User talk:BlueOcean OceanBlue

Hello There!

--BlueOcean OceanBlue (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Ollie, There is nothing promotional and no advertising involved in the factual addition I added to the invention page this morning. Please tell me why you consider the addition I made promotional or advertising? US Patent No. 7,629,400 was cited as the reference and if you read the claims on this issued patent you will see that Sydney Hyman did invent and patent the first clear canvas as well as art, design and architecture made with conductive polymer which includes conductive polymer OLED images. Both of these are inventions in visual art. This factual information is totally appropriate for the visual art section of the invention page. Please state specifically why the substance of these two inventions is inappropriate for this Wikipedia page? Clearly you are not a visual art professional because the vast majority of us who are professionals in visual art recognize the meaning of such inventions. You can read the issued US patent 7,629,400 at www.USPTO.gov. Thank you. BlueOcean OceanBlue (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PRIMARY. The mere fact that there is a patent does not support the importance of this particular invention. We need something like a newspaper or magazine article that establishes that. - MrOllie (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you just look at the substance of the inventions they speak for themselves. There is no such support for the other inventions on this wikipedia page. I respect the care with which are you overseeing this page but please consider the fact that you are truly mistaken in this case. Please think more deeply about the actual substance of the inventions in US Patent No. 7,629,400 and their meaning cannot be disputed. You should consult a professional in visual art since you do not have a knowledge base to make decisions in this field. BlueOcean OceanBlue (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a matter of policy. By stating 'the substance of the inventions they speak for themselves' you are advocating for original research, which is expressly forbidden on Wikipedia. Read the page I linked, and also WP:UNDUE. If there is other inappropriate material in the article that is a case to remove it, not to add more inappropriate material. - MrOllie (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect Mr. Ollie, if you had any knowledge basis at all in visual art you would see that your argument is totally without merit and your review of this matter unfair and unkind. Why don't you ask a visual art professional or a few visual arts professionals? It wlll be hard to find an authentic visual art professional who would not see the merit of the addition I made to the Invention page - the substance is just that obvious yet you are blind to it and as a result, highly disrespectful of visual art professions. BlueOcean OceanBlue (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asking a visual art professional would be original research, as I said. Wikipedia requires that this kind of thing be supported by third party sources which are independent of the subject so that any layman may verify. - MrOllie (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you think writes magazine and newspaper articles on visual arts? The importance of these inventions is so totally, glaring, blatantly obvious, calling this very clear cut determination "original research" is in the realm of being ridiculous. It's very unfortunate and mean spirited. BlueOcean OceanBlue (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's such a universally important invention, turning up an independent reference should pose no difficulty for you. - MrOllie (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ollie, if you take a moment and apply some scholarship and actually look at the substance of the subject matter, you will quickly see that the patent no 7,629,400 issued yesterday and that it's substance has tremendous merit. It is incredible that you are so unfair and unkind as to not even bother to allow someone in the appropriate professional field to review the substance. You can easily confirm the importance with a call to the OLED Association or to a visual arts organization. Substance is what counts. A proper evaluation is based on substance not on games. BlueOcean OceanBlue (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]