User talk:MatthewVanitas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For undated/unsigned posts not archived, see User talk:MatthewVanitas/Archive 23a.


16:04:23, 13 February 2015 review of submission by Silviatriolo[edit]


Silviatriolo (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Dear All, How can I improve the profile of my company?

Thank you

Lily Goodman Child Model[edit]

Hi Matthew First, I'm not sure when you will get this but if you are taking time off, I hope it is relaxing. I want to thank you for your patience. I am not technically savvy and seem to be having a hard time with links etc. I have been trying to creat a wikipedia page for Lily Goodman. Lily is the child model who helped change the law in NYC that will give young models protection that they never have had in the past. Forever child fashion model were left out of the laws protecting other entertainers but now they are protected. She has been featured in numerous newspapers, tv talk shows etc. I'm not sure how to get all of the link in but please let me know what else you may need. Thank You Joan Davis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonidavis (talkcontribs) 13:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:FreeCinc[edit]

Hello MatthewVanitas. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "FreeCinc".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:FreeCinc}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to improve the article according to the guidelines provided. Could you kindly let me know if there is more to be done. Thank you, Cristina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariana Raposa (talkcontribs) 18:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

23:17:54, 18 February 2015 review of submission by Smithr32[edit]


I am requesting a re-review of this article because I believe this page should be published however the first author did not have the correct information at the time to publish a full wikipedia article

smithr32

16:02:31, 21 February 2015 review of submission by 164.138.150.96[edit]


164.138.150.96 (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Matthew: I note you are taking a break (totally understand!) and will try another volunteer but am copying you here because I would not have known what to do if you had not contacted me when my article was rejected. For that I thank you very much...and if another volunteer is able to help (before April, hopefully), I will come back here and let you know how all this worked out.

Regards,

Bruce McKean

Warning! Cut and pasted material follows!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bruce_McKean#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_sandbox_.28January_19.29 Dear Matthew

Thank you very much for your message. While crushed (absolutely crushed, I tell you!) that I didn’t get a medal with my first attempt, your note seems entirely in keeping with what I understood was the Wiki spirit. So while I still may ultimately fail to get through the Wikipedia filters, I am happy to take up your offer to talk about it.

I’ll try to explain (1) why I thought an entry for the Nickel Institute was justifiable (this gets at the issue of “notability”), (2) why I think I’m qualified to prepare such an entry (this provides disclosure of my background), (3) why the (rejected) submission was written the way it was, (4) observations – and they are various – on other industry associations that ARE represented in Wikipedia, and (5) why “secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject” is such a challenge for an entry on the Nickel Institute. So…

1. Why an entry on the Nickel Institute can be justified The Nickel Institute exists because of the element nickel and the various commercial forms it takes. So the importance of the Institute is tied directly to the importance of “nickel”. There is a good entry on elemental nickel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel): the technical bits are solid but other parts (production, applications, issues, etc.) are looking a bit out of date albeit not embarrassingly so. What the entry on nickel does not sufficiently address are the occupational and human health issues associated with nickel production and use. Nor does it address the engineering issues: how to weld nickel alloys, what applications of nickel-containing stainless steels are appropriate…and inappropriate, which metal finishing (“plating”) solutions work best on what substrate materials, and a whole host of practical engineering challenges. All of this information, without any advertising, brand identification or cost, is available on the net from the Institute…but you would not learn that from Wikipedia.

FYI, a number of Institute publications are used as references for the entry on nickel. Examples: Flint GN; Packirisamy S (Feb–Mar 1997). "Purity of food cooked in stainless steel utensils". Food Addit Contam 14 (2): 115–26. doi:10.1080/02652039709374506.PMID 9102344: Molloy, Bill (November 8, 2001). "Trends of Nickel in Coins – Past, Present and Future". The Nickel Institute. Archived from the original on September 29, 2006. Retrieved November 19, 2008) My very first minimal attempt to introduce the availability of this resource was to add, under “External Links”, a link to the Nickel Institute. It was immediately removed by Barek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barek).

2. Why I’m qualified to write about the Institute I have 30 years of experience with mining and metal issues, half of which have been focused exclusively on nickel. Thirteen of those years were as an employee of the Institute. You can see more of my background at http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/bruce-mckean/14/7a0/ba5

3. Why the submission was written the way it was In spite of much contradictory evidence (see 4 below), I am a strong supporter of the wiki ideals. While I believe the Institute deserves a modest presence in Wikipedia, I did not want to conflate the importance of nickel (enormous to society) with the Institute (supportive of the appropriate use of nickel use in society). Thus a list of the member companies and of the publications, technical support services, etc., was noted but not elaborated. There is also the reality that the Institute has the mandate and responsibility for advancing the commercial interests of its member companies. The more the attributes and value of “nickel” are praised in an entry that is supposed to be about “the Institute”, the more it begins to resemble a commercial. That is not a wiki objective nor was it mine. But then my original submission was rejected, at least in part, because it was not sufficiently “notable”. How to make an entry “notable” without getting into the commercial, promotional and environmental aspects in which the Institute is engaged? Clearly I need help here.

4. Observations In thinking about a possible wiki entry for the Institute I naturally looked at existing industry association entries. What follows is a selection of what I found (and what I thought about them).

World Steel Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Steel_Association This looks neutral at first glance but in reality it is unapologetic in setting out the commercial and promotional objectives of the member companies. Three of the four references given have direct links to the steel industry. ALL of the seven “External Links” are products of the Association and are entirely promotional and do not pretend to be neutral although I expect them to be technically sound. The Aluminium Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aluminum_Association This is a poorly written and entirely promotional page. That is noted in the wiki notes at the top of the entry:

   [hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (August 2014)

This article needs additional citations for verification. (August 2014)

This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. (August 2014)


   This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links. (March 2012)


I note that the legitimate concerns noted above date from March 2012 but, unlike my submission for the nickel industry, the aluminium page (a) exists and (b) continues to exist in spite of issues that have remained unaddressed for almost three years now.

The Minor Metals Trade Association (MMTA) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Metals_Trade_Association is included here because, well, it’s minor but has a wiki presence. It is mainly a list of the Periodic Table elements of commercial interest to its members and with a list to URLs that take researchers to more specialized sites. Of interest too is the lack of “secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject”: only two references are given, both of which are from the trade association itself. That sounds like a criticism but in fact I’m sympathetic…which gets to point 5.

5. Why the requirement for “secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject” is such a challenge They don’t exist. There is absolutely no reason why a desperate graduate student or marginal journal would write or publish research on the Nickel Institute. The Institute is an open book, its objectives are predictable, its history is non-controversial and never political. The scientific research of NiPERA is, of course, published in journals and commented upon but that is the research, not the institution. The technical publications that are vital to downstream users of nickel, nickel alloys, nickel chemicals and catalysts have a large audience but neither the practice of technical support nor the quality of that support justifies third party examination, commentary and citable material. That is why the MMTA had to cite itself because that is all there is.

But think of the alcohol industry. Sprits Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirits_Europe) represents and enormous industry with products that practically every world citizen will recognize. In addition, the issues related to those products generate enormous social and political attention. There are probably hundreds of articles written on the PRODUCTS and their EFFECTS every month in every language…but nothing on the industry association which is, after all, the subject of the wiki entry. This is understandable and explains why that the wiki entry contains a long list of references and external links, every one of which is by or to a member company of the industry association. The majority of them will also be entirely promotional in one way or another. In other words, even an industry association dealing with drinks and spirits has not found entirely independent secondary reliable sources to buttress its wiki presence. Neither can the Nickel Institute. The difference is, however, the Spirits Europe – like the Minor Metals Trade Association – can be found in Wikipedia but my attempt to get the Nickel Institute in has (so far) failed.

Are you still glad you offered to chat about all this? I have perhaps over-explained the situation and I suspect you and others close to Wikipedia would be the first to admit that there is great unevenness in the different wiki entries. That is inevitable and we, the users and supporters of Wikipedia, understand and accept this: the ideal is just not achievable in such the dynamic and expanding universe that is Wikipedia. Maybe in a hundred years….

But until then, and with the examples and explanations I have given, what should I be doing now that I have so far failed to do? With many thanks in advance for any words you can offer, I am sincerely yours, Bruce McKean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce McKean (talkcontribs) 20:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)