Talk:Matthew Lutton

Conflict of interest tag
I have removed the cherry-picked review quotes (very inappropriate here), and the remainder of the article is now neutral in tone. It was almost certainly a product of COI editing, but its content no longer reflects that, and consequently I have removed the tag. However, this article has very poor referencing and no inline citations. It's also more like a resume than a biography. The subject is reasonably notable, although the current sourcing doesn't reflect that. Sources/Articles which can be used to improve the referencing include:, , , ,. Note also that every single one of the awards listed needs an inline citation. Voceditenore (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

COI Editing
Editing by individuals with a financial conflict of interest is a very hot topic at Wikipedia just now, as HLA123 and JeanProbert1981 have no doubt noted. There is a wide range of opinion on the matter and Wikipedia policy and practice towards so-called "COI editors" is schizophrenic. Recent efforts to clarify matters have resulted in no clear consensus in what manner to clarify policy. At one end of the spectrum are those Wikipedians who want to prohibit COI editing and summarily ban COI editors. At the other end of the chart are those who think that with anonymous editing and prohibitions against "outing" anonymous editors, any attempt to regulate COI editing is far-fetched and unenforceable.

Technically, according to current policy, COI editing is permitted but not encouraged, with certain "best practices" encouraged but not required, and banning of COI editors permitted in the case of "disruption" — a phrase meaning different things to different people.

Myself, I advise a 3-pronged approach to COI editing, assuming one is intent upon doing COI editing in the first place, which I do not recommend.

1. Declare your COI on the talk page (i.e. right here for the Matthew Lutton piece).

2. "Commit no spam" — stick to uncontroversial, sourced content. Do not try to treat WP like an ad, treat it like an encyclopedia and adhere to Neutral Point of View.

3. Invite scrutiny — ask one or two established Wikipedians with no financial stake to review your work.

I think a majority of Wikipedians would find that set of behaviors an acceptable approach — but it does remain a matter of controversy. Carrite (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Remove CE tag?
I've made some edits and think the copyedit tag can safely be removed at this time. Thoughts? Khballin (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Matthew Lutton. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120629083620/http://www.jerwoodfoundation.org/download.php?id=178 to http://www.jerwoodfoundation.org/download.php?id=178

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matthew Lutton. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325023938/http://www.pica.org.au/view/Bed/858/ to http://www.pica.org.au/view/Bed/858/

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) 03:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

LGBT
In this article he says "I've met a boy who I'm quite infatuated with", in response to a question about his personal life. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)