Talk:Michel Platnic

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Feedback from New Page Review process[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: please check the Shpilman Prize, I think there's an error..

Vexations (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations thank you for your comment, I corrected the information (as he received a local grant and not the international prize) and gave the right link to the Shpilman Institute. Ronavni (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non Primary Sources[edit]

Vexations These patents cited in the article are approved patents, written by another professional person and that are checked by examiners before being accepted. Note that these patents are cited by other patents, which this last fact is mentioned in the reference. (see for example the comment at the patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP0822648B1/ that this patent was cited by 54, and so is for all the other patents). Thank you, Ronavni (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations as I already wrote to you in my personal "talk page" I think that the interview at the Frame (design magazine) is more a secondary source than a primary, because it is not a stenograma or a trnscript, but a generalization of his words by the author, as it is excepted from a distinguished magazine as FRAME. I hope you will accept this explanation. More or less the same is for the comment concerning the Gordon Gallery, as that Gallery isn't owned by Platnic, and they have an excellent reputation in the Art field. Thanks again, Ronavni (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ronavni, An issued patent may be considered a reliable source for the existence of an invention, the names of the inventors, the date of the patent, and the overall content of what was invented. Note that patent applications that are not yet issued are self-published, non-independent, primary sources for Wikipedia purposes. See WP:PATENTS Vexations (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vexations, I'll dive into it, and will respond a.s.a.p. Ronavni (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vexations ,Thanks for the explanation between primary source and secondary source regarding patents. All the references I gave actually include an history of the patent, for example: :::https://patents.google.com/patent/US7924835B2/

2005-03-01 Priority to IL16718005A 2006-02-16

Application filed by ECI Telecom Ltd

2008-06-19

Publication of US20080144622A1

2011-04-12

Publication of US7924835B2

2011-04-12

Application granted

Status

Active

2027-07-29

Adjusted expiration

So for example we see that the patent was granted in 2011 and at another place we see that the application was not filled by Platnic but by the Company he worked for, Platnic being the inventor, so it is not an independent or :::self-published patent. Note: I updated one of the links for more consistency, so all of them are from google and include the same kind of information. https://patents.google.com/patent/US6049474A/en instead of :::https://www.freepatentsonline.com/6049474.html

Now the only hesitation I have is about https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2006077575A1/. It went to publication (2006-07-27 Publication of WO2006077575A1) and it has even been cited by another patent, but I see it is expired. :::Do you have any advice regarding this specific patent? Thank you again, Ronavni (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

following the "COI" tag (at the top of the article)[edit]

Thank you Vexations for your observation. I have followed the subject’s artistic career (along with those of other local artists) with absolutely zero personal contacts until my decision to introduce an article in Wikipedia. I can understand but it is infinitely regrettable if an excess of zeal (that was entirely restricted to obtaining of information otherwise unavailable and details about sources) on my part may be considered as motivated by personal gain or promotion. This point understandably is critical and if it is in line with policy and deemed useful by an editor with your considerable experience (15 years) I shall willingly post you my CV as reference. Furthermore, if I have quoted sources that do not appear to be independent and reliable or neutral, I will appreciate your pointing them out to me to correct the item. I will much appreciate your remarks. Thank you, Ronavni (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vexations, It has been more than a week since I submitted my reference on this talk page concerning the "COI tag". No one contribute any insight. Do you agree with me that this tag can be removed? I'll appreciate your comment on this. Thanks, Ronavni (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Vexations (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vexations, Ronavni (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]