User talk:Johnnlouie

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Johnnlouie. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Refraction microtremor, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. ''Your username and talk page suggest you are trying to claim intellectual property rights on your own behalf. Further, the paper to which you cited (via a google drive link; is there a third-party publisher source?) doesn't appear to contain information supporting the claim about trademark ownership.'' Oblivy (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. The 3rd-party publisher source for the Louie (2001) paper is Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2001) 91 (2): 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120000098 I gave the Google Drive link because the paper is not freely available from the publisher.
 * I can edit out the Terean ReMi trademark claim for now, and request that it be added here.
 * What documentation is needed to prove a trademark claim, or are trademarks not to be asserted in Wikipedia? Johnnlouie (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for your response. This is an area that implicates a number of Wikipedia policies, including:
 * WP:PRIMARY which preferences secondary sources over primary, especially if there may be a disputed fact (not sure here);
 * WP:OR which would disfavor someone looking at the trademark registry to determine ownership; and
 * WP:RS which defines reliable sources where these are secondary, but generally journals are fine.
 * Then of course WP:COI which seems to encourage (but not strictly require?) you to request that another editor make changes for you.
 * I do wonder if it's really necessary to show trademark ownership in a Wikipedia article, that is, is it required to make the article encyclopedic?
 * On the citation, what I think you can do is to add the cite based on the journal publication and then add the google drive link as an archive. I'm constantly having my citations revised by bots, so I'm not the best person to teach you on this, but I think a proper cite is better than a free one. Oblivy (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you again!
 * I will make an edit to put in the primary journal citation for the 2001 paper.
 * I will search for another, unconflicted editor to correct the intellectual property information. Johnnlouie (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you give me a link to an article or independent website that shows the IP ownership I'm happy to see if I can make sense of the changes required and make it. This isn't really an area of expertise for me - I have a search that shows me when people link to sites like blogs and GDrive and your edit came up. Cheers. Oblivy (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks- I will find the appropriate independent website and post the link here. Johnnlouie (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for educating me on the proper role of Wikipedia entries as encyclopedic history, and on the norms and rules that govern their editing. The ReMi entry remains true as history, even though it is not a statement of current fact. Thus I would like to rescind my requests for changes to the entry. Johnnlouie (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)