User talk:PraeceptorIP

Welcome! Hello, PraeceptorIP, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bearian (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. We have lots of articles, such as Auslegeschrift for which we could use another legal hand. Would you be interested in joining our project here? Bearian (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearian. I don't know German law, but I would be glad to help you on any US IP law issues - in particular computer-software related issues and business methods--also derivative works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PraeceptorIP (talk • contribs)

Hi, I missed your note from 11/13/08, becuase ytou placed it at the top, not at the bottom. I can userfy it for you. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is still in mainspace. I'll see what I can do with it. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Thanks for your addition to chip IP protection in Integrated circuit. I suspect it's a little more detail than the usual reader would want, but it's perfect for a more detail discussion of the topic. So I moved the text to the new article Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984, and put just a general summary in the Integrated circuit article, with a link to the details.

I hope you are OK with this. Thanks again for the contribution, LouScheffer (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Nothing unfavourable was written re Hugh Laddie. There was just a misunderstanding due to the use of a shared IP address (you can find more information on this by clicking here under the "3 December 2008" heading).

Inviting Alastair Wilson to edit articles here would be excellent. I actually never had any contact with him before his message on my talk page. Since you know him, may I suggest that you drop him a short note on his email address? You will surely make a greater impact than me. You can find his email address here, at the bottom of the page. Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Mallinck.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Always happy to help out on law related articles. – ukexpat (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'll take a look at LB (Plastics) Ltd. v. Swish Products Ltd.. Not sure what I can do, but at least I can add an ibox. – ukexpat (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pole lamp pic in Sears v. Stiffel! Could you point to the source from whence you got the pic? (I didn't see it on the picture page.) Tempshill (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I have just added a hopefully better category! --Edcolins (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article! --Edcolins (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your questions: "Is there any narrower category than UK patent law? Do you have KB cases or Exchequer cases?", I have created this new category, Category:Exchequer of pleas, and there is already Category:High Court of England and Wales. True, none of these categories are specific to patent law, but please feel free to create any new categories (see Wikipedia:Overcategorization though). Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the wording cleanup! For the life of me, I couldn't write proper sentences yesterday. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 19:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was a student in your Computer Law class in the Spring of 2008. Can't reveal my name here, but I believe I told you at the time that I was a Wikipedia administrator (and here I am). Great to see you here, and thanks for your contributions! bd2412 T 19:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your comments. I've only been assessing case articles that are low enough on the totem-pole that it seems pretty obvious how they should be assessed. As far as rating the more advanced articles, I think it will take a group effort or some expertise in explaining the more esoteric aspects of the law and whether the article fully explains the relevance of the case. I would echo MzMcBride's comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Supreme_Court_cases that standardization is key in improving articles past a "B" level, but I think it's probably even more than that. The articles that I think are really good explain the facts and the law clearly in a way that could be understood by a layperson, and maybe have a picture or two. I see that you know BD2412. He is probably one the most, if not the most experienced editor I've encountered as far as the Supreme Court case project goes. I'm sure he would also be a good source of information if you ever have a question about some of the intricacies of the process. Welcome to Wikipedia by the way.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've taken so long to get back to you - I somehow got it into my head that I could efficiently knock out entries on every one of the 3,200+ federal judges that have been appointed since George Washington's days. I have looked over your contributions, and they are quite frankly a cut above what is typically found here (unsurprisingly, given your background and depth of knowledge). By the way, are you aware of international equivalents to the Anti-plug molding law? Those should be mentioned in the article, as we have quite a few British and Australian readers who may not understand the concept to be U.S. specific. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, professor. I responded to your query on my talk page, but I have not heard from you so I am responding here. You can email me at BD2412(at)hotmail.com, or at my GW email address. Maybe we can get together for lunch one of these days, and I can tell you everything I've learned about Wikipedia in my years as an editor and admin. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your email (and sorry for not responding earlier). I cannot really help on this one. So, I have asked GDallimore, who may be able to help. Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S.-specific information is missing in the article double patenting. Would you have by chance any knowledge to add there?... Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, great! --Edcolins (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an (old) discussion on the talk page of McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co., Inc., on the notability of this case. Have you ever heard about this case? --Edcolins (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any strong opposition to migration of US material to UIS copyright, but that means readers have to look in two places much of the time. I have no problem with looking at two places for two different subjects. Adding US-centric material to the wrong article dilutes the value of the global Copyright article. TJRC (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Yale Law School, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime you need to move a page to a new title, click the "move" button at the top of the page. You will have the option of moving without leaving a redirect, from an initial typo or similar error. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated this page per your comment to User:DreamGuy. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not an admin so I can't protect an article. An article can be protected from IP-based edits (semi protection) and you can go to WP:RPP to request an admin look at the page, but I personally don't think the amount of vandalism on the article is enough to be eligible for semi-protection. You can have a go though. - Chrism would like to hear from you 20:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am just wondering... What is the advantage of avoiding the holding of nonstatutory subject matter by using an exhausted combination, if the claim is going to be rejected as an exhausted combination at the end of the day? I probably missed something here. Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I see now. --Edcolins (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must be excited about Bilski going up. Planning on writing an amicus curiae brief? bd2412 T 20:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The CASRIP brief filed in the CAFC, but re-done.

http://www.law.washington.edu/casrip/newsletter/vol15/newsv15i1RhsBilskiBrAsFiled.pdf

Thanks. bd2412 T 20:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see talk page for this article. With respect, you are wrong about US law on sec. 101 and a patent for an invention. I know of no contrary view on this (under US law). Cheers. PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few months back we had a bot copy over all the date from the Federal Judicial Center to create articles on every person who has ever been a United States federal judge (well, except that their database leaves out Court of Claims judges and the like). So, it created an article on Archer at a slightly different title. The difference in information was very slight, I think not more than including the judge's hometown and including links to B.A. and J.D., but I merged them anyway primarily because the merger created a redirect from the old title to the new (which was needed), and to make sure that all edit history relating to the topic was in one place. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no page yet for Robert Post, the law professor. You may want to create one -- I'm going on vacation for the next couple of weeks and I won't be here. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 22:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kafka machine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article is entirely WP:OR, describing a hypothetical example that the article's author uses in his teaching. No evidence of being a general pedagogical example in general use by any other instructor. Does not meet general notability requirements, see WP:NOTE. Nicely written and illustrated, it is perhaps suitable for a for a blog or private web page, but not an encyclopedia.

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. TJRC (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:P-roll.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. 72.88.107.31 (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WashClthg.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment, that David did not conquer the Jebusite. I agree. I read Moshe Yahalom books and I think the bible has contradicting accounts. just curious, why this subject interests you and what are your sources? --Michal 15:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zahav511 (talk • contribs)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Neilson v Harford 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:

• No Patents on Conventional Implementations of Natural Principles and Fundamental Truths'', [2012 Eur. Intel. Prop. Rev. 502, 503-04 & n.17.</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources for Cy's father being a wholesale meat man, or for his original name? It may be true, but we need a source for it. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cy's father was my grandfather. I will try to see what I can find for you. RHS PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• When I searched online, I did see one copyright entry that connects Cy Coben and Seymour Cohen, but it is hardly convincing evidence. If you can't find anything better, we could add a reference saying something like, "Private communication from Coben family in possession of user PraeceptorIP", but other Wikipedians would be perfectly justified in removing something like that. Brianyoumans (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Brian: My grandfather, Harry Cohen, died at the end of August 1931. My mother (oldest sister of Cy/Seymour and Harry's daughter) used to work in Harry's shop in NYC, where he sold meat to restaurants. According to my mother her father was a big strong man who could carry a whole carcass on his shoulders, and was well known in NYC. It is likely that he had an obituary in the Jersey City (where he lived) and/or NYC newspapers at the end of August or beginning of September 1931, which would say he had for many years been in the wholesale meat business in NYC. I do not know how to access 1931 newspapers, however. Do you? I guess I could check Ancestry.com, but as we are not Mormons it is unlikely that doing so will provide any useful data (and would not likely say anything about his work).

I once asked my uncle Seymour why he used the name Cy Coben and he told me that the name Seymour Cohen did not go over so well in Nashville and some of the other places he worked. I would therefore conclude that it is fair to say that he used the Cy Coben name for "professional reasons."

I suppose you could now say that the private communication is in the possession of user Brianyoumans.

-- PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't run across any of your edits in a while, but just noticed you on one of my watchlist articles. Just a little welcome-back note. TJRC (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Schilg.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 03:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my talk page. F.n. 14 seems ok now. --Edcolins (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International 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:

• on which patents may not be granted. Recent Supreme Court opinions use the term "patent eligible" (and its converse "patent ineligible" almost exclusively in this connection. The opinion in the ''

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the article trying to stub-sort it. Please provide an introductory sentence in the standard Wikipedia format of "A thelony is ...", or perhaps "In [context] a thelony was ...". The word doesn't appear in the Oxford English Dictionary, to my surprise as it's in your sources. Is there an alternative translation perhaps? I note that the English-language sources, the Billingsgate and London info, are annotated "The text has been modernized by Prof. Arkenberg": has it been modernized into an idiosyncratic word which OED don't know about? All very puzzling. PamD 19:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the link to Bible Hub, your final ref, doesn't seem to be working. PamD 19:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These notes suggest that "thelony" and "toll" are indistinguishable. PamD 19:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at creating a lead sentence which puts the term into context. You might like to improve on it. PamD 19:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed... --Edcolins (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Morse Telegraph Repeater Circuit.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Restraint of trade page, your edit caused a broken reference name (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) 00:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I'll see what I can do... --Edcolins (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:DDR chart.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:MicroCov.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Derivative work, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, TJRC, for your comment, What do you suggest is the correct procedure to correct misspelling, typos, and clear errors?
• I did not delete anything. I did add (sic) in R&J because there is no such thing in copyright law as "derivate" -- the writer probably meant "derivative work" -- the (sic) is just an insufficiently polite way to say that, I guess. How would you recommend telling somebody (politely) that he needs to consult some kind of authority (or how do you fix mistakes)? Thank you in advance for any advice you care to provide.

You could just comment after the post, like this. The original poster is free to amend his own post in response. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Viking Age may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 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:

• & Co, pp. 1-7; P.H. Sawyer, ''The Age of the Vikings'' (2nd Ed. 1971), London: Edward Arnold).</ref><ref>"It has been suggested that the expansion of the Viking age was spurred by a population

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In some articles, explanatory footnotes and citation footnotes are separate (see WP:FNNR), but considering that you are typically combining both in footnotes, separating those is unnecessary and confusing. Sorry for the disruption. I have reverted my experimental edit of yesterday. --Edcolins (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page. --Edcolins (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i just saw the link at the bottom of your userpage. Along with my work on health-related content (which led into GMOs and biotechnology and IP) I also work a lot on conflict of interest issues in WP. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Writing_about_yourself_and_your_work and within that, WP:SELFCITE. Also the very last bullet of WP:EXPERT. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PraeceptorIP, first, let me advise you to ignore Jytdog, he has a tendency to overstate the possible COI of others while understating his own advocacy on GMOs, etc. I see nothing wrong with the edits that you have made, but if you want to avoid problems with mass Wiki-hysteria, you can post any edits to the cases that you were directly involved in on the talk page. I would be honored to post the edits for you.

Jytdog, this is no different that allowing climate scientists from editing in the climate change area. Second, removed an entire sourced section can be considered disruptive. GregJackP Boomer! 09:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do read WP:SELFCITE; please also see this recent discussion on the Talk page of our COI guideline about that section, and please note the stance I took there vis a vis others - I am a moderate on the issue of editors who cite their own work: Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Archive_20#Citing_yourself.

Somewhat separately, as I have written to you before Praceptor we love WP:EXPERTs but only when they use their expertise to make articles more NPOV and better sourced - not when they use Wikipedia to promote their own views (making WP less NPOV) nor when they add WP:OR to Wikipedia. Both of those are tempting, but both are abuses of editing privileges. We topic ban people who continually abuse their editing privileges - please avoid those temptations. It is never a happy thing to topic ban people. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you might want to read it again. Praeceptor did not cite to his own published work, he cited to a case opinion by SCOTUS. Since he did not cite to something that he wrote or published, WP:SELFCITE is not applicable. Second, being involved in a campaign to drive away productive editors is discouraged by policy. I would recommend that you be careful, lest your campaign on GMOs and your advocacy cause a WP:BOOMARANG. Praeceptor's edits were factual and NPOV, and did not involve WP:OR. GregJackP Boomer! 18:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great page!

Sulfurboy (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Praceptor, do you know what actually happened in the matter at hand following the supreme court case? Am looking for sources. Amazing amount of people referencing the case in abstract discussion but little discussion of what actually happened next... Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I was counsel in that case. But I have a neutral POV. PraeceptorIP (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow. please read WP:COI and follow it. Please do not directly edit content about litigation in which you were actually involved. Please. Please reply and agree to refrain from directly editing on such content matter. If you don't, I'll need to bring this to WP:COIN for discussion by the community. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore him Praeceptor. If he takes this to WP:COIN you will have plenty of support. As long as your edits remain neutral and factual, as they have been here, you should have no problem. GregJackP Boomer! 18:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GregJack you are entitled to your opinion of course but you do not seem to be aware of what WP:COI actually says. Here, I will quote it, for both of you:

• "If you are involved in a court case, or you are close to one of the litigants, you should not write about the case, or about a party or law firm associated with the case."; and
• "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, or friends. If you or they are notable enough, someone else will create the article.... If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly, from adding related advertising links, links to personal websites and similar, and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions"; and
• "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion."
• And per the LEAD of WP:COI: "Conflict of interest is not about beliefs or biases. It is about a person's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles conflict. Deciding that someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person or her actual beliefs"

One cannot predict with certainty what the community will say, but I am pretty confident that the community will find that Praceptor is ignoring all of that, in spirit and in letter, in his editing here. Praeceptor, do let me know if you will refrain from directly editing content where you have a COI, as we define that here in WP. If you, Praceptor, disagree, we can get community input at COIN. Thanks very much. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PIP to jyt:

♦WP:COI says "But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while making sure that their external roles and relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia."

In the Glaxo case, I was counsel for the govt 40 years ago. There are no live issues regarding that case. Nobody has any economic interest in the subject matter any longer. The patents have long ago vanished, as has any dispute relating to the case. It is a matter of ancient history. It is like the Norwegian Blue Parrot. There is no live COI 40 years later.

The content of the WP article is an almost verbatim extract from the Sup Ct opinion in the case. I doubt that anyone could find any statement in the WP article that is not neutral POV. No position is advocated in the Glaxo WP article. There is nothing but reporting of the published facts, with citations to the pages of US Reports where they are published.

♦WP:COI says "The COI can be managed, with or without disclosure. For example, someone with a conflict might ask others to watch closely whenever he does something where his COI might impair his judgment."

You have been watching closely. Do you see any instance of impaired judgment or non-neutral POV? Or are you just imagining a remote and theoretical possibility that it might occur? May I respectfully suggest that you get a grip on yourself?

♦WP:COI says, in the present tense: "If you are involved in a court case, or you are close to one of the litigants, you should not write about the case, or about a party or law firm associated with the case."

I was counsel for the US 40 years ago in the district court and Supreme Court. I am not involved in the court case because there no longer is any court case. I am not close to the US or Glaxo. I do have detailed knowledge about the subject matter, however, which may be of value to WP.

♦WP:COIN says that an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor (not the case at this time) "may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia."

There is no outside interest here to be advanced or being advanced (at least, on my part). If you think there is, what is it? Spell it out. My only interest is that WP should have high quality content.

♦WP:COIN says: "For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy."

You have not been doing that, where you dispute content. You simply delete it sin decir agua va. I have asked you to discuss things before deleting them, but you do not accept that proposal. (You may have noticed that others have also said that and similar things on your Talk page. I think "imperious" is one of the terms used, although I am not sure I would want to use that word.) Please reconsider your deviation from WP policy. I believe your personal editing policy is becoming a detriment to WP, and it would benefit from a personal re-evaluation of what you are doing. You must be getting vastly more complaints than average for WP editors. Why? Are all the complainers misguided or worse? Please think.

♦WP:COIN says:

The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content.

Please consider the above COI statement. You may have overlooked it. I think (please correct me if you feel I am wrong) every edit involved here should have been considered uncontroversial, for the reasons stated above. Try to be objective.

I would be pleased to continue discussing this matter with you. Perhaps we can overcome our differences of opinion in a civilized, nonimperious manner.

PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for talking Praeceptor. I appreciate it.

I have actually refrained from going around behind you and changing things- I am not closely watching you. I would not do that without invitation. I worked on both the Bowman article and the GSK article before you did and have them both on my watchlist - that is how I encountered you both times.

That said, I reviewed your recent contributions, following our encounter at Bowman (which I already had on my watchlist), where it was pretty clear that you were working on building your POV on patent exhaustion and other matters into that article, based on your recent publication. And when I looked at your past contribs, it looked a lot to me like you were going through Wikipedia in a pretty systematic way and weaving in content on your ideas about patent exhaustion. That is ...not good. I have been considering bringing this up with you, but had not decided what to do yet. Then you edited the GSK article, which was also already on my watchlist. (I am interested in biotech innovation generally)

As I told you, I work a lot at COIN, and there are a lot - and I mean a lot - of experts who come edit Wikipedia to cite their own work, or push their ideas into WP. While a classic COI analysis looks only at financial "interests", the concept of "interests" goes beyond that. Academics or professionals who come here citing their own work and ideas, are very much caught up in a conflict of interest between the mission of WP and their goal to promote themselves, their ideas, their legacies... something about themselves. This happens all the time. (I can show you examples where you will cringe on the other person's behalf if you like)

There are also a lot - and I mean a lot - of experts who volunteer their time in Wikipedia, and have taken the time to really understand the spirit of this place, as well as the letter of policies and guidelines, and work on writing encyclopedia articles that are well sourced and NPOV - they use their knowledge of the field and the literature to build the encyclopedia. No chatty footnotes, no original research - instead, disciplined Wikipedia encyclopedia writing Writing here is different from other kinds of writing. When these experts log in to WP, they set their own interests aside.

(Wikipedia is strange in many ways, most of which stem from the foundations of this place as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and where anonymity is allowed and protected. WP is really obsessed with citations - as sources are the only authority for content. Unsourced words in a Wikipedia article are just random noise - think about it. There is no author's name at the top, to whom the reader can attribute the ideas. Please think about that - ponder it. Unsourced content could have been added by a 16 year old with barely a grasp of the content, or by an old hand in the field; it could have been written by someone whose intent was to mess with WP generally, like these people did - they intentionally inserted errors just to see how long they would go unfixed. It could be random vandalism, or written with intent to defame someone. So everything needs to be reliably sourced. As I have to said to you before, this place is really strange and unlike any other scholarly reference work).

There is a very very fine line between experts filling in gaps in the encyclopedia (I don't know how well-treated "patent exhaustion" is, in WP), and pushing a POV into those gaps or into already-existing content. (At the GSK article, you were filling a gap, there, which was great. And I learned about something of which I knew nothing, and I am grateful to you for that. I won't get into the other issues involved with that content, as that is somewhat separate from the COI discussion, which we should focus on and resolve)

People who have a COI often say: "I am able to neutral". That is ... hubris. What COI does, is create a tendency to bias. What appears noncontroversial to a person with a conflict, often does not look that way to someone without a COI. Wikipedia has a COI guideline for several reasons. Like any scholarly project we need ways to identify and manage COI, and we need to actually do it - identify and manage COI - in order to retain (and deserve to retain) the public's trust in us. Issues of COI are tricky in WP, because of the radical structure of this place, and because anyone can instantly publish. So we look for editors to make self-disclosures and to exercise self-restraint.

Praeceptor - you are clearly an experienced, distinguished, and highly respected expert in IP law in the real world. It is an honor to WP that you are participating here. Really it is. But please, be mindful of the genre and the strange nature of this place. Just like the rest of us, you cannot add original research to articles, you need to source everything, you need to bring secondary sources, and (unlike the rest of us) you need to be especially careful to avoid giving UNDUE weight to your own ideas on things.

Going forward, will you please consider - when you develop content where you have a COI due to your involvement in the events or ideas being described - offering the content as a proposal on the Talk page, instead of adding it directly to the article? Everybody wins, if you do that. It is a community-building thing to do - an act of respect for WP and its mission - along with a content-building thing to do. And as happened with the GSK content the dialogue ended up with improved content, with secondary sources included. Proposing it on the talk page first would have allowed that process to unfold without drama. Will you? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of degree, I guess. Putting every proposed edit on Talk first would be excessive, I think. But with big ones it could be reasonable, as it would with small controversial ones. (I try to avoid controversial statements if I can; I think I have succeeded.)

But as the COI page says, not everything on which you are an expert or were involved in (such as GSK) gets into a COI problem. There was none in the GSK piece. It was all neutral and non-advocacy. Adding the additional newspaper or magazine commentary content could have been done afterwards just as effectively, and without raising a storm. (Actually, I disagree with adding them and think they dilute the presentation. But I see no reason to revert them as uninformed junk. If you want to add such things, do so and be happy. Let others judge their relevance.) I think there is no blanket rule that takes care of all cases. But it certainly is worth considering whether to float an item on Talk. I have done that sometimes.

Contrary to what you (perhaps) suggest about "exhaustion," I do not have a POV or agenda and I am not "weaving" it in. I think that I simply adhere exactly to the current position of the US Sup Ct. I did not agree with the Court's decision in the Bowman case, but I refrained from saying why the (unanimous) Sup Ct decision was wrong. (I think they were wrong on "making" but right in saying "no exhaustion." I also think Breyer got it right in his dissent in the JEM Ag case when he said they didn't have to slide down a slippery slope. But the train has left the station on that. No point rehashing that issue in WP.) In general I do not deviate at all in WP articles from what the Sup Ct says the law is. (Almost all the time I even agree with them.)

I think it is proper to quote a number of sources, where possible. You will recall that you deleted the Shubha Ghosh cite, whom I don't agree with but think him proper to cite in a balanced presentation. Then you became alarmed when that deletion left me the only commentator quoted. When a number of commentators are cited, I consider it proper to include myself among them if I had something relevant to say. For example, when I quoted a number of sources that raked Justice Thomas over for his Alice v CLS Bank opinion, I thought it proper to cite myself defending his (9-0) position. That was a balanced presentation, even though it was something like 5-1 commentators against him. When I do this I follow the WP COI guidelines.

Well, no point beating a dead horse. I will consider further what you said. I hope you will consider what I have said.

PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for replying. (first...I did not delete the Ghosh citation, btw. It is still there.) I am not asking you to always post to the Talk page first - you cannot have a COI for every aspect of IP law, and I imagine that there are articles you have edited, that have nothing to do with any work you ever did. Please just consider posting to the article's talk page, when the sources are your own papers, or the content is about a case that you worked on. That's all! Your contributions to law articles are very very welcomed. (please just source them well; and suggest the changes on talk where you have a personal interest.) Thank you for considering. Really. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you consider leaving him alone? He's a benefit to the project and is a subject matter expert. I've looked at his edits and they are NPOV, factual, and non-controversial. On the other hand, you, completely against policy, deleted an entire section of sourced material. Later, after I had provided additional sources, you mangled the case cite so that I had to go back and fix it here. Jytdog, if you don't understand how to cite a court case, ask, I'll be happy to help. It starts with the case name A v. B, followed by the vol. number, the reporter, the page, the court and the year. If you are putting the pinpoint in the superscripted ref, you still need the starting number of the case in the original citation. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 01:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This constitutes canvassing. Please read the notice below. Thanks

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not canvassing. I requested that you notify me of issues on that and other articles, and you providing that notification does not constitute canvassing. BTW, I posted a warning on Jytdog's page for his continued harassment, I don't know what his issue is with you, but I wish he would stop.

On a second matter, would you mind taking a look at Bowman v. Monsanto Co.? I just got through with a substantial series of edits and want to make sure that I have not misstated any of the material. I'm not an IP lawyer, so I may have missed something. Thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 01:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was canvassing. Praeceptor has been warned; he will decide to continue the behavior or not. Jytdog (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RSN#Use of a lawyer blog in Bowman v. Monsanto Co. for a discussion in which you have been involved at Talk:Bowman v. Monsanto Co.. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 18:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About your comment here. PraeceptorIP, what you appear to be doing there is critiquing what Lim wrote. We don't do that in WP. You do that in law school or in court, but not here in WP. We read the reliable sources and we summarize what they say, giving the most WEIGHT to the maintstream ideas, per WP:NPOV. Lim says, what Lim says. (Note, I wrote this here, since article Talk pages are for discussing article content, based on sources, not for discussing contributors.) Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

No, Jyt, I was saying that Lim did not support what you cited him for. You said he supported there being prior US precedent to the effect that "replanting" is "making." What he says does not support that. PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually going to pop over here to say the same thing. I'm just catching up on my watchlist after some time away and I'm pretty surprised to see what's been going on at the article. This [edit] for example is almost entirely original research, and I would pretty much entirely ignore it in terms of summarizing consensus at the talk page so far. I'll see what I can do to chime in when I've caught up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion to which you refer, Kingo..., is on a talk page in which various people are saying whether something on the Article page (by Jyt) is supported (by his associated citations). I do not agree that the comments on the talk page are what WP means by OR. By the concept you are using, any time someone says that the reference cited in a citation does not support the text, it would be OR. That cannot be. PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about him, he just popped by my page to place a bogus edit warring warning, claiming 4 reverts instead of the 2 actual reverts. He clearly does not understand that the material that J-dog was attempting to include was not supported by the citation, and that what you were doing was nowhere close to OR. It appears as if he were brought to the conversation by J-dog, although I cannot state that as a fact, nor am I prepared to accuse J-dog of canvassing off-wiki. GregJackP Boomer! 22:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GregJackP, please refrain from casting aspersions. I'm going to assume you just didn't read my comment above rather than assume you're purposely misrepresenting editors, but I clearly stated I've been watching the article from my own watchlist and why I just commented only now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are both non-lawyers pontificating about legal issues. PraeceptorIP (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that. I kicked the second one off of my talk page, yet he showed back up to harass me some more. GregJackP Boomer! 00:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such a strange comment considering that I haven't been involved in the current discussion on the page yet. Just a note that you really need to read WP:EXPERT even though you've been pointed to this a few times in seems. We're all non-lawyers on Wikipedia, just as we're all non-entomologists, non-scientists, etc. when it comes to assessing consensus. Please avoid this kind of behavior. Otherwise, you could be setting yourself up for a broad topic ban for topics related to law. I for one don't want to see that, but that's just a heads up for the kind of direction you could be going if comments like that keep coming up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EXPERT is an essay, and not policy. Please do not threaten nor harass editors. GregJackP Boomer! 00:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I asked you previously, please refrain from casting aspersions GregJackP. I made the intention of my post very clear and civil, and I cited the essay because it's a helpful guide for PraeceptorIP explaining the place experts hold at Wikipedia and what we can't do. I am not here for a battleground mentality, so please stop with the vilifying attitude while I've been approaching PraeceptorIP and you (originally) civilly as an uninvolved editor. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EXPERT is an interesting and informative article. So too is WP:Expert retention, which the former cites at the top of the article. PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find expert retention to be much more persuasive than WP:EXPERT. I also find it interesting that WP has a template {{Expert-subject}} that asks for experts, say in law, to help with an article, say a SCOTUS decision, while at the same time claiming to not want them around. There are even categories, like [[Category:Law articles needing expert attention]]. I don't worry too much about most of the imperious editors, most of them haven't created any quality content to speak of. GregJackP Boomer! 01:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They do waste other people's time though, and they screw up articles in regard to which they have no informed knowledge. The expert retention article addresses that. PraeceptorIP (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Pracaeptor I am sad to see you following GregJackP's example. The very heart of Wikipedia is that we discuss content, not contributors. Please read WP:AVOIDYOU and WP:BATTLEGROUND (both of which are policy, and which GregJackP has been violating, and in which you are now joining him). Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't worry too much about his comments. There are two types of people on Wikipedia, those who create content, and everyone else. Neither Jyt nor Kingo create content, each has only two created articles. They spend most of their time harassing content creators, like in a social club. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 15:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • WP:PA - "...editors are encouraged to disregard angry and ill-mannered postings of others when it is reasonable to do so, and to continue to focus their efforts on improving and developing the encyclopedia." PraeceptorIP (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are getting the wrong idea, really. We are not in some kind of "war" and I am not "out to get you." You are pretty new here, and are making mistakes that new experts tend to make. That's all. I am not seeking conflict with you, and I wish you the best of luck here. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. The quoted language from WP:PA was just a mild suggestion that you disregard any of what you may perceive as angry and ill-mannered remarks and go back to the creation of useful information in WP. PraeceptorIP (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The most basic way to create a template is to create a page with a Template: title, and put something on it.

For example, if you create Template:Dogs like to bark, and put on that page the sentence, "Dog's particularly like to bark in the middle of the night", then anywhere that anyone thereafter puts {{Dogs like to bark}} will call the sentence in the template. bd2412 T 17:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, BD2412, and I was able to create a {{BBstyle}} template correctly. But I don't understand the wiki code properly for another template that I tried to create, where you want to be able to put "sleeping dogs do not bark" inside the curly brackets of the template. I found that it was not possible to get inside the curly brackets. Do you understand the code? Do you know how to put something inside the {'s? To view my problem (if you need to) look at the talk page for the template smcaps. ( {{smcaps}} ) - Thx. PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that goes on the Template: page should come out when the curly brackets are used. I'm not sure I understand the specific issue here. bd2412 T 21:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about if you have a template for a situation where you fill something in, like this: Say I want to put "Small dogs are fierce" in small caps. I use the {{smallcaps}} template to do this by writing {{smallcaps|, then I write Small dogs are fierce, and then I write 2 }s. The result is Small dogs are fierce. I have not been able to figure out how to make that kind of template, although the smallcaps template does that task. Do you know how to code that? PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That one I don't know either. Note that a template can call another template, though. You could create a page at Template:Dogs like to bark with the text: "Dog's particularly like to bark {{smallcaps|in the middle of the night}}", and the template would produce: "Dog's particularly like to bark in the middle of the night". bd2412 T 22:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Templates like these should not be viewable to the reader. Example templates are {{Use list-defined references}}, {{EngvarB}} and {{Use dmy dates}}. You will also need to add a date parameter, a category and some information on the template page. Pinging Plastikspork and Frietjes as they are template editors, so they can help.

In addition, you messed up a reference in Analytic dissection when you converted to a different reference format... you half deleted one. Bgwhite (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bgwhite:, {{Parenthetical referencing editnotice}} is an example of a visible article template on referencing, {{BBstyle}} is similar. Also, it may be a good idea to program bots to ignore pages that have the BBStyle template in place. It would cut down on work that editors have to clear up after the bot visits. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 16:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Parenthetical referencing editnotice}} is only on five articles and it too should be hidden. {{Use Harvard referencing}}, {{Use APA style}} and {{Use MLA style}} also do not show it to the reader. However, these three are hardly used too. Regardless, the template should only be seen by the editor. Please hide the notice from the reader. All examples I've given use the same basic code. I'd suggest using the code from one of first three templates I gave at the beginning as the same code for {{BBstyle}}.
  • I'm not an AWB maintainer. But... AWB already does detect some templates and does things based off what it finds. For example, if {{sic}} or {{in use}} templates are found, AWB does warn the user about these. In theory, it could be coded up so AWB won't combine refs if {{BBstyle}} is found. AWB just switched to using Phabricator... grrr. So I don't know what the procedure is now. Magioladitis will know better, but he is on holiday, so give him a few days to reply. Bgwhite (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with this. I don't know crap about how that stuff works and I don't think either of us care if {{BBstyle}} is visible to readers so long as it shows up in the edit window and can get AWB to leave the cites alone. Anyway, thanks again. GregJackP Boomer! 21:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in general agreement with the basic ideas expressed above, but I have a few doubts about hiding the box. It's intended to be a notice to warn casual editors to think twice before modifying cite-style or sticking in a reflist cite that will attract a bot which will screw up the cites. For that reason I think the notice box should be there to be seen and tell people to look at the longer explanation on the Talk page. Conceivably it could be hidden in a < ! comment > in an appropriate location, but that might not work because you'd see it only when editing and if alert. I don't see the harm in having the notice visible; that's why you have notices. What are the other considerations here? Is there a good reason to hide the notice box, not just that's how "we" like to do it? PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's mainly a manual of style thing. GregJackP Boomer! 00:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Std St'ns Travel With Us.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the Gorsuch edit. I read that to say "federal judge" instead of "feeder judge" My mistake. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.Snickers2686 (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

about this. Please stop shooting from the hip in Wikipedia. Really. Please. And as I wrote at talk:pharming, please read up on law around the oncomouse and other transgenic animal patenting. That law is pretty interesting - there is an actual body of law that you didn't address. This is why we rely on secondary sources. Please stop writing WP:OR essays in WP. Please. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog: You are not bothering to read what you are ranting about. Nothing I wrote had anything to do with whether GM animals can be patented (ala oncomouse). I wrote about whether the drugs a GM sheep secretes are patentable and whether the process of so manufacturing a drug is patentable. Please read before mouthing off. What I wrote is sourced and NPOV. It is not about what you are complaining about. Are you being delusional? PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the material and I concur. It was not WP:OR (and not even close to OR, either), it was WP:RS, and it was WP:NPOV. Why is this a problem in the article? GregJackP Boomer! 01:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond at the Pharming talk page. This was really a bad edit. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support the edit. I came here to thank PraeceptorIP and find yet another example of Jytdog's questionable editing style. Something is really bad alright, but it is not the edit. Jusdafax 02:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Praeceptor, again, I don't want to escalate this to COIN. I call your attention to this discussion at WT:COI - Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Archive_20#Citing_yourself. There are editors who are dead opposed to people coming to WP as you are doing, to cite their own publications and use Wikipedia as a platform to promulgate their own views on things. This is a serious matter, and I am asking you to take it seriously. If you will not engage with me on this, I will need to take it to the community at COIN. Your record of contribs is really, really clear that you are doing this consistently. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to advocate for your views on things. Please do reply. Thanks. (btw, I have many "haters" in Wikipedia. Jusdafax doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground with regard to patent law and is supporting you simply from the WP:BATTLEGROUND perspective of opposing me; this too is an abuse of WP, but whatever. And he supposedly cares about COI issues, but didn't even think through things to see the COI issues here. ) Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to COIN. I'm sure that after I post announcements at the appropriate message boards and projects, they'll be plenty of legal editors there to support him. I will say this, if you seriously do not stop harassing him, I will take you to ANI. I don't want to, but this has gone on long enough. You are the only editor arguing this point. Everyone else has agreed on the edits. Drop the WP:STICK, please. GregJackP Boomer! 07:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You should not cite your own content, the way to do this is to post it at the talk page and suggest it for inclusion. Though, it is unclear if this is indeed the case here. prokaryotes (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this and this are canvassing.

You are clearly uninterested in editing in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am sorry it came to this; you are likely to face editing restrictions going forward. Again, I am sorry it came to this Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is nowhere near canvasing, and you know it. You don't get to move a discussion on a topic without putting links showing where it went, that's called WP:FORUMSHOPPING, which you have been known to do. Praeceptor merely informed people where you had moved the discussion to. GregJackP Boomer! 05:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog Re: Alleged canvassing - It is nothing of the kind. I merely politely informed two participants in a discussion that the topic had been moved to another page. Where in any WP document does it call that canvassing?

This is just more of your constant bullying behavior, Jytdog, of which other editors have repeatedly complained. I have watched you try (unsuccessfully) to bully GregJackP, and Prokaryotes, among others. Your talk page is full of complaints by other editors against your bullying and similar abusive behavior. If you keep it up with me, I will ask WP to have you restricted from continuing your bullying, by appropriate measures. Why don't you just contribute articles to WP instead of constantly fighting with other editors who do make contributions? PraeceptorIP (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add something to my last post. In your immediately previous post to me, Jytdog, you said: "(btw, I have many "haters" in Wikipedia. [apparently referring to Justafax, among others]. Jusdafax doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground..."     The reason that you "have many haters' in WP" is your bullying, your persistent abusive behavior, and your disrespect toward everyone whose opinions differ from yours.   PraeceptorIP (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he also reports you somewhere, just refer to my previous edits in that discussion, per CANVASS 'Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic' . Oh, and thanks for keeping me updated, Praeceptor.prokaryotes (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I second that. There is an entire section, Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, that outlines a number of situations where it is perfectly acceptable to inform editors of a discussion. Cite it like a statute. bd2412 T 23:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not even a little ambiguous. It is acceptable to inform all editors involved in a discussion - not two who you know will support you. That was the definition of CANVASS; if it doesn't apply here it is meaningless. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you would check my related edits, you can see that i not support all his edits, was against his addition at GMF, was wondering about his second paragraph.... prokaryotes (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Washington is undergoing evaluation for possible promotion to Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Washington/archive1. If you feel up to it, I would love for you to stop by and assist in assessing this article. GregJackP Boomer! 17:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GregJackP - OK, but it will take me some time to get to it. Also, my expertise is in patents, copyrights, software, and antitrust--not Indian/Native Am. law, so my views are of marginal value. BTW why don't you do Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n either as an article or do a redirect to enough of a writeup to/in the decision below. That would supplement this article. - PraeceptorIP (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		In honor of your tireless contributions and improvements to legal articles on Wikipedia. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I mentioned you here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Jytdog Not sure where that Arbcom case is going to go.Jytdog (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog: I didn't understand your comment, so perhaps you could explain it to me. The discussion seems (based on a brief skim) to be about whether you are too favorable to (or biased about) GMO or, as you put it, "a whore for Monsanto." I don't follow that topic in WP, although I am mildly in favor of GMO where it increases productivity, and am a Syngenta stockholder. But I don't post about GMO, unless it comes up in a legal context and even then I am not concerned with the merits of GMO as such but instead its patent status or implications. So, I don't see how I get involved in your issue. But maybe you can explain this to me. PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom is where the community finally resolves issues around behavior (not content) that have disrupted the community significantly. Arbcom is kind of our supreme court for behavior issues - again it is not about content. Bad behavior most often arises over contentious content issues and is where behavior policies and guidelines get strictly enforced. Articles about GMOs are contentious and recently those articles have been in turmoil and there are claims of bad behavior about me and others. You involved yourself with your editing at GM food and at pharming (where i moved your edit) and likewise at Bowman. I don't know where the case is going to go nor if the articles you edited will be included nor if you will become a party. ( i really don't know)

If you are made a party, I will deal with your COI/POV editing at Arbcom, and you will have the opportunity to state any complaints you have about my behavior. And fwiw, the pattern of your COI/POV editing will be impossible for you to refute - what you have done in consistently citing your own publications and giving great WEIGHT to them, and re-writing articles to reflect your own POV, is very, very clear, and evidence (diffs) is examined carefully there. I have not had time to bring the COIN case but as I just mentioned I will do so at Arbcom if your behavior comes in. Again, all of this was avoidable with regard to your editing here, and I am sorry that it is coming to this. I really am.

You are of course free to make a statement there and try to include yourself as a party if you wish. I suggest you read older Arbcom cases to get a sense of what they are like Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how this is relevant to PraeceptorIP at all. He is not a party named by User:Looie496, who brought the case. Bringing PraeceptorIP into it in any regard only seems likely to cloud the issue of the case that has been brought. bd2412 T 19:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is just another effort by Jytdog to harass Praeceptor. J-dog can't let go of the fact that he's tried (unsuccessfully) to shut Praeceptor down by mischaracterizing his edits. Every single time that J-dog has challenged Praeceptor, the community has backed Praeceptor. J-dog can't let that go and is apparently harboring a grudge. GregJackP Boomer! 19:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is the kind of person that drives editors away from WP. He may resent experts (?). Who knows why he is such an a.h. PraeceptorIP (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that part of it is that he's jealous of people who can create content. For all his time on WP, he has only created two articles, a class "c" article and a disambiguation page. I know that he doesn't understand legal sourcing or articles. I'm sorry that you have to put up with this Praeceptor. Maybe the ArbCom case will stop him from harassing you. GregJackP Boomer! 05:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether that is the case or not, it is better to rise above the fray than to sink into it. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is the case. I have removed all GMO articles from my watchlist because of Jytdog. My only interest was in covering the Hawaii-based GMO protests and legal disputes that were occurring where I lived. I even took photographs of the protests on my day off and uploaded them to Wikipedia. For my troubles, the content I added was reverted by Jytdog without any rational explanation and I was attacked as an "anti-science" fringer, even though I have written about mainstream scientific topics for years without any problems. On top of that, the harassment didn't end just there. Jytdog and his minions followed me to unrelated articles and reverted me there. I'm sure if you check with the editors up above, they will tell you the same thing. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GregJackP is the one who brought PraceptorIP's editing into the Arbcom case, not me. See his diff on Sept 8, here. My first statement came after his, on Sept 9 here. I probably would not have brought PraeceptorIP in, as the issues are different from the others being dealt with there. So if you are casting blame, look at GregJackP's battleground behavior. Even in my Arbcom statement I question whether it should come in. (Please actually read my statement). But GregJackP's aggression in trying to "protect" PraceptorIP, in combination with his battleground behavior, is making things worse all around, including for PraeceptorIP. You cannot blame me for bringing PraceptorIP into the Arbcom case. You cannot.

As I have said before, PracaeptorIP is editing like too many inexperienced experts - citing their own publications a great deal and giving UNDUE weight to them, and more alarmingly, rewriting articles to reflect his POV. Please note that I am willing to ascribe this to inexperience and a lack of undersstanding of what WIkipedia is all about, and not to willfully abusing Wikipedia. (Although by now I am starting to be concerned that it might be willful... and again, GregJackP's interference is profoundly - profoundly - unhelpful with regard to working this out.) But the bottom line is that PraeceptorIP's current editing is not good for Wikipedia - Wikipedia is meant to be NPOV and reflect mainstream, accepted knowledge, not one person's POV. The edit on GM Food about patentability related to pharming, was just bizarre to me - I have no reason why PraeceptorIP decided to do that, but it was way out of scope there. It is at least in-scope in the Pharming article, but is still very POV. None of you seem to be giving me enough good faith/consideration to actually look at PraceptorIP's edits (or have even asked for diffs). The edit about pharming (which is now here) is a perfect illumination of what I mean though. CItes himself, and the content is strongly POV to the point where it is simply misleading. BIopharmaceuticals remain very patentable; transgenic animals that create any bioproduct (not just drugs) are patentable in much of the world. There is almost no uncertainty - the edit is completely misleading. This is a bad thing. Praeceptor is doing this across many articles, generally emphasizing weak patent rights. It is not an invalid POV but it is one of many, and in several places (like the Pharming article) it is far from the mainstream; it should get a small mention (if any). But back to the Arbcom thing, I have asked for clarification on the scope of the case. We'll see what is in, and what is out. Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog's comments about the Pharming article show what he terms "perfect illumination" of two things.

One is his persistent confusion of (i) the patent eligibility or patentability of transgenic animals (not even discussed in the cited passage of the Pharming article) and (ii) the patent eligibility or patentability of processes for making products by use of such animals and of the resulting products (if the same as the original products), which is discussed. Why does Jytdog keep talking about the non-issue of patenting the oncomouse or other transgenic creatures?

The other thing is his ineptness in the details of patent law, in which he has no formal education but has extensive pretensions. The cited passage in Pharming refers to what several Supreme Court cases expressly state and hold. It is in the form--on the one hand, and on the other hand--thus stating both possible POVs on whether the process of biopharming a known product is patentable (as a process). What Jytdog thinks is non-mainstream or POV is what he does not agree with, even if the Supreme Court persists in so ruling. Thus, the Supreme Court and lower courts (including the Federal Circuit) have repeatedly held that a known product, even if produced by a brand new process, is not patentable as a product. Whether the biopharming process can be patented as such is unclear. On the one hand, a dictum in an old Supreme Court case leaves the point open, suggesting "yes." On the other hand, language in the recent Mayo and Alice cases may suggest "no."

Something unclear to me is what this controversy at Arbcom is about. Is it about Jytdog's role in GMO or GM food articles? Or is it about his unbelievable rudeness, incivility, unwillingness to accept consensus, and so on in all his dealings with other Wikipedians who fail to accept his views? Could somebody tell me? (Also, is there any reasonable way to get jytdog to stop being so uncivil?)

I agree with what is said above by BD2412 and GregJackP, both of whom follow the sensible policy of writing articles rather than going around sniping at other people's articles without contributing to the body of WP content. It is difficult, however, to rise above the fray (as bd recommends) when someone keeps tugging your coattails and trying to drag you back into it. PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping when we first starting talking that you would be reasonable about not citing yourself so much, and not making over articles into your own POV; and you have seemed to have some openness to that. GregJackP has really made a mess of this.

The definition of the scope of Arbcom case is still unclear. You can see the Arbitrators commenting at the bottom; the few that have commented seem to be leaning toward having the focus be the GMO topic area. How broadly they will define that area, is not clear yet. But the behavior of any editor who has worked in the topic (including me, and including you) can be brought in, to whatever the topic is. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to start from scratch, per WP:BLOWITUP... The article Inventive step and non-obviousness should anyway only contain a summary of U.S. law in that respect. A new page Non-obviousness under United States patent law could contain more details (we already have Novelty and non-obviousness in Canadian patent law and Inventive step under the European Patent Convention). --Edcolins (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PraeceptorIP, I hope all is well these days! I have nominated an article I wrote, Schmerber v. California (one of WJB's most famous), for FA status. I know that your areas of expertise are primarily with IP and antitrust, but if you have time to look at this article and to offer any feedback, I would very much appreciate it! Here is a link to the nomination. Thanks in advance for your help! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I didn't know that {{Reflist|2}} was deprecated... Thanks for your note! Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this page is unnecessarily editorialized. The description of the patent heavily relies on a secondhand description, including an image that was generated based on an outside reviewer's understanding of the invention. This is less accurate and reliable than using material drawn contained in the actual patent - including the clear example provided in the figures.

Why is this page using a summary in "Stern's" case notes in lieu of the primary source material?

My edits were primarily intended to substitute excerpts from the patent for this secondhand, editorial description. I would have liked to include the representative figure from the patent, but was not permitted to do so given the age of my Wikipedia editing account. I would like to see either a revision of this page that uses the primary source material, or an explanation of why you prefer the editorialized content instead.

Usptotalk (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you email me the diagram you prefer (as a gif?), using the Wiki eml function at left margin under tools? "Email this user"

Often secondary sources are used in WP because WP has an irrational allergy to use of primary sources. If the sources used here are wrong perhaps we can correct the statements based on them. But the main problem with your edit was the wholesale "correction" without prior discussion on the talk page for the article. Just because you think something should be said differently is not a good enough reason for making drastic changes. There is no need for hurry. Say what you think would be better on the talk page and then lets see what consensus develops.

At least some of your changes I think are misguided. Others are or may be sensible. There is no reason for your opinions to override the opinions of others unless there is a consensus that you have got it right where others got it wrong. Why can't you patiently discuss what changes you propose? You might find that others advance an even more sensible view than yours. You are not infallible. (I have found that I am not infallible. You might find the same(?). How long have you been working in the patent field? Long enough to find yourself now obliged to change your mind over what you were sure about 10 or 20 years ago?) (I have)

How about making a list of proposed changes with explanations, not just your ipse dixit? :-) Cheers. Thank you. PraeceptorIP (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

PraeceptorIP, I wish you and those dear to you golden days of love and joy in a Happy New Year 2016! Best regards, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Detail of Jehoash tablet showing form of lettering in inscription.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jehoash tablet, allegedly circa 800 BCE.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Course of performance, and it appears to include material copied directly from https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-303.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Course of performance. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Mercoid Cases, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laches. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use template that hide the section header and reflist. This causes problems. Just do the normal way please. Bgwhite (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion: Bgwhite, Would adding the template to Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted solve the issue for you? If not, it's probably better deleted. for (;;) (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Mercoid Cases, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Robert Jackson and Stanley Reed. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Course of performance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-303. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PraeceptorIP, Would you be able to link or otherwise point to the UCC being dedicated to the Public Domain as you said? The version I checked shows a copyright to "The American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws". A clear PD dedication would certainly avoid any future misunderstandings of its ownership. Thanks! Crow^Caw 19:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]