- 1 Design rights listed at Redirects for discussion
- 2 European utility model; and, caveats
- 3 13 years of adminship
- 4 Industrial Property
- 5 Happy First Edit Day
- 6 ArbCom 2019 special circular
- 7 Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
- 8 Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
Design rights listed at Redirects for discussionEdit
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Design rights. Since you had some involvement with the Design rights redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
European utility model; and, caveatsEdit
In utility model, the European Commission's "no agreement could be reached" might be expanded as "almost all EU countries thought this was a daft solution in search of a non-existent problem". The Gebrauchsmuster made sense under the old German patent law, with its high standard of inventive step. Countries like France and UK never saw the need for anything similar. (Urban legend has it that this was the subject of a Gebrauchsmuster – but I do not believe it unless I see it. Arthur Pedrick could have got that granted as a UK patent (unless an examiner found a novelty-destroying citation in e.g. The Beano or The Dandy); but I doubt he would ever have filed such an application.)
If you're FCIPA and have the reference books, the US-centric article patent caveat could do with some attention. A wholly different idea goes back in the UK to the year dot or thereabouts, and still exists. Narky Blert (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
13 years of adminshipEdit
- Earlier discussion moved to Talk:Industrial_property#Reverting_redirect_(discussion_moved_from_User_talk:Edcolins).
Hi Ed Thanks very much for your reply, Is it ok if we move this discussion to the article talk page? I feel like this conversation is useful to have on the article its self. I feel like this is the sort of discussion that could happen more than once if its not somewhere central. Best John Cummings (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy First Edit DayEdit
ArbCom 2019 special circularEdit
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)Edit
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)