, would define what the article was going to talk about. However, the opening sentence was "A software patent has no universally accepted definition", which slightly annoyed me because it was not a particularly useful opening sentence. Hence, why I revised it to explain that a software patent is a patent for software, which I thought was pretty self-explanatory.

As an experienced wikipedian (who doesn't normally bother signing in), I have no problem with your request for citation from sources, and I am not stupid enough to start an edit war. However, in this case, I did not think my actions contravened WP:V or WP:NPOV. Specifically, for WP:V, the thresh hold for citation is for 'challenged content or content that is likely to be challenged'. Here, I don't think it was something that would have been challenged; I have been proved wrong here.

However, my real concern is that you strong interventionist stance, whilst helpful in one sense, is off-putting in another, and the rubber stamping on my discussion page could be quite inciteful. I do think there is a tinge, and I must emphasise just a tinge, of wikilawyering about it. (Slightly ironic given the subject matter)

I would like to stress that I recognise I have absolutely no authority on the subject of Patents, Intellectual Property or anything else. My intention here is more of interested/concerned party rather than hurt editor, and I would like it if you could give me your view on the matter.

Thanks, Charles Barry (81.157.171.8 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

P.S. If you do reply, please could you reply to User_talk:02barryc, as that is my user-login. Thanks again.

Open Source
Hi Edcolins, i have a question about the link to Glossary_of_legal_terms_in_technology on Open Source, as it seems the glossary moved to, so linkfixing can be done, Glossary of legal terms in technology, ? Mion (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hoi Edcolins, i fixed the link, and made a softredirect to it, Glossary of legal terms in technology, the transwiki helppage didn't provide much information about interlinking. Cheers Mion (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey what's up
I just wanted to tell you: nice job on In Re Bilski. This is a case which will influence patent law for years to come. --Eastlaw (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI if you want to get involved Template_talk:Did_you_know. GDallimore (Talk) 11:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)