Talk:McMaster-Carr/Archives/2012

Usefulness in prototyping

I added some info about the website and a note about the usefulness in prototyping etc. I use the McMaster-Carr website at least once a week, both at work (as an engineer) and for personal projects.Dudecon 21:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:McMaster-Carr logo.gif

Image:McMaster-Carr logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-write

I made some changes to this article, but it still needs a major rewrite. It is as if someone from the company took their advertisement and put it into wikipedia. **McMaster-Carr doesn't have any ads that I've ever heard of** Scruff323 (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: I marked the article as an ad. I also marked the section on canadian shipping as original research. There is no citation and i can't find that information anywhere on the site. If someone wants to find that information and cite it, fine. Otherwise the section should be deleted. On another note, i was the one that deleted it last time. It was a hasty decision, not censorship. I just forgot to sign in at that point. Scruff323 (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I made some changes trying to make it more neutral. I think it's an acceptably neutral point of view now, but it's still a bit short.

Chris 207.183.168.121 (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Violations of US Export Regulations

Why is this section being repeatedly deleted? I'm going to re-instate it unless somebody has a good reason. XL2D (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's repeatedly deleted because there is no citation on it and it's a controversial topic. I believe there was a template on it stating that prior to the deletion and your revert. Technically I think the info can be legitimately deleted because there is no cite and should only be restored if a reference is added. --Wizard191 (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving it here per Wikipedia:CITE#Unsourced_material

==Violations of US export regulations==

In July 2003, McMaster-Carr was fined $8,000 by the US Commerce Department for multiple violations of the antiboycott provisions of the US Export Administration Regulations (EAR).

The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security charged that McMaster-Carr failed to report its receipt of boycott-related requests within the time period required by the EAR. The alleged violations occurred in eight transactions involving sales of goods from the United States to Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. McMaster-Carr voluntarily disclosed the alleged violations to the Department.

--Wizard191 (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the citation given: http://www.bis.doc.gov/news/2003/mcmaster_carr.htm. How does this not qualify as a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by XL2D (talk • contribs) 23:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I didn't see that there. I'll reinstate it. --Wizard191 (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Business Restrictions

This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (June 2008)

In 2005 McMaster-Carr started restricting business to Canadian customers. Their standard email response to orders placed from Canadians is:

Thank you for your order. Unfortunately, due to the ever increasing complexity of United States export regulations, McMaster-Carr can only process orders from a few long-established customers in Canada. We sincerely regret any inconvenience this causes you. Please be assured that your credit card has not been charged. Regards, McMaster-Carr Supply Company

As a privately-held company, they are not required to or are unwilling to provide Canadian customers references to these export regulations, and will not even ship to US destinations if they are aware the product will end up in Canada via 3rd party means (i.e.: Shipping broker/forwarder).

I can understand this being removed as "unverified", but how does one make it verified? I am the one who's been on the receiving end of these communications, and I can share my identity & proof, but where to, and how's it to be verified? Here's an idea: YOU try ordering from them and asking them to ship to Canada! Um, but again, how's it to be verified in a wikipedia-acceptable manner? I didn't see anything in the links to the "citation" information to this effect. Ideas?

Ah. Websearch is coming up with threads relating:

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.crafts.metalworking/2007-06/msg00924.html

http://www.rebreatherworld.com/home-build-rebreathers/11769-mcmaster-carr.html

http://nerfhaven.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9580

http://realcent.forumco.com/topic~TOPIC_ID~3875.asp

http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44080

http://www.speedzilla.com/forums/ducati-superbikes/47288-need-help-ordering-mc-master-carr.html

Does this count as verifiable information now?

Solarbotics (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, that doesn't count as verifiable. Forums are not known for factual information. See wp:sps. Wizard191 (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

$8,000?

Are you kidding me? They pay their janitors more than that. This is not a material amount. Its like writing about a person who slipped on a floor in the Peoria, IN Wal*Mart and won $10,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.239.123 (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaving this comment here in hopes that someone from McMaster-Carr will read it. I have also received the same denial email as I am a Canadian resident. I can buy electronic components easily from DigiKey without brokerage charges as they have a distribution network in both the United States and Canada. I believe that McMater-Carr is doing themselves and their customers a disservice by not pursuing the same avenue. If DigiKey can accomplish this with electronic components then McMaster-Carr should be able to do likewise with mechanical components. Mel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgoodinbc (talk • contribs) 18:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Advertising?

I find it amusing that some have said this article resembles advertising from McMaster-Carr. As far as I can determine, this company does not advertise at all, with the exception of sending their catalogs to customers! Aye512 (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you write an article for a commercial legend?

I find this an interesting problem. How do you write a Wikipedia article about a commercial entity that doesn’t read like an advertisement? If McMaster were somehow controversial, involved in legal battles of had lots of disgruntled customers then it might be possible. If McMaster were just another e-commerce site then deleting it would not be a problem but it is not. McMaster Carr is legendary engineering reference site.

McMaster Carr was established in 1901 and within engineering circles is often referred to as the Yellow Bible. Before the web made online purchasing possible the most recent McMaster catalog was a coveted possession. The standing joke was that McMaster could deliver anything in their catalog over night except their catalog. Given McMaster’s “old catalog company” status I was astounded when they produced the model website for searching a huge inventory.

McMaster is more than just a supplier of industrial hardware it has become an engineering design and estimating reference. Parts lists with prices are simple to generate and their search engine is second to none. Don’t like keyword or parametric searches? Not a problem, go to the page view and thumb through the pfd version of their current catalog.

Live anywhere near civilization? Need a part next day and its 4:00 pm? Order it; it will arrive next day with no next day charge. The company has always prided itself in having 98% of the catalog in stock and my personal experience is that this is true. Want to alleviate a client’s fears that a machine will be maintainable simply assure the customer’s maintenance personnel that the vast majority of component are available from McMaster. Not only will they be comfortable knowing they can get a replacement next day they know the components are of high quality.

Returns? Not an issue. In fact they will often just send a replacement without asking for the original returned. Need solid models or CAD drawings? A very high percentage of their items have CAD available for quick and painless download. And there are extensive references for material properties and component application. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.115.92 (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. McMaster-Carr is a phenomenal company. I actually came here wanting to know more about them, beyond the folk stories I have heard. What would be interesting is if someone were to add more historical information about the company. A history section would make this seem much more credible. Unfortunately, I have never seen a history for this company. Maztec (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned Up the Discussion Page & Removed "Blatant Advertising" Tag

After reading through the discussion page, I decided to remove much of the unsigned and unwarranted opinion slams about the article specifically in relation to the "blatant advertising" claims. The company, as far as I know, has no advertisements that I've ever heard of, and as a customer of theirs and their competitors, I find the article about McMaster-Carr to be more balanced that the one that Grainger or even MSC has up at the moment. Their articles read more like ads than this one.

As for most of the comments related to the usability of the McMaster-Carr website, save it for your own blogs. Wikipedia's discussion page shouldn't be a soapbox for one's opinions about certain features of the website and whether or not people find them annoying or useful. Try to keep it to the facts please.

• Thanks! This is my first major edit, although I've been a lurker and anonymous editor for years on Wikipedia. I just hated to see the wiki article/discussion pages for one of the most well-respected companies in the industry be slandered with some pretty obvious opinion (not fact) related attacks.* Logansummers (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Undid excisions by Logansummers; restored page to state before those edits; added edits made subsequent to same. Obviously Mr. Summers did not realize one does not edit the content of Talk pages the way they do article pages. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can take it out.Wikiuser100 (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Restored excised Talk page content

Per comments in section above.Wikiuser100 (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)