User talk:Edcolins/Archive08

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

This archive page covers the dates between January 5, 2010 – October 25, 2011.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to User talk:Edcolins/Archive09. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. --Edcolins (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Prolific Inventors

Hi Edcolins. I wonder if you'd be kind enough to review List of prolific inventors, which is a new article unreviewed since last October. I've done about as much on it as I can think to do at this stage (appart from maintaining it as new patents continue to issue). Thanks in advance, AlexBartlett4 (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Edcolins! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 5 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Magda Aelvoet - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Vincent de Coorebyter - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Jean-Claude Van Cauwenberghe - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Paul Brändli - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Sybille de Selys Longchamps - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for restoration

Hi, Edcolins. I have an admin request of you. I picked your name more-or-less randomly from the list of admins; I recognized your ID from some articles (mostly IP law) we've both edited.

This morning,I tagged the talk subpage Talk:Melvin T. Brunetti/OfficialObituary, which I had created some time ago, for a {{db-self}} speedy deletion. No problem with that, so far as it goes; the function of subpage was replaced by the original DJVU-converted PDF I'd uploaded to to Wikisource (since moved to Commons). It no longer serves a purpose on Wikipedia.

Except that I was too quick on the deletion trigger; by deleting the subpage, I just realized I deleted the page that took me an afternoon to copy and carefully format, and I want to copy the text to Wikisource.

Could you please restore Talk:Melvin T. Brunetti/OfficialObituary to my user space (or restore in place, and I'll move it to user space), so I can contribute the text back to Wikisource? Thanks. TJRC (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect; thanks very much. TJRC (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ab initio

Hi Ed, I have been editing disambiguation links with wikicleaner. ab initio was on the list requiring re-direct away from the disambiguation page, If you look at the conversation I had with Pol098 on his page, he pointed a similar error. I was trying to correct it, there was a company called Ab Initio as well that pages were getting re-directed to, I moved the company to a different page to avoid confusion and have been reverting my last edits for Ab initio since then. I am sorry for any inconvenience in the mean time, it was a genuine mistake. Thanks--Theo10011 (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to revert some of my edits, the disambiguation page is listed as "Ab initio" with A in ab in uppercase So a correct lowercase term ab initio would revert to the aforementioned page. Even if I revert my edits it wouldn't make a difference, both terms point to the same page regardless of the case. Most of my edits for "ab initio" also became pointless since they were intended to point away from the page, maybe I can try to move the page or create another page.--Theo10011 (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, I got an admin to move the page and separate the disambiguation page now. I also expanded to the main article, maybe you can take a look if you have some free time. Happy editing to you too!--Theo10011 (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kamil Eltayed/Eltayeb Idris

Hello Edcolins, and thanks for the pages that you have provided to me.

Concerning the middle name of Kamil Idris;the main problem is that there is no rule for writing the arabic names in other languages, i mean if you have an arabic name and want to write it in english , there is no rule that tells which letter in english is corresponding to that letter in arabic, which lead to a different english writings for the same name.This usualy happens when people try to issue an official papers(mainly passport and certificates) and found that their english name is written in a different way than what they used to do.As an example,the name( Mohammed,Muhamed,Mohamed,Mohamad,Muhamat).

Eltayed/Eltayeb:

In Sudan, the name Eltayed(الطيد) is not exist, the known name is Eltayeb(الطيب) which some times is written in English as(Altayeb,Eltayib,Altayib), and that is the middle name of Kamil Idris. I think Eltayed is just a mis-typing in the provided referencen.

In Sudan people do not use the First/Middle/Last name system . Instead the official registering use a Four Name system , which implies that one should be registered using his given name/father given name/ grandfather given name/his father's grandfather given name. as example ,my registered name is Yezeed Jafar Ali Satti, and this is the name which i use in the official papers(passport,id,driving license...etc). Where the registered name of Dr. kamil Idris is Kamil Eltayeb Idris Abdelhafeez.

When people form Sudan comes to the western contries, where they must follow the First/Surname name system; some of them use their forth name as a Surname name and their 2nd and 3rd names as a middle names, as what I a did:

First: Yezeed
Middle: Jafar Ali
Surname: Satti

Other people ignore the forth name and use only three, as what Kamil Idris did

First: Kamil
Middle: Eltayeb
Surname: Idris

The reference which i found for Eltayed/Eltayeb are all in Arabic and can not be used hare .The English ones are even more worse , where it write the name like this(Altayib), but i will keep searching for an official and if i found any i will add it to the references list.

   Yezeed (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G 1/07

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of G 1/07, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.jurablogs.com/de/g-1-07-method-treatment-surgery. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites 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.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biography of Roland Grossenbacher

Dear Edcolins, you asked me, why I had been deleting Mr. Grossenbachers middle name. First there is a typing error, Edouart instead of correctly Edouard. Further on, the changes (not mentioning his middle name at all) had been made in accordance with Mr. Grossenbacher himself. As an employee of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, I ask you to accept my changes on the biography of Mr. Grossenbacher. Thank you! Stefanie.haeberli (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook patent

Ed, have you looked at Facebook's newsfeed patent US patent 7669123? It seems to me that claim 1 reads on a Wikipedia watch page. Were these around before 2005? (earliest priority date)--Nowa (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invention

Hi Edcolins. I just found http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199296941.do with a most recent intro to the term invention and with reference to G_3/08 and Bilski. At present I have not more than the introduction from that book and I don't know, where to mention it, but I suppose you might have an idea. --Swen (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by editor

Hello Edcolins, I am an editor here on wikipoedia. There is this other editor cosmic latte who has been vandalising the Michael jackson Page with the last 24 hours he has made over 50 edits to major parts of the article without even discussing with other editors who have been warning him. he has in the passed been guilty of vandalism. Please speak with him.

Thank You KnightTrain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knighttrain (talk • contribs) 22:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updating "Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan's Application" article now that EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal has provided its opinion in case G 3/08

Dear Edcolins,

Now that the EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal has responded (on 12 May 2010) to Alison Brimelow's referred questions to it in case number G 3/08 (per http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/DC6171F182D8B65AC125772100426656/$File/G3_08_Opinion_12_05_2010_en.pdf), do you plan to update the Wikipedia article entitled "Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan's Application" (published at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Aerotel_v_Telco_and_Macrossan%27s_Application#Parallel_procedure_before_the_European_Patent_Office), and in particular that part of the article under the sub-heading "Comparison of EPO and UK practice", and in even more particular, that part of the article which (now) incorrectly says that case number G 3/08 "is [still] pending"?

I could have a go at it myself, but no doubt at least some people would think that I may be biased.

Regards Neal Macrossan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neal Macrossan (talk • contribs) 02:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteion alert Vincent de Coorebyter

Another editor listed this article , which you started some time ago, for speedy deletion, As reviewing administrator , I think this indicates at least some minimal importance, so not appropriate for speedy deletion.Nut it must be expanded with a list of his accomplishments and publications, and especially references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. I advise you to do this very quickly, before the article gets nominated for deletion by a regular deletion process. If not improved, it will, in my opinion, undoubtedly be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Xavier Mabille

The article Xavier Mabille has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unsourced BLP, unclear notability

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. Maashatra11 (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Hi. I just saw your message about posting references. I didn't realize that cites that provide information were inappropriate simply because of an affiliation. I will not post such things again. (FYI, I had not done it for search engine purposes, but rather as I had written a substantial portion of the content on the Wikipedia noncompete page and thought that the other links would be helpful for someone looking for more information.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russellbesq (talk • contribs) 16:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Events

To describe categorizing to something akin to that "book" that is mentioned by a discredited essay of dubious reliability is not something that is conductive to the debate, to be brutally honest. Can we at least propose solutions? That's why we are here, right? To improve Wikipedia, not make it worse, or stop it from improving... Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 18:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I now understand your rationale, now that I know you are not trying to sink the proposal by using a completely discredited essay. Given that the efforts only started a few days ago, we are still trying to work out the kinks. I posted a link to the taskforce I created on the top of the thread. You can go there and see the proposals, and also propose changes! Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 20:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SwPat and G_3/08

I just published new comments on G_3/08 and SwPat in Europe http://www.recht.uni-jena.de/z10/gb/gbarchiv/GB_03_2010_screen.pdf#page=23 . Notable or not, I think it's better a third one decides if and how to mention that article. --Swen (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prosecution disclaimer

Hi Edcolins,

Thank you for your edits. I agree there should be a better citation regarding the evolution of the formal doctrine in the Historical basis section. However, I think the other cites are reliable and used appropriately, since the reference is an article written by a practicing patent attorney and is used for statements regarding present-day patent prosecution practice. If I fix the case law citation, can I remove the warning as well? 72.83.142.166 (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally with Edcolins and have gone further and actively removed your additions. Sorry, but I didn't think they were helpful in making an encyclopedic article about the subject but were written as an advice or how-to guide. My view on patent attorney articles is that they should only be cited if they have been published by someone other than the attorney or their firm. For example, one day I may get around to writing an article about CFPH's applications, in which case I'll probably cite my own article published by the IEEE, but I wouldn't cite any of the other articles I wrote for my old firm's website, even though I researched them all just as carefully. GDallimore (Talk) 22:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cite patent template

Hi. FYI Template_talk:Citation#Citing_patents. GDallimore (Talk) 23:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium FAR listing

I have nominated Belgium for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patent ownership

Re your change: I'll defer to your judgment. FYI, I'm experimenting with different types of flow chart / logic diagram as a way to explain complex legal issues; this page seems like a good place to attract reader feedback as to usability. (ISTM that the "third-party publication" carve-out to the self-published work guideline might also apply here.) D. C. Toedt 18:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC) — Dctoedt (talk • contribs)

Proposed deletion of MHG Systems article

Hi, I would disagree with you, about proposition of your article deletion. In my opinion, this article have the right to exist. It is an article about a company, done in a neutral manner, with a clear references of each statement. The "vague" citation, is not justified, as there are links after the statement that reference the sources from which the information was taken. Rpisarenko (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance fees

I replied to your question on my talk page. Robert K S (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! --Crusio (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Davison Associates

Hi, I just edited and moved Davison Associates (from inventionland) following the recent edits to scams in intellectual property adding lots of see also links, some of which you had also reverted. The editor in question immediately wrote on the talk page that they thought I was up to something fishy by removing poorly referenced accusations of Davison associates being a scam. A second pair of eyes might be useful. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 16:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Ed, Thanks for your attention and edits to Quirky, Ahhha etc. It's a fascinating new field.--Nowa (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hi Ed, thanks for the note. The 'method' that I added to that page does fit the definition given in the first paragraph. Although analytical methods do relate to science, they don't actually have anything to do with the 'scientific method'. Analytical methods are a process/procedure for doing things, similar to the process of making soap. Each method is patented by the government agency and third-party labs that create them. Thanks!! --Chase.alton3 (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leahy-Smith America Invents Act

Ed, Leahy-Smith America Invents Act is a terrible mess. My thought is to let it sit for a month and then dive in and start cleaning up. How do you feel about it?--Nowa (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArtistShare

Ed: I need a little help on ArtistShare. This is a company that recently had its patent challenged by the crowdfunding site Kickstarter. An unregistered user seems to object to my adding this information to the article. Am I off base? Should we sort it out on the talk page?--Nowa (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop harassing

Ed, at this point you are clearly just harassing us. Please review the harassment guidelines of wikipedia and refrain from this behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.129.52 (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ed

Hi Ed, I just received an email saying that there were issues with the Wikipedia entry on me. I just took a look and it looks as if a bomb went off :) Why so many citations and requests for references for the repeated information? It seems as if whomever is making these requests is going a bit overboard. Perhaps you can explain as you are listed as the person requesting all of this detail. Thanks in advance. Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcamelio (talk • contribs) 20:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment again

Ed, If the person themself made an edit to their page it is certainly ok to undo their edit but to almost completely erase the entire article and lock the record is clearly interfering with wikipedia policy. Please unlock the page and stop this targeted assault on this individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.149.118 (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also just noted that you were asked to edit this person's company page - ArtistShare. There seems to be some sort of bias happening here. I really hope there is not. This is not a forum of public opinion but a forum of facts. What you are doing is looking like favoritism and actions like this will eventually ruin what wiki is all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.149.118 (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, this is my first edit to the ArtistShare page and contrary to your accusation I am adding citations and references to valid information such as Grammy award wins. Please let me know what your issue is so that we can work together in creating an informative and accurate article for ArtistShare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.149.118 (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, This actually is my first edit to this article. This machine may have been used by another individual but this is my first time. The Grammy awards website is certainly a reputable an verifiable source. Please explain how it is not if you disagree. As far as viewing your edits as improvements that is an opinion that you hold and does not mean that it is the only writing style. As I mentioned before we can discuss these edits and create an informative and well written article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.149.118 (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, Please help me understand a "primary source" in this instance. If we need to verify the fact that Grammy awards were given to ArtistShare releases wouldn't the ONLY verifiable place be the Grammy awards website? In this instance where else would we be able to verify this? Please help me clarify this so we do not end up going back and forth on this. 98.14.149.118 (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.149.118 (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, OK. That is fine. We will list them one by one and will put a total then. I am assuming that the aggregate number is what is bothering you. How about if we do that?

The Grammy award site is perfectly acceptable for identifying grammy award winners, but it fails to associate those winners with artist share. The artist share site is a primary source which is not suitable for supporting the association of the artist with artist share or the resulting implication that artist share was relevant to the artists's success. For that, a third party source or a statement from the artist (eg on their official site) would be needed specifically attributing artist share. Basically, you can't promote artist share's alleged association with success by quoting artist share's version of events. GDallimore (Talk) 00:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, Can you let me know why to you declined to unlock the Brian Camelio page? Thanks. 98.14.149.118 (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biased news feed

I am sorry to keep focusing on this subject Ed but the Brian Camelio article you are controlling seems to have been turned into some sort of biased news feed on current events. Why are you insisting on keeping questionable information in there and not allowing folks to edit? You clearly have taken issue with this and rather than let the community correct the article you are refusing to even make reasonable edits. If information is questionable it should be removed until it is resolved. Not the other way around. The way to do it is on the talk page for the article not to hold it hostage. Jamesrand (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kickstarter

Ed: Nice job on the Camelio patent edits. I like where it wound up. I dropped a copy into Kickstarter as well.--Nowa (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding sysop guidelines and abuse

Hi Ed, I was just reading the sysop guidelines as I feel that you are unfairly blocking the public from editing an article to which you were a significant contributor - view history. All requests I have made thus far are completely reasonable and have been denied with no conclusive reason. After reading the guidelines of being an administrator and the use of that power I feel like it may not be within the guidelines. Perhaps I am not understanding this correctly and we should bring others in to have a look.

Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute – Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrand (talk • contribs) 22:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accusal of disruptive editing

Hi Ed, I just wanted to address your accusal of disruptive editing on my part. I disagree. I only re-removed a section that was taken out originally by the page's creator and added by another user. That was clearly in my comments. I understand the rules for disruptive editing. Jamesrand (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journey and Camelio

Just FYI, I have undone your Journey edit. In five minutes I found three sources indicating that Camelio was not a former member of Journey, including the band's official site. The BBC article is the only source for the reference to Camelio being in Journey, at both the Journey page and the Camelio page. I would say that makes it more verifiable that he wasn't in Journey than that he was. Dave Golland (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC article suggests he was a session player. I am not at all surprised that this is not widely credited. He would only be credited specifically in the album sleevenotes. I fully support Ed and his inclusion of this well verified material. GDallimore (Talk) 20:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also tried to find independent confirmation of the BBC article and couldn't. If it wasn't controversial, I'd say the BBC is normally enough. But since it is controversial, I see no harm in leaving it out pending independent confirmation.--Nowa (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the credits and liner notes for every Journey release going back to 1975. Camelio has never been a session player for Journey. Also, one article from the BBC can be a mistake (and in this case is a mistake)--so that hardly constitutes "well-verified." I have been writing about Journey for over a decade, and never heard of Camelio before today. Dave Golland (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal. The BBC seems to be an isolated source. I have also removed the information from Brian Camelio. --Edcolins (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dave Golland (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Living person biography pages

Hi Ed, I see that you once again went in and edited the biography page for Brian Camelio. Why so excessive with the citations? There are plenty of verifiable resources to back up everything on the page. Can you point me to an example of another Biography page you have edited so I can see the rationale behind all of these citations. All of the information in the wiki entry is clearly verifiable in various parts of the page. Do we really need a citation for the same info in every part of the page where it is mentioned? If so, we can but it makes for a difficult read. I also noticed that you added a section called "PATENT DISPUTE" with a paragraph on a laswsuit. I believe we all agreed that these blogs were deemed unreliable as they clearly did not do any fact checking (Dave pointed out the Camelio was never a member of Journey which they all seem to center around). On top of that the information is contentious. Please explain your continued desire to focus on this subject as it is really irrelevant to a biography page. Seems like a tabloid story at best. I look forward to hearing your rationale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrand (talk • contribs) 20:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James, let's discuss that on the talk page. --Edcolins (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Ed, please block GDallimore from editing the Brian Camelio page. He is disrupting the article and ignoring the talk page. I have warned him. See comments. Thank you. Jamesrand (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, why not revert him again and dare him to break 3RR, since we both clearly agree on this point and he's the only one disputing it with his bullying and twisting of as many rules as he can find. GDallimore (Talk) 23:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proper way to handle this is in the talk page, as we have been doing until the article was disrupted multiple times by GDallimore. Jamesrand (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Edcolins/Archive08! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey