User talk:Robert Presto

Robert Presto, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Robert Presto! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lumonics (October 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by S0091 were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lumonics and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Lumonics, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Robert Presto, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at the our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

• Article development
• Standard layout
• Lead section
• The perfect article
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions ask me on my talk page or you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! S0091 (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lumonics (March 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HighKing was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lumonics and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Lumonics, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

HighKing⁺⁺ 20:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi HighKing,

Thanks for the feedback. You say I need at least two sources "of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing Independent Content". Would the following sources satisfy those (and other) criteria sufficiently to be considered notable?

https://archive.macleans.ca/article/1987/4/20/the-powers-in-a-beam-of-light

https://www.proquest.com/canadiannewsmajor/docview/240854521

and to a lesser extent:

https://www.proquest.com/canadiannewsmajor/docview/1344987813

Let me know.

Thanks!

Robert Presto (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Robert Presto, [:https://archive.macleans.ca/article/1987/4/20/the-powers-in-a-beam-of-light the Macleans] magazine article has no attributable journalist which is a red flag for a reliable source but leaving that aside for a moment, it is based almost entirely on information provided by the company or in an interview (says Robert Atkinson, chairman and chief executive officer of Lumonics Inc). This is actually a "puff profile", equivalent to an ad masquerading as news and does not include any "Independent Content" - please read WP:ORGIND for a definition. Similarly, this from Ottawa Citizen is a nice summary but again appears to rely on information/quotes froom Buchanan - where is the "Independent Content" that is *clearly attributable* to a source unaffiliated from the company? It is a nice summary but I cannot see definite signs that the journalist (also unattributed) has contributed any in-depth information (as opposed to color such as "operations are growing dandelions") rather than regurgitating/summarising a discussion. Finally, the reference from Ottowa Citizen is also a summary and falls short of what is required froom WP:CORPDEPTH.

Since this company was quoted on the stock exchange, can you locate any analyst reports which include a profile of the company? I'm not talking about stock price predictions that simply projects future earnings but a report that actually profiles the company, its activities, its competition, that sort of thing? HighKing⁺⁺ 10:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi HighKing,

Could you possibly point me to such a reference in the Wikipedia article for another Canadian company that also went defunct prior to the early 2000's?

Thanks,

Robert Presto (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey Robert, it was a suggestion to assist you in locating references that don't rely on PRIMARY sources. On occasion, editors with a declared COI in a topic company have a better idea on which publications exist about the company. If you don't, fine. I've looked through some reference sites myself and I've come across a Review and forecast of laser markets: 1992 which although doesn't include a specific profile of the topic company (at a push) while this is a weak reference due to a lack of CORPDEPTH information, it certainly lends weight to meeting notability criteria. This profile in Electro Optics, in my opinion, falls just short of NCORP/ORGIND criteria because it relies entirely on quotes from the company and execs and the journalist does not go beyond simple rephrasing/regurgitation and fails to provide his own analysis and opinion. Other than to say that this is the type of third-party references to search for (where the author provides their own analysis/opinion/etc on the company (see "Independent Content" in ORGIND)) I'm not able to help further in terms of notability. That said, you might like this for supporting facts/information in the article even though this report cannot be used to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi HighKing,

I'm not even completely sure I have a COI, only being the son of a (now deceased) major player in the company, but otherwise never having had any direct connection with it myself. But I declared myself as having a COI anyway, just to be on the safe side.

Do you have access to the following article on Nexis Uni:

Jill Vardy Technology Reporter. (May 30, 1997, Friday,). Investors like Lumonics' acquisition agenda. The Financial Post (Toronto, Canada). https://advance-lexis-com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:3S6T-5KT0-00GC-P046-00000-00&context=1516831

(I expect the link will be useless for you since it provides no way to login through some other institution than the one I used to view it! Unfortunately, I couldn't find the full text on Proquest.)

If so, what do you think about it and the following article, as far as analyst perspectives go?

https://www.proquest.com/docview/384512486

Then there are a couple of articles that, though they only mention Lumonics a couple of times, cover major national political concerns at the time over foreign takeovers, with specific comments referring directly to the company made by Canada's Industry Minister in the first article and Ontario's Premier in the second:

https://www.proquest.com/docview/385960197/fulltext

https://www.proquest.com/docview/385691019/fulltext

Let me know what you think.

Thanks!

Robert Presto (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Robert, excellent, I have accessed the first link from newspapers.com and in my opinion it meets the criteria because the journalist provided "Independent Content" and in-depth information on the company including commentary from analysts McConnachie and Pencak. Even more telling is that this article also references a "March Report" on "comparabe laser companies" by Marleau Lemire, a stockbroking and analyst firm. Although I am unable to access this report I'm satisfied that enough source exist (or existed) to meet the criteria for notability. There are a couple of suggestions for the quality of the article - up to you whether you take these suggestions on board or not. First, it is overly-detailed and because of that, it is difficult to read and absorb the most important details. The lede should ideally provide a stand-alone summary and it starts well but then puts in unnecessary detail and doesn't provide a summary of how the company ended. Looking through the rest of the article, details such as moving offices or how a rename came about ... are those details necessary? I think you can edit it down quite a bit. There are a number of repeated references as well - I've edited a couple of reused references to show how you can name references (look for annual1980) and it tidies things a little. The quote from the co-founder in the second last line is also unnecessary tbh. Good luck! HighKing⁺⁺ 14:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi HighKing,

Thanks for the vote of confidence and tips! But, if the next reviewer expects to see a second notable source, to meet the minimum requirement of two, can you say which of the other three I mentioned might qualify?

Let me know.

Thanks!

Robert Presto (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Robert, the next reviewer will likely be aware that notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article and therefore I think you've covered the minimum criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi HighKing,

Since I don't have a subscription, could you please provide me with a link to the newspapers.com version of the (Jill Vardy) source? I suspect readers (other than myself) would probably be more likely to have access to it than to Nexis Uni.

Thanks!

Robert Presto (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure. The link is https://www.newspapers.com/image/512657288/ - you should be able to see a teeny weeny version with that link which shows the headline. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lumonics has been accepted

Lumonics, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Missvain (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so very much Missvain - it's been a long road getting to this point!

Very exciting - now I get to tell/show all my family and friends!

67.158.23.148 (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Your email

You can make a formal edit request at Talk:Lumonics. Cullen328 (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

But aren't edit requests only applicable where there is a conflict of interest (or a paid editor or protected page) involved? I don't think there is in this case. I'm only wondering whether Philoserf's changes should be reverted, or incorporated into the references without disrupting the original citation details and, if the latter is called for, what the proper/standard way to achieve that is. Robert Presto (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)