User talk:Rollinsk

October 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to William G. Young, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: William G. Young was changed by Rollinsk (c) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2007-10-18T23:54:37+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot 23:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Cesari and McKenna
I'm writing on the talk page. Xiong Chiamiov   :: contact ::   06:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Cesari and McKenna
A tag has been placed on Cesari and McKenna, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Cap'n Walker 15:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Cesari and McKenna
A tag has been placed on Cesari and McKenna, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pen of bushido (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gregg D. Scheller


The article Gregg D. Scheller has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No real indication of notability. Initial creator blanked it, but too many other edits for a db-author CSD.

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 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 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit made to Patent Attorney page November 2008 re: patent agents
I noticed the change you made to the page that indicates that patent agents "may not provide" opinions on validity or infringement. The reference you cite on patently O discusses what the Office authorizes or does not authorize. The reference cited by patently O states, among other things:

Thus, registration to practice before the Office in patent cases does not include authority to render infringement opinions.

and

''Registration to practice before the Office in patent cases does not authorize a person to provide a validity opinion that is not reasonably necessary and incident to representing parties before the Office. ''

What this is saying is that rendering opinions on infringement, and in some cases validity, is not a function of the Patent Office, therefore there is no authority granted to patent agents by the Office. However, subject matter experts who are not patent practitioners render opinions on validity and infringement all the time. They are not precluded by the Office from doing so, because the Office of the PTO does not have such authority or role. If a person is a subject matter expert and becomes a patent agent, it stands to reason that he would not lose his ability to render opinions on validity and infringement.

In summary, I believe the statement that Patent Agents may not provide opinions on validity and infringement is incorrect. I'm not sure of the best way to correct it since this is my first edit to Wikipedia. Suggestions are solicited.

--Jpa57 (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)