User talk:Tomwolff52

Welcome!

Hello, Tomwolff52, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:Tomwolff52/Patent Information Users Group, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! WuhWuzDat 19:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Tomwolff52/Patent Information Users Group

A tag has been placed on User:Tomwolff52/Patent Information Users Group, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. WuhWuzDat 19:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Available by permission"

Hi! Sometime ago, a colleague asked me to take a look at User:Tomwolff52/Patent Information Users Group, which I did do at the time, but I'm revisiting now.

One thing I've noticed is the "available by permission" comment on a number of the references: I'm not sure I understand this? I've just downloaded - successfully - all of those PDFs, without any problem. Am I misunderstanding "available by permission"?

Another issue, which I mentioned when this first arose, is that most (all?) of the references are WP:PRIMARY - i.e. they're published by PIUG itself. Wikipedia strongly prefers WP:SECONDARY sources, so this may well be a problem once the page is promoted to "article space". I struggled to find good secondary references, but I'm hoping you'll either have more luck, or be able to point me at possible areas to search in.

Apart from these issues, the article is looking good! TFOWR 11:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "available by permission": I was concerned because these articles have copyright owners and I wanted to indicate that those owners have provided permission for their articles to be made available from the linked website. Those permissions are in writing and available. However, clearly that is more than needs to be added to this Wikipedia article. So I think there is value in including something like the "available by permission" phrase to ameliorate copyright concerns. I know that one can not include copyrighted material in Wikipedia. Are there any Wikipedia guidelines are links to copyrighted articles such as these?

Regarding sources: I can understand that Wikipedia would not want the subject's website or its own publications to be the only references. However, in this case, the references are published in a peer reviewed journal, ie. World Patents Index by Elsevier Inc., or in a primary source for patent searchers, ie. Search Magazine by Information Today Ltd. I believe those should qualify as secondary sources. None of these publications are from PIUG itself, although the authors have some affiliation with PIUG. That can hardly be helped under the circumstances: PIUG members are the people most qualified and interested in writing about the organization.

I see that you wrote recently: "I struggled with Google News and "PIUG" (in acronym and expanded form). I'm kind of surprised at the lack of media attention..." We recently saw MinnPost.com article that mentioned PIUG. It was only a mention and was in reference to the PIUG Chair. I have seen media people at PIUG conferences but haven't any references to their writings, if they exist. A news-type organization that covers relevant matters is InfoToday.com. You can search for PIUG in search function. This retrieves 14 hits, including the Searcher magazine article (two separate hits), seven other articles that mention PIUG, four "NewsBreaks", and a list of "Entrepreneurial Research Resources" links. The "Investigative Report. Vicious Circle" by Richard Poynder, who is not affiliated with PIUG as far as I know, reports a bit on PIUG discussion but isn't a particularly good reference; none of the others seem any better. I have put out a query to see if anyone else knows of any third-party publications. I'm not sure how else to find or generate other fully-dispassionate secondary sources.

Tomwolff52 (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks! I'll have a dig through the "source sources" you mention. TFOWR 19:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put out a call and got one new reference to a paper by Hiroshi/Koh Ishii of Chuo Kogaku Shuppan Co., Ltd. in Japan. The abstract is available via http://www.infosta.or.jp/journal/back2005e.html#2. I already added the reference to the article, although not the link to the abstract or the full article, which is in Japanese so I don't have it. Should I add the link to the abstract? Ishii-san has been affiliated with PIUG for a long time, just like the other cited authors. At least his paper supports the international aspect of PIUG. Tomwolff52 (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got one written by a regular reporter and added it as ref 2 to the article: "Patent Users Group Celebrates 20 Years." Chemical and Engineering News, 86(23), pp. 33-35 (June 9, 2008) I included a link to the article that requires subscription or membership to the American Chemical Society. Here are three paragraphs from the article:

TWENTY YEARS AGO, a group of patent specialists got together to form a group to increase communication among patent searchers and to discuss issues relevant to the patent searcher community. Out of that gathering, the Patent Information Users Group (PIUG) was born.

In celebration of its 20th anniversary, the group returned to Crystal City, Va.—the site of its first gathering—for its annual conference. Over six days, nearly 400 participants networked, attended workshops and technical sessions, and learned about the latest tools in patent searching.

Over the years, PIUG has worked with intellectual property database producers and vendors to maintain and improve the quality of their products. PIUG is made up of more than 700 members from 30 countries, including patent information consultants and patent searchers for corporations, academic institutions, and law firms.

Another source for you to consider is the public search engine Scirus. described as " is the most comprehensive scientific research tool on the web. With over 410 million scientific items indexed at last count, it allows researchers to search for not only journal content but also scientists' homepages, courseware, pre-print server material, patents and institutional repository and website information." You will get 211 hits searching Scirus for PIUG. Many of the references are from the refereed World Patent Information journal. Filter on Science Direct to get journal articles. (Filtering on IOP publishing finds articles with bad OCR: plug became piug.) I've already cited the first two references. The third one covers the PIUG Conference in Minneapolis, May 2006 (Blackman, M. , World Patent Information, 28 (4), p.358-359, Dec 2006). Michael Blackman is the editor of World Patent Information. Tomwolff52 (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested on draft article on the Patent Information Users Group

{{helpme}} I have been working with BWilkins, TFOWR, and others on the draft of the Patent Information Users Group (PIUG) topic. BWilkins suggested that I post here that we are looking for final ideas to bring it up to speed for moving to articlespace. Thanks in advance for your help. Tomwolff52 (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ask at Requests for feedback MorganKevinJ^(talk) 21:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked at Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2010_December_1#Patent_Information_Users_Group_.28PIUG.29 as suggested by Kevin Morgan on December 1, 2010. However, as of December 13, 2010, no feedback has been offered there. I would still appreciate feedback here or there on the draft of Patent Information Users Group (PIUG). Tomwolff52 (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for feedback is the logical place, however, I can confirm that the forum is badly understaffed. I hope we as a community can figure out how to change that. Until then, direct requests for help (such as this) may be the best recourse.--SPhilbrick T 21:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your further direction and explanation. Tomwolff52 (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article looks pretty good right now; it's ready to become a live article to me :) /ƒETCH COMMS / 22:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]