EmmettLBrown

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, EmmettLBrown, 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 and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• 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! Aboutmovies (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of For Fuel Freedom, Inc.

I have nominated For Fuel Freedom, Inc., an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/For Fuel Freedom, Inc.. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of For Fuel Freedom, Inc.

I believe I read the consensus of the debate correctly. Your assertion that a patent alone asserts notability does not agree with the notability guideline, so the other contributors to the debate are correct when they state that the organisation is not notable. As the details of this organisation cannot be verified using independent secondary sources, there is no choice but to delete the article. You may open a deletion review if you believe that my reading of the policy-based consensus of the debate was in error. By the way, new messages on talk pages go at the bottom of the page. Fences&Windows 14:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you not understand? Fences&Windows 21:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to understand something before opening this up to further concensus. It is not just about your interpretation as to why the deletion process, it is your conclusion that I do not understand. How is it that a patent does not qualify as notable? I looked up the guidelines, and it is rather murky when it comes to patents. As far as the general guidelines for notability, there are a few questions unanswered. That is the point I was trying to make. So, let's go through the list, because I just don't get it how you could say that so easily and none of you are understanding the extent of my point and it needs to be spelled out. (I also don't always respond in the timeframe allowed by Wikipedia deletion critera, and just want someone to bounce this off of until I can understand what is really going on.)

First, a patent is issued by a reliable source, so there is no debate on that point. Next, significant coverage was debated prior and will be met by more than one patent, so I am not really concerned about that. However, your comment as whether it is independent of the author, prompted me to respond to your prompt deletion. Your action was swift, but that only leaves me with questions unanswered:

Regarding self-published works, the "publisher" of a patent in this case does not qualify as a "self-interested party". The government does not profit from the publication and is an independent qualifier of the work to be published. Therefore, the patent office is a qualifying independent source, right?

Also, the patent examiners oftentimes change the patent to be something entirely different. The patent must meet the government's independent research criteria. If the examiner has determined that the idea is not patentable, either in terms of its infringement on other works or in terms of feasibility (by research or expertise), the examiner can make changes or not approve altogether. This differs from a book publisher in the sense that it is not merely editing, but it is a process of independent verification like that of a medical journal, or university researchers. A patent is not like "self-interest" student university work, but it is independently verified, right?

Not only that, a patent is not a paid published work. That is to say, in the sense that fees are applied to file for examination, and do not go toward the actual publication. It is not unlike nomination filing fees, where the outcome of an election or award is not guaranteed. If a book is published, it meets the notabilty requirement if it has won a major literary award regardless of any other notability requirement. So a patent is a major literary award, right?

Another "automatic" is whether the publication makes a significant contribution to a political movement, and certainly applies to an environmental and economic cause such as a process that provides 4 times as much as corn ethanol needed to make America oil independent. One could argue that such contribution is "up and coming", but without the literary work of the patent in this case, the next step could not ever take place with the current economics of corn ethanol. So, it is a pivital breakthrough and the starting point from which everything follows for an environmental and economic political platform. This patent in particular is crucial to a political movement, and supercedes the "up and coming" definition, right?

So, here's the deal: I cannot possibly imagine how you came to your decision if you took the time to make an honest review of not just the consensus, but looked at what was really being questioned. I already said that a review of Wikipedia policy was necessary because patents are not listed as one of the presumed notable subject-specific guidelines, and a patent is not as black and white as you make it out to be because there is a lot of grey. Do you understand where I am coming from now? I hope I have conveyed how this patent is significant in many ways, even though it may not look like Wikipedia's current policy on notability at first glance. Please enlighten me as to how it is not, and please be specific because I have more questions. User:EmmettLBrown (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A patent is not an independent secondary source. It is a primary source. We can't base articles solely on patents. Having a patent does not make a person or organization notable, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. There's no need to give me a lesson on patents, I know full well what they are and how they are obtained. The arguments about the impact of this organization on politics and the environment sound like crystal ball gazing and wishful thinking, and they're not based on sources. Wikipedia exists to summarise topics that have been noted elsewhere. If this organisation is up-and-coming, it should wait until the media and/or scientific journals have given it some attention before expecting to get into an encyclopedia. Wikipedia does not exist to give companies that nobody has heard of free advertising. If you're not satisfied, you can seek a deletion review or advice at the reliable sources noticeboard. Fences&Windows 03:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

August 2011

Hello EmmettLBrown. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie. Thanks for keeping a watch out for this. Yes, I know the subject of Stephen L. Rush and I added a bunch of info when someone added the article. I always add information that is only based on documentation, and do my best to comply with content policies.

Regarding this article, I attempted to remove its orphan status, but it appears someone thought I was just spamming. Perhaps I do not understand the difference. What is your perspective on that?

Regarding neutrality, I generally have difficulty with the concept that a verifiable secondary source is a journalist who gets only some of the facts right due to biased policies or edits to simplify the content. I have difficulty with the concept that a verifiable secondary source is somehow better than a collection of documents authorized by government agencies. I have difficulty with the concept that something attributed to a person or corporation but never written down by a journalist requires a verifiable source. I have difficulty with the concept that a quote by a person has to be verified by something other than eye witnesses. So, certain types of information can only be requested from the primary source. For example, the Better Business Bureau has a record of "Save Juarez Project", but files it under "beauty salons" because there is no criteria that fits an "anti-sexual murder non-profit organization". And, the definition of a "contrary economist" is specifically one who will not ever receive recognition for being one.

So to me, verifiable secondary sources can be just as biased and misleading, and I naturally do not consider web site citations as secondary. I will work on that. Now don't take this the wrong way, but I do not agree that Wikipedia should automatically delete an article that does not contain better sources - only the parts that "for certain" could not be verified by any source. And then, there should be a mechanism to sublet to a journalist to research on the rest. I do not believe that Wikipedia policies are neutral in that regard. Kinda harsh, isn't it? I would hate to see this article deleted, just because I did a poor job of removing its orphan status.

I wish that there were a way to "build a case" within a reference citation and seek help from the community of editors, perhaps one that builds percentage points for quality of proof, so that all of the facts can be presented and determine whether a particular sentence belongs. At the very least, I wish an article had a way to directly comment on or flag the particular verifiability of each sentence. Otherwise, it makes any article naturally contain only partial information that readers may otherwise expect to find. If you could pass along the suggestion, that would be great.

EmmettLBrown 71.103.175.5 (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)