Jump to content

Talk:Shine Technologies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ready to go live?

[edit]

I guess, with the most recent changes, the article is ready to be transferred to the main space if User:PattiMoly99 is finished putting in the facts about the company. What do others think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will probably be fine, but I didn't do any of the prior draft reviews. I guess the primary concern is that the plant fails to win approval and is never built. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right. We could have an article about a company that never produced anything. Dual, do you think it would be premature to create this article before the construction of the facility is, at least, well under way? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it would be notable for scamming millions from the Department of Energy if it failed, so probably notable either way. I think people would be less likely to vote delete if there was a Wall Street Journal or Chicago Tribune piece on the company. Most of the news coverage is Wisconsin regional, I know that it's routinely in the Wisconsin State Journal. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Morning! I understand your concerns, really I do... and without sounding "promotional".. if the NRC has had a subcommittee hearing, and they are recommending the construction permit... its good to go. We are a few steps away from the permit. But, I am not promoting! I TOTALLY understand your concerns. I can not TELL you how much your help has meant! All of the editors have been so helpful! Humbly, PattiMoly99 (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I searched today for more articles written by papers outside WI, none that I could find - other than the obvious online sources, bus wire, yahoo finance, etc. -- PattiMoly99 (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! Finance is worth citing. What is the url of the article? What else did you find online? Give the links so we can help you judge. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the best articles on the Mo-99 issues that also mentions SHINE Medical that I can find are:

  • Noorden, Richard Van (December 11, 2013). "Radioisotopes: The medical testing crisis". Nature. 504: 202. ISSN 0028-0836.
  • Blake, E. Michael. "The campaign to resume domestic production of molybdenum-99". Nuclear News. 57 (12). American Nuclear Society: 37. ISSN 0029-5574., it's actually the cover article on the subject.[1] It gets mentioned in various industry periodicals as well [2], [3], [4], but largely just reporting press releases. Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel is probably the largest that has published some of the news items, but mostly it's just Wisconsin State Journal and the Janesville Gazette for newspapers as far as I can find from EBSCO host. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; however not "major" papers. However, the article from Nature is not about SHINE specifically. I can add those if you think it will make a difference; I didn't think it was allowed! Thank you!! PattiMoly99 (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely allowed. Under our guideline WP:RS, most publications that have a professional editor/editorial board are acceptable. Generally speaking, the key information from each important source should be summarized concisely and neutrally, giving it the appropriate weight as compared with the content of the other key sources so that the article reflects a balanced and comprehensive view of the subject as a whole. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet! I'll add it! -- [PattiMoly99]

Here is the one yahoo finance url with many articles: Yahoo Finance and specifically hereand PRNewswire. This graphic actually, ok, I might be bragging, appeared in Times Square. This was however, based off of a press release. PattiMoly99 (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this one is ok to cite, but not the PRNewswire one. Later on, when you start supplying the product to GE, there will probably be something about it in a better source. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok,I will make the change. Then we're good to go? PattiMoly99 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Patti, you have to add a citation after your text; you can't just stick in a URL as a link. I fixed it for you, but I thought you had understood this by now. User:Dual Freq, if you think the article is ready to go live now, would please help Moly with that process? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I apologize. Thank you. I have all these printouts in front of me and got a little excited about it almost being ready that I didn't look confirm with my printouts before submitting. Thank you so much for all of your help. PattiMoly99 (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Main Space

[edit]

I've moved the article into main space. I hope someone at some point in the future will take a photograph of the facility, when it is built, and post it to wikipedia under a creative commons license so we can get a photo on the page. Thanks for the work on the article. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone very quickly nominated the article for deletion. If you want to argue for it to be kept on Wikipedia (or vice versa), you can do so here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SHINE Medical Technologies. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm disappointed that the nom never raised the concerns on the talk page in the last month or so that this has been discussed. Beyond the concerns about circular references anyway. There has been a topic on it here for 4 or 5 days. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI Statement by conflicted editor

[edit]

To avoid accusations of COI editing during the deletion discussion of this page, the editor has made the following statement, one I have copied form the talk page of the deletion discussion in order that it may also have prominence here. My belief is that this alleviates accusations of COI for the duration of the deletion discussion. You may disagree. Fiddle Faddle 18:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a WP:COI. I am the Executive Assistant for the CEO of SHINE Medical Technologies. My intent this week is to turn it from an article up for a deletion discussion into an article that will pass. I ask for your patience. Thank you. PattiMoly99 (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent time time editing...

[edit]

I have spent some time editing SHINE Medical Technologies to address the concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SHINE Medical where you offered the opinion that the article be deleted. Because of the many changes I ask that you revisit the article and reconsider the opinion you offered at the deletion discussion. I have a WP:COI here, declared on the article talk page and at the AfD, and have made what I hope and believe to be neutral and unbiased changes, something I understand to be acceptable. If the article is retained I will move to simply requesting edits to this article instead of making them myself. PattiMoly99 (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that you should have removed all the citations. One editor, whose goal is to delete this article, thought several of them were not valid for various reasons, but other editors disagree and thought they were valid. You are not going to please everyone all the time and the bottom line is that one editor nominated this article to be deleted, and that is his own opinion. Others thought it was satisfactory, others thought it was just too early in the company's life and should be deleted until production begins. As the article currently stands, someone is probably going to come by and dump a bunch of citation needed tags on whole sections because they will have no way of knowing if the information is made up or where it came from. You certainly should not be remove critical citations to national publications like nature magazine and Nuclear news. Those demonstrate, in part, the company's notability in national media, beyond local media. Don't rely on the nominator to rescind the deletion request regardless of what he tells you on your talk page. It is better to have the information cited by the sources you had before than to have no citations at all. AfD's run about a week, just keep what you had and see what happens. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, Wikipedia:Bombardment is an essay, someone's opinion and not a binding rule or guideline. It is used as an excuse to delete something even though it is cited for those who do not wish to actually read the citations. Those citations were not indiscriminate, each one supported the text they followed. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware that withdrawal of a deletion nomination does not affect the outcome in a particularly spectacular manner. It simply removes on person's opinion. The discussion should still run to eventual closure as long as there is a difference of opinion between those remaining who are opining 'keep' and those opining 'delete'. As for your statement about a goal to delete the article, that is offensive, and untrue. Even so I will let it pass with just that statement. Fiddle Faddle 21:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus is that I revert the article back to it's original state I will. I did review ALL of the comments, including the thought that we should wait for the NRC to grant the license. I felt all valid points, worthy of considering and taking a hard look at and had someone with a technical writing background look at my re-write also. I also respectfully disagreed with some comments, and voiced that disagreement - I realize there are differing opinions about SHINE - I am really learning to really enjoy this space called "Wikipedia"...and would love to improve on it to the best of my ability. I look forward to a final decision. PattiMoly99 (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V) is a core content policy of Wikipedia and one of the most important "rules" of Wikipedia. (WP:Bombard is not a policy, rather an essay or opinion.) Anything in an article should be supported by a reliable source and anything not supported could be challenged or removed. I would much rather see that every paragraph (or item that could be contested) is cited, at least to indicate where that claim is made. For example, the line "In 2014, SHINE signed a long term supply agreement with GE Healthcare and with Lantheus Medical Imaging for Mo-99" is not currently cited. Someone could read that and remove that line because they don't see a source and they are not going to dig back in the article history to see where it came from. In that situation, we would cite a newspaper that reported on that topic, as we had done before you removed it. While another editor might not like if we cited the Wisconsin State Journal or the Janesville Gazette there (since they may or may not have exhaustively fact checked Shine's press release), both of those papers have editors and I'm not going to question the editor's judgement in publishing those stories. As long as it is clearly not an editorial opinion article, it's fine. We are simply saying to the reader and other editors where the information came from. In individual, non-controversial items like that, it's OK to cite even a self published / press release item. We are simply trying to make the item verifiable according to WP:V. We wouldn't cite that sentence 4 times with 4 sources that say the same thing to bombard the reader, but once for GE and once for Lantheus is acceptable and I would argue, required by WP:V. While you should not bombard / over-cite to artificially inflate apparent sources, we still need to show where the material came from per WP:V. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense; and is valid. I will work on that today. There was also a comment by DGG that said, make sure I am noting accomplishments, not promises. Thank you all so much.

Again, I say... I am the Executive Assistant for the CEO of SHINE Medical Technologies. I have a WP:COI and am making the article "retain" worthy. Thank you for your patience. On a side note, I am leaving for vacation July 28 - Aug 7, so I will not be on during that time. PattiMoly99 (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at the history of the article, you can see why we asked for citations last month. Someone came by after you removed the sources and deleted much of the material as "unsourced".[5] This is why we cite things in wikipedia. That section had 3 or 4 citations before,[6] now it has been deleted. --Dual Freq (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further Reading

[edit]

Sometimes the baby gets thrown out with the bath water. For future reference here are the sources listed in the article last week. --Dual Freq (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request Edit from COI

[edit]

Good Afternoon, After reading the article our CEO pointed out an error: Near the end… “…as "neutron generator technology", uses helium and free neutrons, produced through magnetic containment of deuterium and tritium…” is wrong. It should read:

“…as "neutron generator technology", uses helium and free neutrons, produced by colliding a beam of deuterium particles with tritium gas…” Can the change please be made. Thank you PattiMoly99 (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added as requested. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! PattiMoly99 (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning! User: Dual Freq Can this be added? It Takes Two — Preceding unsigned comment added by PattiMoly99 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)PattiMoly99 (talk)[reply]

NRC APPROVAL

[edit]

Good Afternoon I have a COI and was wondering if either of these can be added to our page?

or our press release from our website SHINE Press Release Final

Thank you PattiMoly99 (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see if any media pick up on it and actually tell a story. that would be better sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for responding. Several local (WI based) newspapers and one Madison WI TV station (WKOW) picked it up, I understand and will wait. Thank you As I said before, I do have a COI as I am the Executive Assistant to the CEO

PattiMoly99 (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in the article since this diff. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 July 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Shine Technologies. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SHINE Medical Technologies → SHINE Technologies – Last year, SHINE Technologies announced a name changes from "SHINE Medical Technologies" to "SHINE Technologies." This change is reflected in the article already but not in the title/URL. I propose we move this page to fit the correct company name. Here is a source for the name change: https://www.yahoo.com/now/shine-name-highlights-technology-competencies-140000227.html Awise1988 (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Awise1988 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The name of the company is "Shine Technologies Inc" (however styled) it is not "Subcritical Hybrid Intense Neutron Emitter Technologies Inc". The capitalised "SHINE technologies" may be a nudge to a technology used but a nudge is as good as a wink to a blind man - ie it doesn't count. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the company on the company's own website is rendered as SHINE Technologies, all caps SHINE. Whether or not the full wording of the acronym is acceptable as the company name is immaterial to a correct capitalization of the company name. As an example, IKEA stands for "Ingvar Kamprad, Elmtaryd, the farm on which he grew up, and Agunnaryd, the nearby village." https://www.ikea.com/us/en/this-is-ikea/about-us/our-heritage-pubde78e100#:~:text=IKEA%20is%20named%20after%20the,%22
However, no one would argue that if I said "Ingvar Kamprad Elmtaryd Agunnaryd is IKEA's actual company name" it would be a correct edit to make to the IKEA company page. However, it is explicitly called out in Wikipedia's style rules as an example where the fully capitalized title is correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks
Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one: (But see exception below under § Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter.)
use: Time, Kiss, Asus, Sony Mobile. (Capitalize IKEA, IBM, as acronyms/initialisms.)
This is cut and dry in my opinion - the entity calls itself SHINE Technologies, it is rendered this way in official press releases and in the media regardless of some instances where it has been rendered in incorrect title case, and it has a demonstrable acronym origin - the capitalization is not done for promotional purposes. Awise1988 (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...it has a demonstrable acronym origin... There is a distinction to be made between the etymology of a name and whether it is an actual acronym of the company's name. IBM is an initialism of International Business Machines [Corporation] (the actual company name) and it is consistently capped in sources - per here. The etymology of Ikea is an acronym but Ingvar Kamprad Elmtaryd Agunnaryd is not the actual company's name nor is it consistently capped in sources per here. Where MOS:TM uses Ikea as an example to capitalise as an acronym, I would say that it is a poorly chosen example that should be ignored because it does not follow the spirit and intent of our guidance on capitalisation more generally such as at WP:Manual of Style#Capital letters and more specifically at MOS:CAPS. MOS:TM is subordinate to WP:MOS and there is general advice that when an inconsistency arises, the superior guidance prevails. SEAT S.A. is an acronym and it is consistently capped in sources here. Fiat was originally an acronym of the company name but has since passed into common usage as Fiat per here. ASOS is an acronym of the company name but is commonly renders as Asos in sources per here. We rely on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalised. This is ultimately a mater of WP:VER. That it must be done in a substantial majority of cases is an expression of WP:WEIGHT. The crux of this case is that Shine is not an acronym of the actual company's name (unlike IBM) and it is not consistently rendered in sources as an acronym (ie SHINE). Cinderella157 (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shine Technologies per BarrelProof's extended rationale above. Dicklyon (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Wikipedia MOS rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Acronyms
    Do not write acronyms that are pronounced as if they were a word with an initial capital letter only, e.g., do not write UNESCO as Unesco, or NASA as Nasa.
    Therefore I don't agree that pronunciation is relevant in title-casing the company name when it is an acronym. Don't want to belabor this point though especially considering I do not have the authority to move this page on my own - just trying to make sure this is accurate to the company's official name. Awise1988 (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks
    Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one: (But see exception below under § Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter.)
    use: Time, Kiss, Asus, Sony Mobile. (Capitalize IKEA, IBM, as acronyms/initialisms.)
    IKEA is pronounced "ikea" rather than said out loud I K E A per this rule. Awise1988 (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but IKEA, UNESCO and NASA are not the spellings of ordinary words. I'll admit it's a tough, borderline case, but I do see several sources using "Shine", and all-caps tends to give off a promotional tone. As for what the company does in its press releases, the more I see all-caps in press releases, the more I get the urge to not use all-caps in Wikipedia. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding an ordinary word spelling vs. non-dictionary words, I don't see such a distinction in Wikipedia guidelines...here are examples that support this application of the rules:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEAT
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOT_Polish_Airlines
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POW!_Entertainment
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAG_Heuer
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAP_Air_Portugal
    Per sources using "Shine" lowercase, I believe this is due to AP style rules being applied by the publications, as you can see a similar phenomenon with IKEA in the news: https://news.google.com/search?q=ikea You'll see a near even split between IKEA and Ikea in these references, but Wikipedia's rules still advise using the capital case.
    While I still believe SHINE Technologies would be appropriate according to a strict reading of Wikipedia's style manual, perhaps to circumvent this perception of promotion, the best approach would be something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitre_Corporation Awise1988 (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree it's generally more appropriate to acknowledge how they stylize it than to adopt their stylization when a more normal style works. Dicklyon (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the Mitre Corporation case seems fine to me. (In some other cases, the stylism is so obvious that we don't even mention it – e.g., MOS:TM gives "SONY Mobile" as an example, and the article at Sony Mobile doesn't discuss the all-caps variant.) For SEAT, that is a Spanish company rather than one in a place where the dominant language is English, and I suspect it doesn't give off the same tone in Spain (and I don't know how it is pronounced there). Most of your other examples don't really look like ordinary words to me since they are only three letters. Almost anything can be a three-letter acronym – we even have an article to discuss their popularity. Also, Wikipedia has so many articles that it is possible to find scattered examples of almost any phenomenon. And I don't notice any prior discussion of the POW! Entertainment article title. Perhaps that one would be lowercased if the question is discussed. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree if I could find something in the MOS that says explains an exception to the acronym exception based on the following:
    - No dictionary words
    - Unless the dictionary word is a three letter word, then it's fine, but five letter words are not
    - Unless the dictionary word is for a foreign company, then it's fine again
    It seems to me that these are entirely gut-feeling judgments to intended continually rule this as an edge case, when in fact the text of the rule is quite clear. But I think the "stylized as" wording would be fine, and even on that article MITRE is capitalized throughout, just not in the title. Awise1988 (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, Sony is not an acronym, hence why it is mentioned as an example of a case where SONY Mobile is often stylized in caps but not capitalized in the title. Awise1988 (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A major factor (many would say the primary factor) is whether all-caps is used consistently in independent reliable sources (without just looking for the variant you want to find). Press releases (and similar) should be discounted, as they are not independent. In this case, just looking at what sources are cited in the article (presuming they were not selected according to what styling they used), there are four independent sources that are cited that use "Shine" in their headline. I also see two more (here and here) that don't have the company name in the headline but use "Shine" in the article body. That is fully half of the independent sources that are cited in the article. When sources are mixed, Wikipedia generally prefers lowercase. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, I do confirm that SHINE seems to be an accepted acronym for the phrase "subcritical hybrid intense neutron emitter". It seems to refer to a specific project in sources. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On the third hand, I notice that recent articles about the company no longer mention "subcritical hybrid intense neutron emitter" at all, and appear to say the company is expanding its business orientation beyond the likely scope of that particular technology, and I do not see any mention of "subcritical hybrid intense neutron emitter" anywhere on the company's current website. I even used the search box and didn't find it. I suspect they are deprecating (or at least heavily de-emphasizing) the concept of that term being an abbreviation for anything in particular. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the name change from SHINE Medical Technologies to SHINE Technologies confirms an expansion of business scope. I think that while the company styles it SHINE, Shine is an acceptable rendering in media sources and as such a good title. I would say that "stylized as SHINE" would be a good addition in the article, per the example MITRE since the company is frequently referred to as SHINE in the media and consistently in corporate materials. Thanks for your engagement with me on this MOS rule. 50.109.236.13 (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I also wish to express that I fully understand your intention is to avoid a promotional feeling and a respect that intent wholeheartedly, just expressing my opinions based on the MOS rules. Awise1988 (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move Request on 21 July 2022

[edit]

To clarify, this move is related specifically to the word "Medical", as that was the only primary difference in the first move request before the dispute, and is also factually correct and can be easily verified. As of this time, there is a dispute going about whether the word SHINE should be capitalized in accordance with MOS:TM, but it is not related to the difference between "SHINE Medical Technologies" and "SHINE Technologies", and "SHINE Technologies" also correctly reflects the company's name. Thus, if a concensus is met on the capitalization of SHINE/Shine, another move request should be made, which specifically regards that. Mk0uQ (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the edit history of this Talk page, the above comment appears to have been an attempt to declare a closure of the RM as a move to "SHINE Technologies" while leaving the capitalization question unresolved. However, the editor (a new account that had only made its first edit one week earlier) was apparently somewhat unfamiliar with the RM process and did not follow the proper closure instructions, so the RM remained formatted as open and the page renaming was reverted after 42 minutes. The RM was then closed about an hour later by a different editor as a move to "Shine Technologies". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense.

[edit]

This sentence reads like a parody of a promotional text, "SHINE is also engaged in research and development for recycling nuclear fuel, and aspires to produce economical fusion energy resulting from continuous reinvestment of a portion of its earnings from earlier phase businesses." HTAF does "economical fusion energy" result from "continuous reinvestment of...earnings"? Fusion energy results from complex scientific processes, and, so far, is extremely expensive and extremely non-productive. So far, it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to produce a few seconds of energy output Pascalulu88 (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shine_Technologies&oldid=1244284461"