Talk:Self-adhesive stamp

Form 10K

@Bombay 1000: I think you may be misunderstanding what a Form 10K is. It's not written by the SEC. It's the form that companies fill out and have to submit to the SEC. That's why, in this context, it's not a reliable source. Please discuss here before readding. agtx 16:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further, in response to the most recent edit summary, documents that are available in public libraries are not available to those of us lucky enough not to live in America. Thus I have no sight of this document. I am acutely aware that being able to read a document is not a prerequisite of Wikipedia referencing, but a verbatim copy of the relevant paragraph posted here and an accurate record of its source would be most helpful. I continue to reserve my view of independence of this source. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it yet again. The malformed ref to an SEC 10K form is not verifiable or independent. Meters (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK I am getting quite frustrated as I was employed by Avery Label at the time and remain steadfast to the addition made - not sure what you mean by "those of us lucky enough not to live in America" I am not sure why not living in America is lucky in this context. In any case I am adding a reference that located in the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST) journal entitled: Journal of Chemical Proceedings July 1988 which states: Alumni Shams Tabrez sucessfully developed a physical chemistry adsorption technique while working at Avery label in Azusa, CA (on assigment from MicKinsey and Company) a new epoxy formulation (with novel resins) applied to the backside of a postage stamp to allow immediate fixation and resistent to normal pressure, moisture and handling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bombay 1000 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The various editors who have undone this edit seven times now are likely getting a bit frustrated too. Unsourced additions, edit warring, breaking WP:3RR, ignoring WP:BRD and requests to discuss the edit on the talk page, and incorrectly marking the edit as minor, and now we find that this is a conflict of interest situation since you worked for the company. Please read WP:COI and propose any edits on this talk page rather than making them yourself.

There are several problems with the edit [1]:

The language and content is promotional, and reads more like a company Public Relations blurb than an encyclopedia entry. Examples are: "novel adhesive technology", "pioneered by", "revenue growth strategies", "best technological solution", and "drove the product to market".
There is too much detail about an apparently non-notable chemist and business manager in the company. You wouldn't happen to be Shams Tabrez yourself, or a personal acquaintance would you? If the Avery Dennison company came up with a solution to the glue problem (and it can be reliably sourced) then it may be worth including, but I don't think we need any details on the people involved. This appears to be a straight forward Research and Development case. A new glue formulation was developed to address problems, and was successfully marketed. Hm, rereading the entry, it's not clear that the new formulation actually addressed any particular problem (i.e., yellowing) just that it "was the best technological solution".
This needs to be sourced to a WP:RS. Company newsletters and filings are not independent of the company. We need a verifiable independent source that shows that the Avery Dennison work was important. For all we know several companies had products that would have worked and Avery's just happened to be the one that was chosen by the Postal Service. Meters (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be worth noting that 3Ms have always asserted that they produced the glue for the first US stamps. One ref here clearly links 3M to the first issue. Maybe Avery used the 3M adhesive , but if so Avery's have no claim to the fame. This seems to be a very dead duck. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confused, ill informed or more likely a combination. Plus the tone of your response is not pleasing. Also, I note I did not hear from you about your disparaging comment to living in the United States. There is a difference in user vs your frustration. Users participate but you choose to perform this function. I can advise you that Wikipedia editors manners would be challenged according to USA business protoclos. So let me answe your accusations:

1. 3M (Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing) laso developed post it notes but they bought and licensed glue (as in this case) from suppliers. They own patents to systems but not to all adhesive formulations - there is a huge difference. I dont know how much chemistry you know but in the USA there is a world of difference

2. Check the listing of the Royal Chemical Society fellows for who you feel is a notable or non-notable chemist and then draw your conconcluions. Plus check US patents, plus chect the 25 or so articles published in technical journals. Your accusations about who I am weem to suggest you are more concerned with defamation than reality - I am NOT that person!

3. You were provided with an independent source from UMIST in the UK

It therefore seems you and maybe others too have taken an emotional position to edits that is wholly unjustified. It is indeed tru that there were multiple edits in the worng places (and I do feel bad for that) - but it was as a consequence of learning - for the very first time how to Wikipedia works.

This is NOT a dead duck! I think if you represent Wikipedia this way it questions whether my donations shoudl stop as I am now confused as to whether the information in Wiki is indeed up to dat, correct or just a product of the individual preferences of specific people.

So, if you are serious about proliferating knowledge then lets get this fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bombay 1000 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you will find that I was expressing a personal view about where I personally choose to live. This is not disparaging about the USA - I don't live there nor have any intention of so doing. I consider myself very lucky to live where I do. The only significance at all is that the local libraries here do not have access to the documents you quoted. I hope that clarifies such a significant point. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, I have tried to give you as much information to get this completed. No user can be held repsonsible for what your local library does or does not hold. You will find the points made above are valid and true. I would like to propose giving credit to the right people. The statements are not PR but correct and now referenced. Please lets get Wikipedia fixed so the right information is there becuase as it stands today the idea of knowledge for all is not being reflected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bombay 1000 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bombay 1000: I've just gone through your edits, and I don't see this journal article. Can you post a link or, if not available online, a complete citation? agtx 22:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about what sources we have access to. Being verifiable does not mean that every editor has to be able to verify a source, or that verification has to be easy to accomplish. It is about the sources being reliable and independent, and ensuring that the claims made in the article are actually supported by the sources without WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH or WP:SYNTHESIS. The coverage also needs to be WP:NEUTRAL.

As a COI editor you should not edit the article. If you think that you have content that should be included in the article please propose it here and see if other editors can reach consensus to include it. I won't approve any addition that does not address my concerns notes above. Meters (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its illogical and unsupported. You just lost donors and we in teh USA shoudl assume going forward that your site is unreliable, incomplete and probably incorrect - not sure if that gives you job satisfaction! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bombay 1000 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you won't answer questions and can't or won't provide a neutral, properly sourced proposed addition, then we're done. It's not up to us to write your material for you or find sources for you. This is indeed a dead duck, as User:Velella puts it. Meters (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List each question you want the answers to clearly and coherently — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.44.236.28 (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, can we assume that you are actually Bombay 1000 but not logged in ? If not there is little relevance in the question Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]