Talk:Master Locksmiths Association

Attempted improvements
Hopefully this is better and meets the requirements? Have given references to show a notable organisation Larrylock1 (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Master Locksmiths Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121027032205/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/watchdog/consumer_advice/roguetraders_locksmiths_pic.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/consumer_advice/roguetraders_locksmiths_pic.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120331153927/http://www.westminster.gov.uk/press-releases/2010-07/dodgy-locksmith-convicted-after-westminster-sting/ to http://www.westminster.gov.uk/press-releases/2010-07/dodgy-locksmith-convicted-after-westminster-sting/

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Membership Content Being Removed
The Membership Content added in this entry ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Master_Locksmiths_Association&oldid=785935083 ) is similar to organisation entry here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Institute_for_Archaeologists#Membership  So why does someone keep removing this content? Can someone other than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Grayfell review the content, as this user has some sort of malice towards this Organisational page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Key lock01011 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh please. This content is trivial and overly promotional. Some other articles may have similar problems, but that's no excuse is it? This page had been aggressively puffed-up by a COI editor in the past who also, funnily enough, had a habit of accusing me of having an agenda just because I tried to keep the spam to a minimum. If you are serious about improving Wikipedia, discuss this article's issues. If you're mainly interested in promoting your organization, find some other site. Grayfell (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

You clearly have a agenda here, you've also been reverting any changes made to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Locksmiths_of_America Basically the exact same Organisation but in the USA. Sorry Im new to wikipedia so have no idea what a "COI editor' is --Key lock01011 (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please review other stuff exists; just because other similar content exists elsewhere does not automatically mean it should exist here as well. Each page is judged on its own merits. As a volunteer effort, often times inappropriate content makes it onto Wikipedia articles and is not detected for some time. The content itself does seem unencyclopedic and designed to tout the benefits of this organization, which is a promotional purpose and not permitted.  Wikipedia is interested in what other sources say about this organization, not necessarily what it says about itself.
 * By "COI editor" Greyfell means that it seems that you have a conflict of interest, meaning that you are somehow associated with the subject of this article. Please clarify if you are or not.  Thanks 331dot (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no association with this subject, I am just a working locksmith and knowledgable on the industry, as this organisation and [|ALOA] are in the security industry, there needs to be information on these companies particularly the membership schemes and how one becomes a vetted locksmith in these organisations, the entries are very sparse as it currently stands --Key lock01011 (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Locksmithing articles get more than their fair share of spam. The links I removed from Associated Locksmiths of America were better than some, but still didn't appear to meet reliable source guidelines. Issues with this article are no different. This article needs reliable, independent sources of substance as a starting point, but even then, verifiability is no guarantee of inclusion. Membership schemes should be published on organization's own site, not here. If these schemes have been covered by reliable sources for some strange reason, we can assess from there how to handle such content. Grayfell (talk) 09:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) No person or group "needs" a page here. Wikipedia only has pages where the subject is written about in independent reliable sources, as I describe above.  Wikipedia is not a how to guide on becoming a locksmith or other professional.  If the different levels each receive in depth coverage in independent sources, please provide such sources.
 * You state that you have no association; does that mean you are not a member of this organization(even if you are not editing on their behalf per se). I don't mean to press this point but it is important.  Thanks 331dot (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This organisation is written about by many reliable sources see below, what is a more reliable source than UK Police Forces and Secured By Design?

http://www.securedbydesign.com/about-secured-by-design/ https://www.cambs.police.uk/crimeprevention/business/info.asp http://www.gmp.police.uk/content/section.html?readform&s=A50BB089B83C963780257961003D2992

--Key lock01011 (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You still haven't clearly explained if you have a conflict of interest or not.
 * Those sources are not very useful for Wikipedia's purposes. Secured By Design is not a third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as recommended by WP:RS. As an affiliated source which only mentions the MLA as a routine matter, it is unusable for establishing notability or due weight. Police are 'reliable' in the general sense, but that's not exactly what we mean on Wikipedia. Routine listings and passing mentions are not useful at this point. Grayfell (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The editor has not responded to that question about whether they are a member of the MLA, but I just want to say that, personally, I don't think that membership in an organization constitutes a significant conflict of interest for writing a Wikipedia article about the organization. Wikipedia needs the help of people who have some expertise on its subject matter, and we should not generally discourage people from participating in the writing of articles on topics they know something about. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A COI does not prohibit someone from being involved in editing an article. You may be correct that merely being a garden variety member of an organization is not a significant COI, and might not prevent them from even editing the article(unlike stronger COIs) but it would still be best for them to disclose any relationship they have, so that others are aware. 331dot (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * By itself, I agree that membership in a trade group isn't a particularly significant COI. I wouldn't care that much either way, but considering the hyper-aggressive behavior from a COI editor regarding this article in the past, I think it's reasonable to request a clear declaration. Grayfell (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Key lock01011 (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Organisation is notable, referenced and recommended by UK Police https://www.cambs.police.uk/crimeprevention/business/info.asp, Our Watch http://www.ourwatch.org.uk/uploads/general/ourwatch_July2013.pdf and many other orgs, please research this org before considering deletion--Key lock01011 (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The MLA exists and may be recommended by regional police, but that doesn't establish that this meets notability guidelines for organizations. A neighborhood watch newsletter sponsored by the MLA is not a reliable, neutral source. Grayfell (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As stated above, you need to better answer the question regarding if you have a conflict of interest or not. You state that you have "no association with this subject"; so do you mean that you do not work for, do not represent, and are not a member of this organization? 331dot (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Unverified claims
The article contained three unverified claims. Two of these were previously cited with inaccurate titles that would mislead the reader about the content of the cited sources. First I corrected those titles, but basically the cited sources do not support the statements in the article, so I have removed them:
 * Statement: "The BBC One television series Rogue Traders used the MLA to provide expert input."


 * Problem: The cited BBC article mentions the MLA as an example of a trade organisation, but does not appear to say they played any role in the television series.


 * Statement: "With the assistance of the MLA, a rogue locksmith was convicted and sentenced for fraud in 2010."


 * Problem: The cited city government press release contains a quote from an MLA spokesman, but does not appear to say that the MLA played any role in the case.


 * Statement: "It is the association referred to by the Association of Chief Police Officers in their Secured by Design program."
 * Problem: No source was cited for this claim, and even if the statement is true, without the possibility to check what some cited source exactly says, it is not clear that this statement says anything noteworthy about the organisation that warrants inclusion of the statement in the Wikipedia article.

Please feel free to restore the removed content if some independent reliable source can be found to verify the claims and the information seems sufficiently important to include.

—BarrelProof (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Parliament Spamedelic
I've removed this:


 * In 2009 the MLA was characterised by Maria Eagle, the Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, as "the principal trade body representing locksmiths and promoting standards within the industry". Also in 2009, Jaqui Smith, the Home Secretary at the time noted the Master Locksmiths Association had a "very valuable role to play" in the security industry. In June 2012 the MLA partnered with Neighbourhood Watch (United Kingdom) to help improve domestic security.

There are multiple problems with these. For one, they are WP:PRIMARY sources which haven't been interpreted by reliable secondary sources. Attempting to figure out how significant these are, or what they actually mean, shouldn't be left as an exercise for the reader. Also important, these heinously misrepresents context to imply far greater significance than is supported by the sources. The Eagle name-drop was one mention as part of a much, much longer transcription of a committee meeting (Draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2009). Later in this transcription John Hemming (politician) points out that the MLA specifically asked to be excluded from this yadda yadda. We cannot mention the one flattering bit without also including the more critical bit, or the reason the MLA was even being mentioned, at least not without WP:SECONDARY sources explaining why this is even important in the first place.

The Smith mentions is similar.

The Neighbourhood Watch program is a press release from a newsletter which is too trivial to even bother with. It's definitely not independent of the MLA, either. Grayfell (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Master Locksmiths Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20100304072915/http://www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/resource_library/disclosure_news/dn_78_sep_09.aspx with https://web.archive.org/web/20100815085431/http://www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/resource_library/disclosure_news/dn_78_sep_09.aspx on http://www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/resource_library/disclosure_news/dn_78_sep_09.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)