User talk:Bmckay0burn

Plasma display
Hi, I notice you've been editing the Plasma display article, etc. recently, adding discussion of "ZeroBurn" technology. From your user page, it sounds like you're the inventor. Please note that, in general, editing or adding content that you are personally involved with is considered a "conflict of interest"; see the Wikipedia policy on such matters at WP:COI. The general advice is to suggest any such additions on the article's talk page, and let others make the changes to the article if they agree that it's good material.

Best regards, Oli Filth(talk 01:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I've taken the liberty of removing the mentions of the ZeroBurn patent, firstly because of the conflict of interest I mentioned above, and secondly because I'm not convinced it's yet reached the level of notability required to be suitable for mention in an article (see WP:Notability). If you object, please feel free to discuss here, or on one of the talk pages of the articles concerned.  Best regards, Oli Filth(talk 02:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Oli Filth. You are correct, I am the inventor of the patent in question. However, that fact should not detract from the legitimacy of the reference. At this stage the patent is not widely known, so expecting a third party editor to find it by accident and add it is not likely. Wikipedia guidelines regarding Notability are designed to ensure maximum integrity of the article in question. In this case, a patent issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that bears directly on the article in question certainly meets the Notability requirements without question (the reference itself (the patent) is both reliable and independent from myself as the inventor/editor, and most certainly verifiable).

As for the issue of COI, I have been forthright about my association with the patent in question. Again, Wikipedia guidelines are designed to ensure maximum integrity of the article in question. In this case, the article is about a product deficiency which can ruin the image quality of (many) millions of displays in consumer homes; the reference is clearly a Notable one that describes the only known method for correcting the deficiency, one the public has a right to know about and Wikipedia has an obligation to highlight. Burn-in is a topic that has not been forthrightly addressed by the display industry: there is a lack of solid information and an abundance of misinformation available. Wikipedia is exactly the place to cut through the marketing bs and provide an objective discussion of the issue that withstands scrutiny of the masses.

Bmckay0burn (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I've no doubts that your invention exists, because as you say there's a patent for it.  However, a patent doesn't indicate notability, not in the sense that is required for a Wikipedia article, firstly because (as it is written by you, presumably) it isn't independent, it's not a secondary source, and it gives no indication of wider notability (significant coverage).  Now, I'm not claiming that your invention doesn't have significant independent coverage, but I couldn't find very much via web searches, so a better reference is needed than simply a patent document (after all, anyone can get a patent for practically anything).


 * As for COI, please read through the guidelink link I provided above (WP:COI). In general, many editors would see this sort of thing as self-promotion, etc. (not least because of the question of notability); so I would suggest taking the guideline's advice and discussing this on the individual article's talk pages.


 * Best regards, Oli Filth(talk 09:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)