Talk:Incredible utility
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Edcolins in topic Legal or just plain gibberish?
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perpet
editWas my addition of Category “Perpetual motion” justified? Perpetual motion schemes are listed as one of several examples where the policy applies.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I think the addition is justified. --Edcolins (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Legal or just plain gibberish?
edit- A rejection based on incredible utility can be overcome by providing evidence that as a whole would lead a person having ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the asserted utility is more likely than not true.
That sentence makes no sense at all for me. If it is indeed correct, could someone please add a translation into ordinary english? --Maxus96 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm... the sentence seems quite clear to me. --Edcolins (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, and thanks to the punctuation you added. --Maxus96 (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- You're welcome. --Edcolins (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, and thanks to the punctuation you added. --Maxus96 (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)