The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all, and I see I have some work cut out for me. --- Deville (Talk) 15:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complexxon[edit]

Incomprehensible, cross-linked spamming related to anti-oil corporation agenda. Looks like it fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VANITY and WP:OR.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all just cross-links with the same basic content:

All articles created by User:S.Tychon, or one of five anonymous IPs: User:85.146.184.157, User:62.58.132.178, User:195.169.78.207, User:195.169.78.205 and User:137.120.3.224, who seem to be the same user. --DeLarge 10:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes it is! (Stephan Tychon@dr.com ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.166.216.137 (talk • contribs) 16:25, October 2, 2006
— 217.166.216.137 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Agreed on all counts and would add WP:BALLS, WP:NONSENSE, WP:ATK, WP:ADVERT (although I accept that they are not all accepted grounds for deletion!)
If I were being generous, I might suggest that the author is a non-English speaker and the article may have important points hidden in there somewhere if they can only be deciphered. These points could find a potential home on the Exxon page. However, given the author's vandalism in spreading gibberish throughout numerous articles to promote his POV, I'm not inclined to be generous. GDallimore 12:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • -------------------------------------------------
  • Incomprehensible vandalism?
  • Complete bollocks?
  • Patent nonsense?
  • Tenuous connection to reality?
  • Spurious claims?
  • Widely disputed?
  • A walled garden?
  • isparaging a subject?
  • Self-contained nest of bullshit?
  • Emerging theory?
  • Spreading gibberish?
  • POV?
Who are you to judge without explaining and what you know that gives you the privilege to insult people?
Yes I am a Dutch, non-English speaker. What is your problem here?
Decision of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market not a source of legitimate and reputable authority? See Tychon v. Dell on [1]
Same for the key-document "La transformation de L'industrie du Gaz aux Pays-Bas" of 1964 under Gasgate 1963: "La Condition Americaine"?. Do you speak your languages at all? You think american 'civilization' is no economic fundamentalism? Dream on!
WHAT YOU KNOW?
Shouldn't you rather have respect for a single individual disclosing classified information based on material previously published by a ::reliable source demonstrating this is not mere original sourcing research/
Wouldn't you rather be helpful and ask good questions for Christ sake?
Delarge, shouldn't you stay with cars?
  • Yours, Stephan Tychon, Bugattist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.166.216.137 (talk • contribs) 16:35, October 2, 2006
— 217.166.216.137 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Re-action: The signing-procedure seems to be to complexx too for me where I considered 'signing' with my full name would do the job: Stephan Tychon, Maastricht, Kingdom of the Netherlands. Tychon@dr.com Please let me know if you need more information or go to www.xxell.com [2]
The spreading gibberish comment was as a consequence of your vandalism to the Software patent debate article (which is fragile and messy enough as it is) and the Software patents under United Kingdom patent law article (which I have personally spent a lot of time working on). You added to those articles, which have no clear connection with your cause, prominent discussions of "implicit patents", which is a completely meaningless phrase, and links to your website.
Your trademark case with OHIM against Exxon may well be valid, but does not give you the right to vandalise other pages (particularly patent pages - patents and trademarks are separate and distinct forms of Intellectual property). Also, the fact that you have a trademark victory aganist Exxon does not in any way validate your cause.
I'm still not inclined to be generous and, since I didn't officially vote before:

Signed: Stephan Tychon, Maastricht, Kingdom of the Netherlands. Gloabl energy dissident. (Tychon@dr.com)

Mr Tychon
I am very sorry that you feel so put upon, and I wanted to write this final comment to try to explain to you why I have been giving such negative feedback. I would reassure you that I carefully read all of your articles and your website before putting forward my vote for deletion. The reason for my voting to delete your articles is not because I do not agree with your point of view, or because I do not think you are correct in your point of view, but because it simply is not possible to understand what you are trying to say. I am afraid that your command of the English language does not appear to be good enough to get your points across and I can see no possibilty of improving the situation.
My first comment, noting that you may not be an English speaker, was intended to be supportive. The fact that English is not your first language should be taken into account and extra effort put into trying to understand what you want to say. I have made that extra effort and still do not understand you. If I may make a friendly suggestion, why not create articles on the Dutch Wiki (I've run a seach under Complexxon, Tychon and xxell and can find nothing), so that you are writing in your own language. When you have a stable and accepted article, I'm sure there would be an opportunity to have it translated into English by someone with a better command of the language.
I am sorry for my error in saying that you had a victory over Exxon, rather than saying that it was a victory over Dell. This was an honest mistake. I have now reviewed the complete decisions in the Tychon V Dell case and the subsequent appeal. As a registered (but non-practicing) European Trade Mark Attorney I am sorry to have to tell you that you clearly do not have a full grasp of intellectual property law and are not qualified to comment on it. For example, I note that OHIM's decision was based entirely on their own reasoning and that very little you had to say was taken into account. Your submissions that Dell had stolen your trademark and had bad advertising practices were completely ignored. Your submissions that your own trademark had achieved recognition were rejected. OHIM rejected Dell's trademark for some of the goods and services under which they had requested it to be registered, giving you only a partial victory. The subsequent appeal (filed by you) was found to be inadmissible because you failed to pay an appeal fee. Apparently, you said that you should not be required to pay an appeal fee. I am afraid that that strikes me as a very arrogant submission to make and I am not surprised that your appeal was thrown out.
In any event, as I mentioned before, your partial victory over Dell only shows that you have previously registered a trade mark that was similar to the trade mark that Dell wished to register. It does not support your point of view expressed in any of the articles that are proposed for deletion.
Finally, as a registered (and practicing) European Patent Attorney from the UK, I can say with utter certainty that there is no such thing as an "implicit patent". [4] There is also no such thing as a global patent. The Macrossan decision in the UK does not support the patenting of computer-implemented mental processes, does not have global importance and the appeal filed by Mr Macrossan has not yet been judged on. A trademark does not give you patent rights and is not a "business method". Having run a search on [ep.espacenet.org], I find that you do not appear to have any granted or pending patents. Therefore, someone can provide exactly the same services as you so long as they use a different trade mark. Your comments on software patents are therefore completely misguided. They also do not appear to have any relevance to the articles that have been proposed for deletion.
In summary, having carefully reviewed all of the materials made available to me, I can make no sense and can see no merit in any of your articles and maintain my vote to have them deleted.
Mr G Dallimore MPhys (Oxon) EPA ETMA RPA CPA, Reading, UK GDallimore 17:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<snip>Comments moved to talk page</snip>. Further conversations should be addressed there. That may halt the edit count on this page (38 from one named account and two related anonymous IP blocks in the last 48 hours). --DeLarge 13:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More