Jump to content

User talk:Edcolins

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lugnad (talk | contribs) at 13:13, 3 August 2005 (→Common Era). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Hi Edcolins, and welcome from Belgium to the Wikipedia ! (Are you Belgian ? Your name seems to indicate you're not.) Hope you'll enjoy. --FvdP 22:02, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey FvdP! Thanks for your welcome. Nice to get this just three days after starting. --Edcolins.

Hello Ed, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log so others can meet you and help you get started. If you need editing help, visit Wikipedia:How to edit a page. For format questions, visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help, add a question to the Village pump, or just leave a note on my talk page. Jwrosenzweig 22:11, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd discourage the list idea -- they're frequently hard to find again once created (e.g., is it at List of patent topics? List of patent-related topics? List of patent-related articles?). See alsos work fairly well if we're talking about 4-8 articles or so: they're probably a better solution than a list article, unless you're talking about needing to link to a lot of articles. Honestly, what I do is use the "What links here" page (have you used that button? it's on the sidebar to your left) -- go to Patent and hit it, and you'll find every article that links to that article. So if all you're doing is trying to find those articles, that works. If you're trying to make it easier for others to find patent related topics.....well, I guess I need more information before I can make a good suggestion. Who are you envisioning would need this help? Is a list a good idea, or can they simply search for the necessary topic using our search box in the top right? More details please, when you have the chance. :-) Jwrosenzweig 21:15, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
See also: is Wikistyle. We don't have "Internal Links" sections, so I'd avoid that term and go with the see also idea. I believe the format is ''See also:'' [[link]], [[another link]], but you might check the Wikipedia:Manual of style first. If you don't find it, I'd use the layout I've written here. :-) Hope this helps! Thanks for being proactive, Jwrosenzweig 21:57, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

European Patent Convention

Hi there. I saw your note at the new user log. Really good work on European Patent Convention, European Patent Office, and European Patent Organisation. It's nice to look over a new user's contributions and find almost nothing that needs fixing. Keep up the good work.

Happy editing, Isomorphic 03:53, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, the one correction I did make was to delink the second occurrence of "European Patent Organization" in the European Patent Office article. With few exceptions, it's a Wikipedia convention to only make a link the first time you mention something. Not a big deal, just letting you know. Isomorphic 03:58, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

City of Brussels

Okay, go ahead and explain! :-) Kim Bruning 10:45, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ah, gottit. Kim Bruning 10:48, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Flemish communities

Firstly, thanks for all the work on the Flemish communities. Secondly, I agree about Kraainem, I can't say it's NPOV. I adapted the text of 5 of the communities with facilities: Kraainem, Linkebeek, Sint-Genesius-Rode, Wemmel and Wezembeek-Oppem. I left Herne as it was, because it didn't contain the same text as the others and it didn't seem too non-NPOV to me. D.D. 20:40, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea, this Municipalities with linguistic facilities article. I adapted and expanded the list a bit. Some of the municipalities you mentioned do not exist as such anymore (eg. Teuven has been incorporated into Voeren in the 1970's). I'll try to find out the French names for the municipalities of the German speaking part. D.D. 10:38, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

University names

I just don't think universities should be listed under their native names, especially not when they're as long as in the case of the University of Leuven and the University of Louvain. Can we do something about it? Sky

Action Directe

Simple: Written convention is for non-English words to be italicized. You will see several examples of this around Wikipedia. See Bundesnachrichtendienst, Gestapo, or MVD for examples. That you do not see it more often is poor writing style. I was going to use Komitet Gosudarstvennoi Bezopastnosti as an example, but it appears that the style is applied inconsistently there. -Joseph 21:50, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

It's not just names. It's any non-English word. Probably the most common example is the use of Latin terms. I'm not sure where it's documented in Wikipedia, but it's a writing convention, not a Wikipedia convention. The same sort of textbooks that would tell you to italicize book titles would apply here. -Joseph 22:31, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

Flanders (disambiguation)

Yes, it is... It is a flemish (Belgium) market, which is located in Flanders. In Belgium, you see lots of Flanders. It makes all kinds of bikes: mountainbikes, womenbikes.... Belgian man 14:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, it makes only bikes. See website www.flandersfietsen.be. Google "flanders fietsen" (fiets is the dutch word for bike, fietsen is the plural and the verb): 2 750 hits. And I think it may on Wikipedia, as I see how many other Belgian companies, or how many sorts of cereals by Kellogg's (for example) there are on this Wikipedia. Belgian man 17:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

About "External links" headers

Hello, Ed! Welcome to Wikipedia! I just noticed one of your edits, and thought I'd let you know why I've reverted it. The standard format for "external links" sections is to use the plural "links" in the header, even if there is only one link there. That's because it's a section for (one or more) links, rather than a section for a link, and thus expresses our hope that more will be added. Regards, -- The Anome 23:11, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Question pointer

Hi Ed, not sure if it's on your watchlist, but I've posted a question for you at Talk:TRIPS -- pde

Ok. --Edcolins 10:12, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 18:27, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)


Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the imagesand I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 01:24, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

copyrights

i wrote the article List of Roman military terms. i copied it with a permision of the author as u can see in Talk:List of Roman military terms. thanks. Gilgamesh he 12:26, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tnx for text corrections

As I was hurrying earlier today, I made again a horrible amount of typo's. Thanks for correcting. By the way, looking at the list of your significant contributions, i see that we have quite some common points of interest. One of the opinion articles I wrote in De Standaard was on intelelctual property rights. I also worked for L&H, and your description is quite OK; just one detail: the rtechnology was not only sold to Scansoft (were some friends of me work), but parts also to other companies.

The very best wishe for the end of the year and an excellent start for the new year. --Rudi Dierick 17:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Patent application

Thanks for cleaning up after me with some good edits! Would you like a shot at an early draft of an article on Patent Application? It is currently at 1700 words, so most of the work would be pulling out stuff nobody wants to see in an encyclopedia and wikifying the rest! You may also notice I just put up a stub on continuation/divisional/CIP applications Lupinelawyer 10:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Johan Van Vlaams Belang

Hi Ed,

I'm particularly fed up with the edits of User:jvb, who has been adding tons of Vlaams-Blok-friendly propaganda to discussion pages (under the pretense of discussing article-related questions), and is now attacking the article Flemish Interest itself (see [[1]]). Needless to say, this is far from NPOV. Most of it also appears verbatim in whats seems to be entries of his in a blog, under sig "Johan Van Vlaams" (even though he denies he's the same person).

I don't think his edits are suited to Wikipedia.

I don't want to be alone fighting this guy. I'm too tempted to enter discussions with him -- and he's particularly good at leading them astray. I'm too emotionally involved in the subject, too.

I'll appreciate any help. (Or, at least, any sign that anyone here is taking my concerns seriously....)

--FvdP 19:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sydney Hilton bombing

Hello Ed,

Thanks for your help with the software patent pages. I think that they are now pretty good.

I have recently had trouble with an article on Sydney Hilton bombing. user:ambi has been arbitrarily revoking the work, without any discussion. She is apparantly an "ajudicator". This is completely different from the positive interactions that you and I have had.

Could you please have a quick look at the history of the article and please comment. I'm also not sure how to proceed in this matter.

I note that she has been violently reverting other people's work as well. Maybe those works were not well written, but much of it seemed well intended. To just revert spits in the face of the authors and generally ensures that they will never contribute again. This type of behaviour would ultimately destroy Wikipedia.

I am concerned that she has any official status within the community. So I think that this is important beyond the article in question. Her home page is also a little scary with her charter to "remove bias".

Aberglas 00:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) aberglas

Hello Ed,

I note that you edited the vandalized (IMHO) version. Does that mean that you support the purging?

My feeling is that regardless of whether my article is any good, just reverting the well intended work is totally unacceptable behaviour. But I actually think that my work is pretty good, although it could obviously be improved.

Sorry to drag you into this mess, but you are experienced with Wikipedia and I think it is important.

Please leave a message on the talk page.

Thanks,

Aberglas 12:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) aberglas

Hello Ed,

Could you have another look at the article. I realize that a big fight is the last thing that you want to become involved in (I don't!). But this type of aggressive revetions will ultimately make Wikipedia an ugly place, where I for one would not want to contribute. I'm really asking for an opinion rather than just neutral mediation. I think that if someone wants to cut off both your legs it is not a reasonable compromize to let them cut one leg off.

Aberglas 10:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) aberglas

Hello Ed,

If Ambi had worked on the /temp page then I could work with her. But it was not her, but you. So if I do any work she will just revert/delete without contribution. Is that the sort of behaviour you want to see on Wikipedia? And what will you do about it? You cannot negotiate with someone that just stone walls. There is a time for being gentle, but there is also a time for being firm.

Please do not directly contribute to the /temp page just to be nice. (I assume that you have no real interest in the subject.) The trouble is that in this toxic environment you will be pushed as the arbitrator and I will have to live with whatever you do. I find it very difficult to make an article out of the headings that you have (in effect) mandated. (I know that you did not intend to mandate them.) You also give credibility to the revet side of the debate.

I am not that upset about the article itself. But I am very upset about the behaviour. Do you really think that Ambi &co have acted reasonably? If so I will just leave it (and wikipedia) alone.

Please also read Ambi's new note on the talk page that the temp page is irrelevant(!) How do you negotiate with someone like that?

Aberglas 09:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) aberglas

Hello Ed,

I agree that the Ananda Marga section needs elaboration. If you look over the talk page you will see that I actually mentioned this some time ago. There are some good references at the end of my original article, including a newspaper article extract. The Hilton Bombing is a very interesting piece of Oz history. (Where are you from?)

But I am really not prepared to put more work into it just to have Ambi revert it. It takes a lot of effort to create a properly researched article. It takes no effort to revert it.

Please, look at my original article and think about what it means for someone just to revert such a researched piece without comment. You cannot deal with Ambi in the way that you (and I) would like to -- by gentle negotiation.

If you want to do extra work, then please start with my version. I had taken some care to give it a reasonable structure. Remember that Ambi does not really care about the structure one way or the other, she just wants information about ASIO suppressed.

Aberglas 23:47, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) aberglas

Hello Ed,

Hmm. By "I don't think Ambi will revert a properly balanced article" I assume that you are not saying that the original article was unbalanced. (Ie. Beyond repair -- if Ambi had just wanted to add extra material and maybe change some of the language there would never have been this dispute.). The more important issue is that if the temp article is seriously edited by more than just me it will gain authority, which she will be reluctant to take on. But what a lot of work and angst! Aberglas 04:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) aberglas


Hello Ed,

See the Talk:Sydney Hilton bombing. As expected the /temp page was a waste of time. Aberglas 23:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) aberglas.

Hello Ed,

Could you please lock the page again. This needs to go to Arbitration. If we loose, the Wikipedia is not worth fighting for.

Aberglas 23:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) aberglas


I have finally made time to put the article up on WikInfo. Could you please add a link to the Sydney Hilton Bombing external references section to [2]. A slightly tidied up version. (I do not want to do it and start another revert war. As you may have guessed I have given up on Wikipedia.)

Thanks, Aberglas 04:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) aberglas

You will note that Ambi has been up to her tricks again. Deleting content that she does not want aired without contributing. Even purging links. I liked the Wikipedia goals, but was disappointed by the lack of support from the community. I do not want to bother building up a clique of my own and engaging in endless fights -- I have a life to lead.

Anyway, thanks for your help. 59.167.104.179 02:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)aberglas

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A.

Hi, after you started this deletion discussion, I edited the article to enter survey information showing that this firm is regularly found to be number one U.S. IP prosecuting firm in some fields, and in the top ten in others. If you can spare the time, please visit Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A. and reconsider your decision. Unlike Mlprater I'm not an employee of this or any other IP law firm. Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the news

Re the spelling bee mention: Why would I remove it? I added it! :P ITN had been idle for a day and it was the only viable candidate for addition. If TWO football stories are worthy for ITN, perhaps so is 13-year-old who can spell appeg.. appo.. whatever. And this argument is irrelevant anyhow, someone has replaced (not supplemented, but replaced, hrm) it with a far more worthy item. --Golbez 20:15, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ideally, but not required. --Golbez 01:53, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Do you remember Alacant?

Hi! I'm still waiting for your response in Talk:Alicante. --Martorell 09:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

R B Prosser

Hi Ed. Thanks for the cleanup - much appreciated. On the Patents page I have in mind to add a big section about the history of the UK patents system, up to the time of the repeal of the Old Law in 1852. The question is, do I add it in the middle of what we already have, or start a new topic on the early (say pre - C20) history of patents with a 'see also' on the former. A new topic would mean we would have the space to add on pages about other national patents systems. Apwoolrich 14:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:03, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Why you changed the dubbel names of the brussels communities back to the old french ones? It was a good sollution. (by Anonymous user: 217.136.199.186.)

European Parliament - directive rejected

talk copied from User talk:Randywombat:

Please cite your sources about the rejection by the Parliament of the Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. The information is pretty useless if not confirmed. --Edcolins July 6, 2005 10:48 (UTC)
Thanks Ed. My source was the vote itself (I was there) but I can't see it in the media yet. Will add a reference as soon as it appears! Wombat 6 July 2005 11:54 (UTC)

Kinsella

what basis do you have for adding Kinsella as a notable Patent Attorney? His page was voted deleted. And, he is now bragging about recreating his own page about himself on his blog. [3] Your addition of him as a notable Patent Attorney looks suspect. Please explain. I plan to delete revert your change, unless you can explain.--RyanKoppelman 14:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You voted to Keep Tom G. Palmer. Perhaps you should visit Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Stephan_Kinsella_2 (and Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/Stephan_Kinsella_2) and consider how you should vote on this page, applying your standards used for the Palmer vote (number of google hits--I have many more, 19,900 for "Stephan Kinsella"). Nskinsella 01:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why do you vote to keep on Tom G. Palmer and vote abstain on my entry (Stephan Kinsella)? Isn't this inconsistent? you voted FOR Palmer b/c he has 13,500 google hits; but I have 19,900. You said you don't like an article being created by the subject; but Palmer's is obviously self-written, and is MUCH more vanity than mine is. Moreover, my original entry was NOT written by me, but by Dick Clark. I put up a new one b/c it became apparent the first VfD on my entry was unfair and not according to Wiki bio policy. I request that you take a second look at this and make sure you are being fair and consistent. If you still think my page should be deleted, after this, fine. But please note SEVERAL wiki entries (e.g., Intellectual Property, Patent Attorney, Kinsella, Libertarian_theories_of_law, discourse ethics, refer to my entry. Why have them go to a blank page?? Does that serve any purpose? --Stephan Kinsella 15:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • E-dog, on another page, you wrote:
Thanks for your message on my talk page. When I voted keep for Tom G. Palmer, I justified it by writing that "Google returns 13500 hits for the query "Tom G. Palmer" cato [3]." "Tom G. Palmer" alone returns 34,900 hits on Google [4]. So on this point, my vote is not necessarily inconsistent (34,900 > 19,000).
Well, sure, but that's weak--"35000 is notable, but 19000 isn't". Come on. That's not serious.
But even if you had 50,000 hits on Google, I might also have refrained from voting. This is mainly because I am concerned about you putting so much pressure to have your own article. If I was in your position, I would probably keep my distance from the discussion. You are a primary source of information for yourself and, in that sense, your position might be biased. I am not sure whether your attitude fits with the Neutral point of view policy (which applies to articles, but probably also to the way the encyclopedia should be created as a whole). I don't know, and I prefer to abstain from the vote.
Understandable, and advice well taken and appreciated. But I am a justice seeker. I really don't care as much if my entry is deleted or not, as for whether I fight to vindicate my unfair treatment (as I perceive it). Here I was, many moon ago, minding my own damn business, and someone tells me I have a Wiki entry. Interesting. Then someone says it's up for delete. What do I care. I really don't give a damn. But some jerk says it's non-notable (okay by me--I didn't konw Wiki policies on this at the time anyway); and vanity. Implying I did it, as self-promotion. This pissed me off. I rebutted the latter charge and did not even mention the notable charge. Later, many months later, someone tells me he has initiated VfD for Palmer's site. Now this was right after the Wiki entries of some CLEARLY notable friends of mine were vandalized--Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Lew Rockwell with ridiculous charges of racism etc., of the same type made by Palmer. So I figure, let's take a look at his entry. I did so, and in the ensuing VfD debate, realize there are actual policies on this; I studied them and thought, "son of a bitch. I qualify. By their own policies. These wikinerds should not have deleted me. And to top it off, the same one who voted to delete me is voting to keep Palmer. Something ain't right." So, instead of dishonestly putting up my entry anonymously or through a meatpuppet, I did it myself, nothing hidden. And instead of rolling over and playing dead as I did last time, I decided this time, I will make noise and make sure that if I have anything ot say about it, the voters will be made aware of the policies. That is all. If a fair evaluation of my site and aplication of the policies leads to a good faith vote to delete my entry, I don't care. But what do I see? Peopel who vote to keep Palmer up on the grounds that he is openly gay, or has a large number of publications, or has 13000 google hits, voting to delete me, even though I have similar criteria. It makes it seem arbitrary to me. So can you blame me for monitoring this a little bit, and being a bit frustrated at the seemingly arbitrary actions of some people? Nom. Stephan Kinsella 04:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patents

Hey, are you a fellow patent lawyer? I like the idea of utility models, me. Stephan Kinsella 01:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Research exemption & Safe harbor

The link to safe harbor actually goes to a separate definition of sorts. The link to safe harbor exemption brings you back to research exemption. I'm actually not entirely sure that the safe harbor article is particularly good as it starts with the the "literal definition"--a safe harbor. The problem is that there are a number of laws with safe harbors, including copyright, tax, etc. It seems a bit awkward to focus on the Hatch-Waxman Act's. Just a thought. Mmmbeer 14:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

European Industry Federations

Hello, I saw that you moved European industry federation to European Industry Federations. I think that might have been unneccesary, since the term refers to several different organisations. It is, in itself, not a proper noun, but merly refers to a type of institutions, and should thus not be capitalized. See WP:MoS#Institutions. Obviously, if that is the case, the title should be singular as well. I don't blame you at all, though - the intro is misleading, and probably ought to read: "An European industry federation (EIFs) is a trade union organisation...". / Alarm 17:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The correct abbreviation is of course, just as you've now written, EIF. My mistake. Thanks for moving the article back so fast. / Alarm 19:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Common Era

I note your edit on the article Common Era, where you list as a Support "* It corresponds to Oxford style and is used in the OED and ODWR." Where is the evidence for this?
I have a pocket edition. I doubt that the OED supports the use of the BCE/CE notation. Perhaps I have an old edition?
When the OED discusses its own history, is uses the AD notation. [4] “The new dictionary was planned as a four-volume, 6,400-page work that would include all English language vocabulary from the Early Middle English period (1150 AD) onward, plus some earlier words if they had continued to be used into Middle English.”
In its “List of abbreviations”, the OED does list B.C. and A.D. It omits BCE and CE. [5]
The on-line Oxford Reference requires subscription; however they provide sample entries without charge. These entries use ‘ad’ and ‘bc’ to the exclusion of BCE/CE. Consider [6] “Pompeii appears as a dependent port-settlement of Nuceria in 310 bc” (unless you are aware of others)
Are you confident of your edit? What is your source?--ClemMcGann 10:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, Thanks --ClemMcGann 13:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edcolins&oldid=20187655"