User talk:Edcolins/Archive10

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

This archive page covers the dates between June 25, 2013 – December 28, 2014.

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/Archive11. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. --Edcolins (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		for your work on International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science during its deletion review. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Edcolins (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

ICCF

Hello.

You have deleted a new Entry concerning ICCF. International Cold Fusion Conference.

I am not sure the reasoning.

I added.

In February 2013, NASA Aeronautics Research Institute has awarded a $150 000 contract to attempt to adapt Cold Fusion/LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) (ICCF Topic) technology to Doug Wells of NASA Langley Research Center to power aircraft..

This is true and I cited the NASA website where they published this press release, so it is verifiable.

The reason given for deletion is that it implies something not said in the citation, but I am only saying NASA has granted a $150 000 research grant on this topic, which is both true and cited.

WIKIPEDIA has a page on Cold Fusion where it is discussed as LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions), if this is the confusion. LENR is more about taking parts from two isotopes and building a new one, and Cold Fusion is typically thought of as two merging, but the terms are synonymous.

This Topic WAS considered pseudoscience, but recently it has become fairly common knowledge that Pons/Fleischmann were correct and cold fusion/LENR is feasible.

Watch this Short NASA video for an idea (Can you really believe NASA is supporting pseudoscience). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBlKc0TaqPs

Not just NASA, Stanford University, Toyota, Mitsubishi, George Miley, Honda, and many reputable labs are now producing LENR. These facts are on Wikipedia.. See LENR.

Thanks.

I gave the truth in my short addition. I cited the NASA press release saying it is truth. I do not understand why it was deleted.

76.68.43.240 (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This information is not directly related to the conference, and is based entirely on a primary source. Until the story is picked up by reliable secondary sources, I don't think it belongs to any article. --Edcolins (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

So far this Conference is wrongly portrayed as pseudoscience. I would think any reputable sources (such as NASA) saying that Cold Fusion is a Viable Energy source is directly related to these conferences, and why this upcoming ICCF at The Reputable University of Missouri is setting attendance records with a much larger structure of educated speakers on the subject with demonstration. How could any Cold Fusion success not be related to these conferences?

You object to NASA press release as reliable information, yet NASA is not known for lying or even being hackable.

I will provide some Reliable Websites that Show NASA is endorsing LENR. I will also show you that the World is now endorsing cold fusion/LENR

Here Phys Org discusses NASA research into LENR/Cold Fusion.

.

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-nuclear-reactor-basement.html

Here is Forbes Magazine discussing NASA research into Cold Fusion/LENR.

.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/02/22/nasa-a-nuclear-reactor-to-replace-your-water-heater/

The point is that despite this ICCF conference being portrayed as pseudoscience by articles/citations from people not clever enough to make cold fusion work. There has been enormous breakthroughs in this Technology in the past several years.

Now this is an exciting science, and these conferences will be heralded as groundbreaking by future generations.

Here is a video of Dennis Bushnell, The Chief Research Scientist at NASA langley saying Cold Fusion will revolutionize the world. Look at the slides also.

.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJOIhZnXTAg

This technology is reproduceable in 100's of labs worldwide and some of this info (like last slide show) are dated. They are advancing rapidly, and there are many public displays of Cold Fusion/LENR.

It seems almost biased that critics of Cold Fusion, who have mostly vanished since the breakthroughs in LENR seem to have such a hold on Wikipedia. Entries into this website have been blocked, and also into the Cold Fusion Topic itself.

Maybe you can suggest to me how we make this information more accurate. Spend 5 minutes Googling LENR to see how much support it is gaining in mainstream science, and then look at how poorly wikipedia represents these breakthroughs.

This is an exciting time. Why shouldn't Wikipedia readers be allowed to see the truth.

The edit I made is about Cold Fusion, and concerns the validity of the ICCF conferences. I Cited a reputable source and other reputable news agencies as you suggest.

How should I go about telling this truth to your readers. I only wish to portray what is occurring. This is not just wishful thinking and I could cite websites and papers about LENR for many pages.

I do not know if you yourself still Think of LENR as impossible, but I assure you there are many labs claiming this is real, and NASA is only one whom I thought you may trust a wee bit.

It was the publicity behind this page being deleted that even drew me here. It seems funny how science that should be screamed from rooftops does not hold up to views of The Kardashians, but have a good look at this years conference (JULY), and who is speaking. It is not a clown act.

When all is said and done there is no skin off my nose if this page shuts down. I just think it is borderline ridiculous since we now have some of the smartest brains in the world telling us Cold Fusion is real and is already being harnessed.

The NASA website I linked in my original Edit does not say they are spending $150 000 to study LENR/Cold Fusion. They say they are ADAPTING IT TO AIRPLANES. The technology is already being harnessed, and is being sold by more than one source (George Miley, Andrea Rossi, etc).

Yes. When this article was slated for deletion I may have agreed with it, but now only a fool would doubt Cold Fusion/LENR is real.

So delete it if you like, but I think you already knowthat would be wrong if you have read my links or read ::anything current about the state of LENR.

76.68.43.240 (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't see any discussion of the conference itself in the sources you mentioned. --Edcolins (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Tanaza

Hello Edcolins, I will try to put together a list of references of articles that cite Tanaza. Also, when I wrote the article months ago, there were more parts. Where did they go?

Can you help me? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patro-claus (talk • contribs)

Yes, I have removed some parts of the article. The edit summaries explain why, see [1], [2], [3]. --Edcolins (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal still desired?

Did you mean to leave this merge proposal on the article? If so, it links to a wrong discussion page. OccamzRazor (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Invention

Hello, Edcolins. You are invited to join WikiProject Invention, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of inventions and invention-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Cease and desist, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Removing all of the encyclopedic content beyond the lede definition is disruptive edting. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Representation before the European Patent Office and Patent attorney

Dear Edcolins,

thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on your removal of my references on Representation before the European Patent Office and Patent attorney.

Yes, you are right. I'm the owner of the website mentioned, which is not fully in line with Wikipedia guidelines. However. I don't want to promote my website, but the information I collected. I'm using official EPO data for my analysis which makes my source reliable. I believe I added information which enrich the article and fit an Encyclopedia. Furthermore, I did a Ph.D. in Innovation Management and used patent data in my dissertation. I can assure you that I know what I'm doing when analyzing the data and hope to convince you by describing my background.

Besides, the existing links to patentepi.com are all dead which would leave the information completely unreferenced when deleting the links, which I didn't dare to.

Therefore, I undid your removal and hope I can convince you with my arguments.

Thanks! Merkin

PS: I did not undo you removal of the external link at the site end which I must confess might be interpreted as promotion... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merkin r (talk • contribs) 22:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Edcolins, thanks for answering again on my Talk page. Not sure if I should answer here or on my own talk page.

Basically, your only concern left is that I added a reference linking to my own analysis. Does this mean: If you or anyone else added the very same reference, it would be a valid entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merkin r (talk • contribs) 09:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Patent pending may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• types/patent/p-manage/p-useenforce/p-displayrights.htm ''Display your rights''], (under "IPO Home> Types of IP> Patents> Managing your patents> Using and enforcing") Consulted on August 5, 2009. </ref>
• upon filing a provisional patent application you can say you have a “patent pending.”}}</ref>)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Managing Intellectual Property

The article Managing Intellectual Property has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article, although stubby, has no WP:RS and does not assert any notability and does not seem to pass WP:GNG. If the content were more notable, it would be better to be included on the Euromoney Institutional Investor as that company seems to own it, but this article is not even linked from that article.

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. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

World Intellectual Property Review

Hi, regarding this edit, as the article only has a link to the magazine's homepage I was wondering what made you decide that it is clearly notable. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Talk:List of intellectual property law journals

Only one of the similar WikiProject entries is needed; just a mistake in copying text.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Michelle K. Lee

Ed, thanks for creating Michelle Lee (USPTO director). I'm thinking a better name would be Michelle Lee (USPTO), along the lines of Jack King (NASA). First, she's only Acting Director and Deputy Director, and doesn't actually have the Director title (at least not yet). Second, limiting the qualification to "(USPTO)" is likely to be accurate whatever position in the Office she eventually holds. Another possibility would be Michelle Lee (attorney), which would further remain accurate even after she eventually leaves the PTO, and would be relevant to other pre-PTO information that we can flesh out the article with (she was arguable notable even for her Google work, which is where I knew of her prior to her appointment to lead the Silicon Valley office). Thoughts? TJRC (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! What about Michelle K. Lee? I have just moved the article... --Edcolins (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! I never knew she had a middle initial until this announcement. TJRC (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

PS, Would you be willing to tag Michelle Lee (USPTO director) as {{db-self}}, while it's still recent, before it starts getting linked to? I hate having a misdescriptive redirect out there. TJRC (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, this misleading redirect is gone! --Edcolins (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Contacting you personally...

Hi Edcolins, thanks for the feedback. I'm a patent examiner, and I see you follow my edits. I'm a new contributor. Is there any way I could contact you personally? Where are you, and could you tell me something about yourself? I can share my personal email.... Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PharmaPatentExaminer (talk • contribs) 01:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Munich Innovation Group

Hello. You posted deletion notice on my talk page regarding Munich Innovation Group article. However, that is not the article I made, but User:Ip2013. I just did some curation with twinkle and that is it. Best regards, --BiH (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I added some references to the page, to improve that the company is a "leading service provider" which makes it notable for Wikipedia. Best regards. --Ip2013 (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTE and WP:RS before making any more edits. GDallimore (Talk) 10:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ip2013, I still don't see any evidence that the company would be notable. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). --Edcolins (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Edcolins. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Western green mamba.
Message added 10:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Matty.007 10:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Unitary patent (Switzerland and Liechtenstein)

The DYK project (nominate) 17:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.

I can't get the format of an HTML citation right in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.. It's f.n. 14. Could you please fix it for me? PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 28 June

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 Patent Cooperation Treaty page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter 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) 00:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits in the article "Intellectual Property"

Hi, I was the one who added the definition of "Intellectual Property" into the article. But you had removed it. I understand the need to be concise in the introduction. But I find it strange that an article titled "Intellectual Property" should talk about "Intellectual Property Rights" without even giving some kind of definition to "Intellectual Property". Please allow me to keep the 2 sentences clarifying the definition of "Intellectual Property"; they shouldn't bog down the introduction too much. --Sue (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry. I discovered that there is a discussion going on in the article talk page. Perhaps we should talk there instead. Sue (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Civility

		The Civility Barnstar
		For patiently helping us stay on topic in the recent AfD of DWH Nowa (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Edcolins (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

reply message to your email

Dear sir I am soryy

I checked the edit option. I was not aware that it shall save or moderate the article.

I want to know how to create new article?

Please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashifnayarmoole (talk • contribs) 16:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Patent holders

Hello. I see you have worked on pages pertaining to patents. Do you think creating categories for patent holders would make sense? Perhaps by year and by nationality? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Software patents under United States patent law:

I've got an error in footnote 27. I forgot what the Wik. equivalent of HTML <a href... is, and therefore I have a bad citation form. Could you please fix it? Thank you. PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

AfD

I just nominated Xenocentrism for deletion. Borock (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)