User talk:Edcolins

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Patent troll

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

Hi

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

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)

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

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 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfair competition

[[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)

Exhaustion

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

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

• On the Inventive step and non-obviousness page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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

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)

"sic"

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

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)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Edcolins.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Primary Source concerns on Hot Swapping

Questions about the changes you made removing my additions. I would like to correct whatever they are so we improve this page. Perhaps you can help. I have access to source material on this topic from and including some of the people who worked creating the technology.The content was factual and key to the subject. Not having it is one of the reasons Wikipedia receives much criticism. Please help. Deansmith750 (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. We need reliable, published secondary sources especially when it comes to claims about who invented the technology. The issue with "source material on this topic from and including some of the people who worked creating the technology" is precisely that such material qualifies as primary sources. See WP:PRIMARY. Are you aware of any secondary source about who actually invented the technology? --Edcolins (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

No question as to who invented and was issued copyrights. Lots of official proof from governmental agencies. Many historic records are easily accessible via searches and links. I have patent application, copyright history, trade mag stories, marketing materials and misc other records. If I cite the patent application (via gov office), trademark registration with history (via gov office), then the companies published materials and last industry materials showing they recognized "hotplug" was a registered trademark (naming the owner), do I need all these? Deansmith750 (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)