Talk:Quaternary recovery

Notability
The use of the term "Quaternary Recovery" can be expanded further, but is this really notable?--Work permit (talk) 06:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"It may not seem notable at the present time, but I believe it will become a more widely used term in the oilfield industry as the trend of turning CO2 into oil rich algae biomass catches on. Just as the terms "primary recovery", "secondary recovery", and "tertiary recovery" have become part of the standard lexicon of the oilfield industry, I believe that "quaternary recovery" will also come to be a common oilfield term used to describe the production of algae oil from co2.

As with many terms used for commercial marketing purposes, they may not seem notable before they catch on, but after some time, one cannot imagine that they were never commonplace terms. For example, the word "Google" or the word "Bling" both meant absolutely nothing 20 years ago, but Google is now a widely recognized word that has even become an action verb.

To my mind, the term "Quaternary Oilfield Recovery" is the logical successor to "primary recovery", "secondary recovery", and "tertiary recovery". Though it may have been used in the older books that you cited, it is currently NOT listed in the oilfield glossary of Schlumberger Corporation. So, even if the term was used before, it doesn't seem to be an active component of the current oilfield industry vocabulary.

My purpose is not to achieve academic notoriety, but rather to create a new, present day trend in the oilfield industry, in order to promote my product." --- Jonathan Gal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.48.28 (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you just made my point. First of all, it is not "notable" at the moment.  Secondly, it is currently NOT listed in the oilfield glossary of Schlumberger Corporation.  So, even if the term was used before, it doesn't seem to be an active component of the current oilfield industry vocabulary.  Finally, Your purpose here is "to promote your product"--Work permit (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"Yes, I am trying to start a new trend in the oilfield industry ... the trend of using oilfield CO2 to grow algae and then extract oil from algae. I am trying to establish myself and my company as one of the leaders in this field.  I have 3 patents pending in the field, as well as a Biology degree from Harvard.  These credentials qualify me as a leader in the field, and I wanted to give myself and my company some visibility by creating this NEW entry on WikiPedia.  Again, I am not an academic analyst, I am trying to CREATE a new trend.  I am not sitting back and analyzing what other people have done.  And, what is wrong with citing my company?  We are one of the leading companies in this emerging industrial category." -Jonathan L. Gal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.48.28 (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Jon, you can't promote your company at Wikipedia by citing your own website. Please read WP:SPAM.  And you can't be editing an article when that involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests.  That's wp:coi. I'm being gracious here, and trying to help you. An admin could ban you for continuing along these lines.--Work permit (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Texas Clean Fuels
I deleted the use of the website http://www.texascleanfuels.com as a source for the article. Per wp:rs it is clearly NOT wp:rs--Work permit (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a Biology graduate from Harvard University. I have three patents pending in this field. Texas Clean Fuels is one of the thought leaders and commercialization leaders in this field. I object to your characterization of my company as unreliable, especially on a public forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.48.28 (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"Startup companies create new trends all the time. Every corporation in America was, at one time in history, a small startup company.  Just because a company is small does not mean it is unreliable.

And, by the way, what qualifies you to edit my entry on Wikipedia and to judge my company's reliability? You haven't even identified yourself. You operate with a hidden identity. Who is more relialbe, the man who freely identifies himself and his interests as I have done? Or, the man who hides behind fake names and refuses to reveal his identity and interests?" - Jonathan Gal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.48.28 (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Jon, you are new to wikipedia, and I am trying to educate you on how wikipedia works. Please read the links I pointed to above.  For starters, create a user id, rather then edit under an anonymous IP address.  Then create a talk page.  There are many people here on wikipedia that are anxious and friendly to help, but there are guidelines and rules that you need to learn.--Work permit (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"So, how is it that Christie Brinkley gets to have her own Wiki entry, which is clearly promotional, without running up against the kind of resistance you are giving me? Pretty faces get special treatment?!

"I would understand your objection if I was submitting some kind of bogus information, but I am not doing that. I am just creating a new term and defining a new trend in the oilfield industry.

And, why is that my company is deemed unreliable, when you seem to clearly accept the Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary as a relevant and reliable source? I don't know. Seems like unfair treatment to me." 72.48.48.28 (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Jon, your companies website is not a reliable, third party source. AGAIN, I ask you to read the links I posted above. You have a graduate degree from Harvard, so you understand the basics of what can be used as a source in a paper, and what can not be.  You can refer to referred papers from journal articles.  You can refer to published books.  You can refer to published newspaper articles  You can't refer to blogs, or other websites that are not considered wp:rs.  And above all, you CAN'T BE EDITING THIS ARTICLE, since it is a clear conflict of interest.  Christie Brinkley gets her own article because she's covered by third party, reliable sources (as defined by wikipedia).  BUT SHE CAN'T EDIT AN ARTICLE ABOUT HERSELF.  Again, I suggest you read the sources I gave you.  If you still disagree, file for a Third opinion, or for Mediation Cabal. If you think I am unfair, take me to Arbitration.--Work permit (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

So, if I hire a PR firm to write Wiki entries for me, then it is acceptable? I mean, you aren't going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that MircoSoft isn't using the "bling" entry for promotional purposes, are you? Maybe Bill Gates or even anyone at MicroSoft didn't put the entries in themselves, but you can be sure that promotion or denunciation of the term is part of the motivation.

I noticed that you are working on oil shale. Perhaps you have a conflicting interest to mine and that is the real source of your resistance? 72.48.48.28 (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read any of the links I posted? If not, I think I'm done here--Work permit (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read the links. My problem is that the rules aren't being applied fairly to all the different entries. Take, for example, the entry for "Google". A large portion of the references in that article are direct publications of the company itself. References to the Google article include Google own securities filings, Google's own Investor Relations department, and Google's own press releases. Isn't that a violation of the same rules you are throwing at me? 72.48.48.28 (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me simplify things. Wikipedia is not a finished product, so pointing out the shortcomings of other articles is inapplicable to the topic at hand. The general notability guideline for Wikipedia is, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria." Can you point me to any academic or other secondary source which uses this term to refer to the algal production process? Dekimasu よ! 05:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I cannot show you such sources, because I am the first to do so! I am CREATING this definition of the term ... just as Google CREATED the term "GMAIL" to describe their own email software application! When Google first created the term "GMAIL", there weren't any other sources to say it was so. They just created the term and started using it and eventually it became a commonplace term that everyone was using!! It has become widely acceptable, but not because some academic said it was so. Rather, because they just started using the term and they spent money marketing the term. The term "GMAIL" became accepted because it was promoted heavily, not because some academic wrote a paper about it!!!

Look, we just have different ways of viewing the world. You seem to think that all creativity must be "ratified" by an academic. I am telling you that many, many creative thoughts and ideas are never substantiated or "ratified" by academics, they just become commonplace and accepted because they make sense and because they are widely used by the general public. I doubt very much there was EVER any academic papers that defined the meaning of the term "GMAIL". It just spread around and became accepted ... no PhD's involved, just heavy marketing and advertizing!!!

Anyways, we do agree on one thing, I think. This discussion is not very productive. Enough for now! 72.48.48.28 (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The key point being that Wikipedia is not for creative thoughts, but for those that have become commonplace and accepted already. If and when this is a commonplace term, it will be appropriate to have an article on the subject. Dekimasu よ! 05:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)