Sunday, November 29, 2015

Matthew Berdyck tries to get on Wikipedia again

Poison in the Grapes

Hi Wikipedians,
Up until yesterday, the series of events in my film Poison in the Grapes were non-contested by anyone in a position of authority to dispute legitimacy of my statements about Summit Equipment & Supplies. Poison in the Grapes did so well, within it's limited market, that the short film is being turned into a feature called Death Water, narrated by Andrew Tiernan from 300, and The Pianist. In the section of the film involving Poison in the Grapes the statement "publicly non-contested" appears in the narrative. Today, I see a Wikipedia editor claiming that the information is "poorly sourced." I need a statement from Wikipedia Help Desk that these statements by this user are either false, inflammatory, or legitimate, and whether the Wikipedia Help Desk is officially questioning the legitimacy of the statements in Poison in the Grapes. If you are, in fact, questioning the legitimacy of the statements is there a press contact for Wikipedia for me to get an official statement on the subject?
All the best, Matthew Berdyck — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:24, 27 March 2014
The statements from the Wikipedia editor attempting to discredit Poison in the Grapes are on my talk page.
JamesMiddleamericajames (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with improving a submitted draft. Please do not use this help desk page for personal disputes with other editors. Your continued tendentious commentary here has become very unconstructive. If you are complaining about the editor who removed your violation of our policy on biographies of living persons in a section above, he was quite right to do so and to warn you. Note that if you continue to violate that policy, you will find yourself blocked. Voceditenore (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you would ban me for another users actions. This is only my third comment on the subject. I have asked James to stop commenting. Right now there is a statement from Wikipedia Help Desk on my article stating that Poison in the Grapes is poorly sourced. Are you stating that the comments questioning the part of my article pertaining to Poison in the Grapes are not legitimate, that they are "personal?" If so, can the challenge to that section of the article be removed? I don't think personal feelings count when compiling an encyclopedia.
Matthew Berdyck — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 17:34, 27 March 2014
My comment was addressed to Middleamericajames who has also attempted to add statements here purporting to be from you [6], if indeed you are separate people. The draft biography of you has been deleted. Numerous editors have pointed both of you numerous times to the policies and guidelines under which we operate. You may refuse to accept them, but those policies are not going to change. I strongly suggest you both stop disrupting this help desk. Voceditenore (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
"If you are indeed separate people" I don't understand this comment. I was in The Everglades all night with zero internet or signal, working on a piece of film. The photos of this trip are posted publicly. No signal in the woods. I do not feel I am harassing the help desk by asking for clarification of citation in my article. Your staff is stating that the material in Poison in the Grapes is "poorly sourced." Does this mean I need to sit down and source every sentence in the article myself and then present it to the writer? I get what James is saying. I feel bullied here too and I've not even been a part of the conversation. Please stop sending us in circles about citations and sources. It's my understanding that James submitted sources but your staff disregarded them and then insulted ME. LOL Why?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 18:03, 27 March 2014‎
Hello Matthew. There may be a misunderstanding here that is causing unnecessary stress. Let me explain why.
I would imagine that no-one here, other than yourself and James, has watched Poison in the Grapes or had the opportunity to make an analysis of the sources used in producing it. None of us, therefore, are in a position to comment on whether Poison in the Grapes is well or badly sourced. The comments made by other Wikipedia editors about sourcing have therefore been solely about the article submission made by James, and how inadequate its sourcing was according to Wikipedia's requirements. I'm sure you'll agree that Poison in the Grapes, and James' Wikipedia article submission about you, are two very different things. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I myself would fight it's inclusion just based on the notability factor alone. The other problem being WP:CRYSTAL violations. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matthew Berdyck

I saw that this article was declined. I don't understand why? Matthew has traveled over 300,000 miles in the US over the last three years, all on film, met thousands of people, maintains an organically generated social media audience of 16,000+, has released two films for 2014 Grammy Nominated Dream Theater keyboardist Jordan Rudess, three major cable tv pilots, a feature length filn, and was well known enough to walk into Seattle and be recognized and harassed by people who oppose his film work. How can you say this guy is not notable. That makes no sense.
JamesMiddleamericajames (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello Middleamericajames. The reasons are in the grey box in the pink decline notice at the top of your draft. Read the reasons and click on the blue links to read the guidelines for a better understanding.
Let's look at your references:
1. doesn't mention Matthew Berdyck at all
2. is to IMDB
3., 6., and 7. are to YouTube videos
4. is to a blog
5. is to the subject's own website
Now, read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which will put all this into context for you.
Voceditenore (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The first source is confirming that the statements about the EPA Superfund site are factual. That link goes to the EPA records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middleamericajames (talkcontribs) 08:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Imdb is a credible source for tv pilot information. It's the only credible source currently available. Imdb's editorial staff confirms these credits with the distributors and networks.
YouTube us used by everyone in the industry regardless of their status. In fact, 2014 Grammy Nominated Dream theater was nominated for a Grammy for a song, in which the video was solely released on YouTube, Enemy Inside.
I'm trying to understand. Evidence of this persons notability is everywhere. I know Matt, personally. He was walking down the street in Miami Beach other day. He signed over 20 autographs for his work with Jordan Rudess. The guy just participated in getting the director of the Ohio EPA removed from office. He outed in Akron, Ohio that hundreds of people have been exposed to toxic waste. His accomplishments are legendary, all over the country.
I can't understand how a guy who can walk into a city, get spotted, and then get harassed by opposition is not notable. Regardless of sources. That happened. The people who caused it to happen are even publicly touting it happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middleamericajames (talkcontribs) 08:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
@Middleamericajames: Did you click help links given above by Voceditenore? Subject requires significant coverage in the secondary, independent and reliable sources. See, Wikipedia reliable source examples. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Matthew is intensely private. He refuses to do interviews. So what you are saying is that I can have him send an e-mail to one of his hundreds of national press contracts, ask them to write some national articles about him, in which they will re-print his exact words, the same story listed in his wikipedia article, and then he is notable? That's hilarious.
Matthew also works with a 2013 Emmy Winning writer for Modern Family and is probably one of the most well connected guys in L.A. Since he is, in fact, notable, your policy is about to be bypassed. It's also going to express what a farce your system for verification is. In that context I can probably talk Matt into doing some interviews. He loves finding cracks in the system and exposing them.
My own observation here is that Matt is undeniably notable in reality. Your suggestion that he isn't is laughabl and quite insulting to Matthew. Can you imagine living with thousands of people personally attacking you only to have a small group tell you that you are nobody? Seriously guys. wow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middleamericajames (talkcontribs) 17:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE: I talked with Matt. He's a funny guy. He said, "OK, so I can just ask some friends in the industry to publish an article about my thoughts on how stupid wikipedia's source verification system is, get it published all over the world and then I'm notable?? OK. I can do that!"
Guys... can you please put some effort into this article? Matt is about to release the trailer for Death Water, a film that reveals that almost 60 million Americans have been exposed to hexavalent chromium by The Department of Defense, all confirmed by public record.
The problem here is that Matt does not want to be notable. He uses social media in the capacity of getting his work out but he stays out of the spotlight because he is not an attention whore. Also, stepping into a spotlight, making himself a well known documentarian is not beneficial to his career, or for the type of work he does. His work is very controversial. Think about if Morgan Spurlock, or Michael Moore showed up in your neighborhood in a fake mustache to do a hidden camera investigation. The more aticles that are published about Matthew, himself, the less he is able to work to expose toxic waste dumps. If everyone knows who he is, he's out of business, essentially.
I am the one who is trying to convince Matt to do more things in public, do more press, and to get this wikipedia article. Since he is, in fact, notable people are able to get aggressive with him, with him having no way of defending himself in the form of an offical record. He is all over the country enduring meritless, vicious personal attacks, which are very publicly visible in search engines, that are effecting his life. He's getting death threats. Having an article would greatly help Matt in his work simply because it would give people a moderately reliable source to confirm information about him since people all over the country are talking about him.
I know Matt was just being sarcastic, but what he said was true. He's that kind of guy who does stuff like that, just like the mayor of Key West. I feel like more could be done here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middleamericajames (talkcontribs) 17:53, 25 March 2014
James, "notable" in the Wikipedia sense has nothing to do with either "fame" or "accomplishment" or "importance". We are not a publisher of original material. We only publish summaries of what has been written about a subject in reliable secondary sources. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia in those sources, we cannot publish it. Those aspects of Wikipedia are non-negotiable. On the one hand you seem mto be saying that you want/need the article to publicize his work. Well, that's not what we're for. On the other hand, you say he's an intensely private person and the Wikipedia article will protect him in some way. Well for starters, that's never a reason for us to publish an article. And equally important, if he is an intensely private person, a Wikipedia is probably the last thing he should have. Ask him to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. In any case all this is moot. If his film is successful and makes an impact, it will be covered widely. That's when a Wikipedia article is appropriate. Not the other way around. Voceditenore (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Cool. Cool. Monsanto and The Department of Defense win again, people stay poisoned with toxic waste, and Wikipedia supports this. Matt does not need Wikipedia to promote his name or work. That statement is borderline insulting. As a matter of fact, much like Metallica, Matt is becoming famous in a grass roots style that directly opposes the very mainstream media sources you so depend upon for "accurate information."
Every aspect of Matthew's life has been placed out in public by really horrible people. He can't even say his name, anywhere, without enduring a personal attack. When he undergoes these personal attacks people scour the internet for reliable information about him leaving the only available sources as "things put there by Monsanto." That's great. Great job Wikipedia. What a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middleamericajames (talkcontribs) 18:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
@Middleamericajames:- Did you know, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? For what Wikipedia is not, see WP:NOT. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I think all of you make a lot of assumptions and check zero facts. Did you know that it's possible for someone to become well known and notable in this country simply by traveling hundreds of thousands of miles and meeting everyone without doing a single interview? Your litmus test for notability is faulty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middleamericajames (talkcontribs) 12:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't get why you keep mentioning interviews. In fact straight out interviews are often the poor sources. What we really want is significant reliable secondary source coverage. This coverage may partial use information from interviews with the person, but may also use interviews with people who know the person, but may also use plenty of other research techniques. There has been reliable secondary source coverage of people who are notorious recluses who not only don't give interviews but rarely even appear in public. There is reliable secondary source coverage of people who are held prisoner and forbidden from giving interviews. There's really no reason there can't be reliable secondary source coverage of the subject here, even more so if they're travelling and doing much as you say they are and hated and liked as much as you say they are. Whatever the reason for the lack of such coverage, the fact is we can't write an article without such information. Nil Einne (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys,
This is Matthew Berdyck. I'm just getting to read all of this. Can I say how I really feel? I don't give a shit about any of this. Four years ago, I was a legally disabled homeless person sitting in the streets of Portland, Oregon with nothing but a wrecked life and a death wish. Now I'm sitting here reading about my own notability on Wikipedia and my work for Jordan from Dream Theater, a 2014 Grammy Nominee, with a death wish. How is that for perspective. Wikipedians, I am happy just to sleep in a bed and not on concrete, right now. You do what you have to do. I'll keep living my life.
All the best, Matthew — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:50, 26 March 2014

The credibility of Imdb.

As someone who works in L.A. in the film industry Imdb can be contentious. In the context of certifying shows that have been done within the scope of Hollywood it's reliable. Imdb independently confirms tv pilots with the proposed networks and distributors and thenm lists them as "tv movies." I'd submitted an article about someone I trying to get on Wikipedia. I was told that the Imdb credits were "unreliable." They are not. Imdb does not let people fake legitimate television credits. Is there a clarification of this policy of discrediting legitimate information just because it's listed on Imdb? Truth be told, there is nowhere else to certify a tv pilot other than imdb unless one were to post the pitch e-mails.
Any thoughts on this subject would be appreciated.
JamesMiddleamericajames (talk) 08:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
@Middleamericajames: I can understand where you're coming from and you may be right about verification. I hadn't taken part in the earlier discussions about Imdb as a source, so longer-time Wikipedians can reply about that. My understanding is that a large number of people in the industry have access to edit Imdb, which makes the data unreliable (which is why you can't cite Wikipedia, either. It's just as untrustworthy if not more so.) Additionally, this is an encyclopedia. If your intent is to write about a pilot episode or very recent production we can't fairly judge its importance contemporaneously. I'm a history major and I'd be fine waiting a hundred years before writing about anything in order to avoid recentism. Furthermore, writing about The African Queen attracts academic study. Writing about a pilot episode attracts promotional material. Wikipedia tries to avoid becoming a public relations receptacle. These are just my thoughts and not policy. I hope they help. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
In this case I am referring to Matthew Berdyck. I guess I am unclear. Part of his story is that ten months into his career his work was so impressive that he was contacted by Adult Swim. Imdb independently confirmed this fact, production photos are all over the internet. In the context of promotions a "failed" tv pilot is considered a closed project. One could not benefit from attempting to promote something that is not publicly available or has not been monetized. In the context of the article it was adding to historical content which establishes credibility.
The issue with Imdb, and I have problems with it as well, is that anyone can certify a credit for anything, as long as they have a blog, a Facebook, and a trailer. This means anyone who has a computer, windows movie maker, and Facebook is now a "film maker." My question, however is specifically related to the credits on Imdb for major cable network tv pilots. In cases where networks are involved Imdb's editorial staff makes independent confirmation or else you could say you were in the pilot episode of ER, or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middleamericajames (talkcontribs) 08:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello again, Middleamericajames-
  • IMDb is not considered a reliable source because it doesn't not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence. One exception being that certain film authorship (screenwriting) credits on IMDb, specifically those which are provided by the Writer's Guild of America, can be considered to be adequately reliable.
  • Blogs/Facebook/Twiiter/MySpace/YouTube etc., are considered primary sources (WP:NOYT) and if verified accounts, could be used sometimes for verification purpose, like, d.o.b, middle name, etc. but not for some outstanding claim (WP:SELFPUB).
  • As per Wikipedia general notability guideline, primary sources does not help to establish notability of the subject. Subject requires significant coverage in the secondary, independent and reliable sources (WP:42). This is why reviewers do not count blogs/facebook/twitter/youtube while assessing your submission page against notability guideline.
  • If you are still not satisfied regarding reliable sources, I'll request you to raise your concerns at Wikipedia reliable source noticeboard. If you have some more questions related to your submission page, I'd love to answer them here. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Imdb most certainly does have editorial oversight over "tv movies." I think a lack of experience in the film industry and a lack of understanding of how Imdb's system works is leading you to express your opinions rather actual reality. An regular person CANNOT add television credits to Imdb. That is a FACT.
What I am not satisfied with is knowing that my friend is famous enough to sign autographs, everyday, and endure endless public attacks all over the country but wikipedia can't take the time to watch or investigate the content of these sources, which is what really matters. Where can I object to this lazy form of investigation of sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middleamericajames (talkcontribs) 17:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
We have investigated the content of these sources. They do not attest to his passing the criteria for inclusion here. You have been linked to the inclusion criteria and to the types of sources that are acceptable for attesting to his passing those criteria. If you want to write an article on your friend, then you must find the types of references that support his inclusion. Railing at experienced editors simply because you don't like Wikipedia's policies is a waste of your time and ours. If his pilot listed on IMDB made a significant impact, you should be able to find press articles about it and him in reliable sources. So far you have not provided a single one. Voceditenore (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
You haven't invetsigated anything, at all. You looked at the format of the links, and said, "Nope." When it states that Matthew has traveled 300,000 miles, there is a link to YouTube of FILM showing that he did the travel.
I am not trying to list a pilot. I am trying to use the Imdb credit as a source for the statement in the article. It says Matt made a major cable network pilot, then lists the Imdb link. You say that source is not credible. The pilot itself is not notable but it is a confirmble part of Matt's article.
As far as criticizing experience editors, I am a professional researcher. I am part of the team that uncovered the fact that sixty million people have been poisoned with toxic waste by The DOD without being informed. I know how to investigate and confirm facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middleamericajames (talkcontribs) 18:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Being a professional researcher of original material is entirely different from what is required here. Wikipedia does not publish original research or investigations. We only summarize what has been covered in reliable secondary and tertiary sources and we only publish articles on subjects which have received significant in-depth coverage in such sources. Voceditenore (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I find it deliciously ironic that Matt's work directly discredits about 90% of your "reliable sources." How perverse. We have a man who is undermining the system, and outing journalistic corruption all over the country, showing these secondary credibile sources you depend upon are entirely not credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middleamericajames (talkcontribs) 18:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
My last observation here is that there are some really crazy forces at work in Matt's life because of what he does for a living. He's exposing the government, it's contractors, national media outlets for misreporting, mayors, and anyone else who covers up an EPA Superfund toxic waste dump. I can assure you that you refusing to publish an article is playing right into those forces hands. Seeing this happen right now is eye opening. If you were looking for any form of truth in your life you'd find it right here if you'd also open your eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middleamericajames (talkcontribs) 18:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
there are excellent places and ways of promoting a cause; our purpose is different. to the extent we promote any cause whatsoever, no matter how important, we diminish our own credibility. Expert research has a very important place in the world, but not here. It is certainly true that from the perspective of an activist, our approach of relying upon sources and the published consensus of experts inevitably places a certain weight on the status quo, on the establishment. The very nature of an enterprise dedicated to recording what exists in the world favors what already exists, not what changes ought to exist. To the extent I have been an activist in some RW things, I didn't and wouldn't think of coming here for the purpose. Everything you say here leads me to the conclusion that what you are trying to do is harmful to the encyclopedia. This is not a place for protecting the environment: efforts to do so should be carried out more directly. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Was invited to stop by and am going to add my two cents, as Wikipedia editor for 6 years and as an actor (of sorts) for over 15.
IMDB is NOT user edited. While anyone may submit information to them, only paid IMDB staff members have the yes or no buttons... and it is those staffers members who control what content makes it to their database or not. The proper term is "user submitted", not "user edited". But the issue still remains that IMDb does not reveal the level of or describe the vetting processes used within their editorial processes. And the site is considered unreliable because it includes a whole lot of unvetted information... actor biographies, forums and trivia jump immediately to mind.
A TV pilot is like any other film or television pilot. Simple existence is not enough to show notability for a separate article. In a BLP, any questioned assertion requires verifiability in reliable soures. Period. In the case of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matthew Berdyck, we have too many things stated that require reliable sources. IMDB is generally acceptable for information about cast and crew of released works because that same information can be found in the on-screen credits of those released projects. If you have a press article statingt he he submitted a pilot, then fine. If you have any press articles telling us that he exposes the government, it's contractors, national media outlets for misreporting, mayors, and anyone else who covers up an EPA Superfund toxic waste dump, please bring them forward.
That article was rejected under WP:RS and WP:V. Read WP:NPOV. Read WP:NOR. Also, read the article on Internet Movie Database and then the essay WP:CITINGIMDB. Archived discussions 1 and 2 shed some light on current impressions of IMDB among Wikipedians.
1. Reliable source: but one that does not deal in any manner with Berdyck
2. Fair source for screen credits, as these are verifiable to the film itself:
3. Poor source under WP:SPS. Anyone with the ability can create a film and upload it to YouTube:
4. Poor source under WP:SPS. Personal blogs fail reliability. Anyone with the ability can create andpost a blog.
5. Poor source under WP:SPS. Anyone with the ability can create a film and upload it to YouTube:
#6. Poor source under WP:SPS. Anyone with the ability can create a film and upload it to YouTube:
7. Iffy source under WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:USERGENERATED, and WP:SELFPUB: Limited usability ONLY IF the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim, it does not involve claims about third parties, it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source, there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, and the article is not based primarily on such sources.
So essentially, your Matthew Berdyck article makes a number of unsourced assertions and has only one sentence with a proper citation... and that one citation about poisoned grounds does not say anything about him nor anything about Berdyck having a paper route. The article depends far too heavily upon his personal website.
(Find sources: "Matthew Berdyck" – books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)
... so look for reliable sources which confirm the many sentences in the Berdyck article. If Matthew's activities get press coverage (not blogs or forums of social network sites) or win recognition or he wins awards for his filmmaking, the article on him might corrected to meet WP:BLP. See Too Soon. Best of luck, Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
It's pretty clear what is happening here. What I see is a bunch of artists who have not come close to Matt's accomplishments being permitted to judge his notability. We know all about that one in this camp. It's the content of the links that matter, here, not the sources. And no, not anyone can upload a video for Jordan Rudess from Dream Theater. You're minimizing, intentionally. You make repeated claims of trying to promote things, because you yourself have to resort to things like this for an audience, not Matthew. You may think the things you are saying are not insulting but they are.
The part I can't understand here is that all of you are pretending that you don't have the ability to read and comprehend simple sentences. The article about toxic waste is there as a citation to confirm the statements about the dump, to repeat myself. The report does mention teenage trespassers. Also, I don't buy for one second that you read ten thousands pages of EPA documentation looking for Matthew's name, since, most of it was digitized in the 90's with no indexes, and cannot be searched. Matthew's name is in those documents, as a matter of fact, and his address because his house was one of the houses that got mailers.
Interestingly, you've shown you've not read a damn word of the article or the sources. The article states that Matthew has been viciously attacked with libelous blogs, and then directly links to one of those blogs. As a matter of fact every statement in that article is already posted on the internet somewhere, not by Matthew.
To answer your question about Imdb, when one has more success they have a greater understanding of the editorial process at Imdb because eventually you get to know Imdb. They have a strict review staff who go over things not related to "big" Hollywood, and then a separate editorial staff for approving tv stuff, in which they verify credits. A simple to Imdb for clarification could resolve that question.
If you want success go out an earn it. Don't sit here and try to passive aggressively take shots at a guy who isn't even in the room. That's pretty weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middleamericajames (talkcontribs) 12:27, 26 March 2014
Regardless of the merits of IMDb, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matthew Berdyck is about a living person and contains large amounts of personal (date of birth, sexuality) and controversial (legal attacks, allegations of State mispractice) information which is not sourced (let alone reliably sourced). Your article won't make it past first base in this state. Rather than spend large amounts of time railing against Wikipedia editors, it would be a much better use of your time to look for reliable news sources about Berdyck and add them to the article. Sionk (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
When I was making the article I took the format from Andrew Tiernan, the star of 300: Rise of an Empire and narrator for Matthew's next film, which includes date of birth. As a documentary film maker and journalist, Matthew Berdyck himself, is a legitimate source. The film Poison in the Grapes, another legitimate source of investigative journalism, was directly created from public record.
The statements of state misconduct are sourced as well, and were reported on throughout the state, and are even part of Mayor Dob Plusquellic's wikipeida article. If he has been deemed as potentially corrupt by his own article and external sources how can you attempt to discredit statement, drawn from the same exact sources, to discredit Matthew's article? If the article has been improved there is plenty of time to add those citations. There are hundreds of them.
But let's REALLY look at why there isn't a news article in Akron, Ohio about Matthew. Matthew's film Poison in the Grapes, in which every single statement is confirmed the purposes of encyclopedic documentation, or for courtroom use. You cannot discredit the statements. They have all been published. Stating that they are poorly sourced statements is pure fantasy on your part. In Mr. Plusquellic's Wikipedia article, even though he is notable for nothing, the source is Bob Downing. In Poison in the Grapes Bob Downing has been (Redacted) journalist, using his own actions and statements, as documented by EPA records, and Akron Beacon Journal archives. Well, gee. If Matthew took on a local newspaper, are they going to publish something about it? This source is bumpkiss: "Downing, Bob (24 February 2012). "Israeli water company to open first U.S. office in Akron".
Outside of Akron, Ohio Don Plusquellic has done nothing, and in fact, has only reached a potential audience of 600,000 local to Summit County. Yet Matthew regularly publishes film to people nationally, with a much larger audience and numbers, and works with artists with audiences in the millions, which of course is documented in that pesky YouTube link from a Grammy Nominee you seem to not want to mention.
And in case you haven't been reading, Matthew can put things in the newspaper. We just want to be clear here. What you are saying is if Matthew picks up the phone, and has LA Weekly, and every other indie news rag publish his pre-printed words, sourced from himself, with no verification, because no one would ever actually ask him because he is a credible source, then every word is now verified by secondary sources?
I'm not going to "find" some article. I'm going to go make them. Because Matthew, is notable. That's the kinds of things notable people can do. It comes with the territory. Citing Bob Downing, though, that is priceless. Now I know everything published on this site is crap.
JamesMiddleamericajames (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
No, if LA Weekly (which is not a great source, but an adequate one I suppose) were to republish Matthew's words, sourced only to Matthew, that would not help to establish Matthew's notability on Wikipedia at all; just as a press release does not help to establish notability if it happens to get published in a newspaper for some reason. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
You are incorrect. Matthew's documentary work, all sourced and cited from public records, newspaper articles, is a legitimate sourece of accurate, and court admissible information. If news editors from all over the country start citing, and quoting Matthew's words, again all backed up with proper citations, some of which are actually in the narrative in the film, they are citing a legitimate source. This means editorialized repetitions of Matthew's words would, in fact, be a legitimate source for secondary citations.
I'd also like to note that you've made the allegation on my talk page that Poison in the Grapes is "poorly sourced" even though there are hundreds of published citations, directly to articles and government archives, including the location of the federally required document respository at the Akron Public Library which includes Mr Berdyck's name. What happens here is people watch the film, come to the fan page, click on the sources, see that the information is published and public record truth.
So, let me ask the question again. So, what I have to do is sent out some e-mails to friends, ask them to help Matthew by taking twenty minutes to personally confirm the source, while including the fact in the article that they verified sources independently, then publish the articles all over the country, maybe fifty or sixty of them, then Matthew's own words become facts, and he is now notable? Consider it done.
I would also like to ask, based on this users personal attacks that they refrain from commenting on this subject matter die to personal bias. Source: my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middleamericajames (talkcontribs) 04:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

When I come back in a week or so I am actually going to sit down and source every sentence in Matthew's article with about five or six hundred sources. I would have done it already if you weren't so busy trolling people about notability. In the meantime please enjoy this photo of the source for Poison in the Grapes sitting in the Akron Public Library in it's US EPA published location. US EPA Records including roughly 10,000 pages of technical documentation which includes Mr Bedyck's name and the location of the aforementioned photo And of course, the previously agreed upon legitimate secondary source of Bob Downing, the guy who Matthew has discredited with his film work. Notice there is no mention of Poison in the Grapes or the sick people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middleamericajames (talkcontribs) 04:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC) scams from con man Matthew Berdyck and Matthew Berdyck vs. Erin Brokovich

Monday, November 9, 2015

Aggravated Menacing

What is "aggravated menacing"?

Did Matthew Berdyck learn his lesson? 2 years later

horrible Facebook exchange with Matthew Berdyck

View post on

Oddbirdman2008 online disaster that is Matthew Berdyck

Matthew Berdyck has yet another screen name, all in the name of harassing people online.

and look! He claims to have a BACHELORS DEGREE! 

See also

Matthew Berdyck describes himself as "Very good looking"

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Matthew Berdyck and caught in a scam and lies

Posted on Facebook's official's page Wednesday Feb 8th, 2017

And posted three days earlier on Feb 5th, 2017 on the official (personal blog) of Matthew Berdyck's site

Which contradicts everything from the legal statement. 

Matthew Berdyck is obviously a liar and the is a fraud. This is in their own words on their own social media sites as they attempt to pass off their theories as facts, their company as real, and this deliberate fraud. 

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

Matthew Berdyck aka Matt Alan Kane aka Matt Jones aka Matt Alan aka John Mastrobuono and on and on

Our new found friends have sent us a handy list compiled by apparently dozens of people who have all been harassed online by Matthew Berdyck. 

Here is a partial list of Matthew Berdyck aka Matt Kane's aliases online:
Matt Alan KaneAlan Smithee
Matt SmithAlex Jones
Films-n-StuffFillmore Street Films
Frankie Lau ‘GhuckstickEm Kay
Hans OsloMiddleAmericaJames
Lisa BailyTony Clifton
Mike JonestonMike Huntzicci
Tyler HanocekTravelbeastfilm
Sparky JohnsonTallicaRocksCocks
Oklahoma JonesJim Bob
OneStarMotelMatt Films
John Mastrobuono
OHIO COURT RECORDS on Matthew A Berdyck