Talk:Polymer clay: Difference between revisions
Books |
|||
Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
A list of over 20 is excessive. I will wait for comments before editing. |
A list of over 20 is excessive. I will wait for comments before editing. |
||
:This should been done long ago as Wikipedia is not a library list. I have been bold and editted down. I tried to be logical with the The criteria for removal, including: seemingly little relevance to polymer clay, multiple entries by the same author, old publication date (out of print?) and apparent advertisement (with price listed) |
|||
==Advertising abuse== |
==Advertising abuse== |
||
Can someone stop this? A link to an obviously commercial organisation keeps being inserted. Please can someone block this person. They are not trying to help Wikipedia, just promoting their own silly website business <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/217.44.81.106|217.44.81.106]] ([[User talk:217.44.81.106|talk]]) 21:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Can someone stop this? A link to an obviously commercial organisation keeps being inserted. Please can someone block this person. They are not trying to help Wikipedia, just promoting their own silly website business <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/217.44.81.106|217.44.81.106]] ([[User talk:217.44.81.106|talk]]) 21:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Revision as of 04:17, 16 November 2008
Sculpture Unassessed | |||||||
|
Visual arts Start‑class | |||||||
|
picture
I put a picture in... it's also on the sculpey page. I can put more in when I have time if no-one objects. And shouldn't this page have a "See Also" bit, with the fimo and sculpey pages in it? Good on ya Andy.I am a lemon 05:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I removed quite a few links to sites that were just selling. These were in conravention of wikipdeia's poliy of not including: Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services Regards, Andy
Who invented polymer clay? That would be an interesting thing to add. Chris Furniss - weeklygeekshow.com 22:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be intersting. And how come there are no pictures? I am a lemon 02:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Understanding Vandalism and False Accusations
Commercial sites & self promotion
"how to"
I removed this sentence from the Uses and Techniques section (under "canes"), because it was awkwardly second-person and overly "how-to".
- After molding the clay in your hands, it becomes much softer from the warmth of your hands. Before slicing the cane, let it cool; the image will be less prone to distortion.
—Steve Summit (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Sculpey and Sculpey III
Please see also Sculpey page. It seems to have been forgotten that what most of us call Sculpey is actually Sculpey III, and Original Sculpey is still availible, in colours white and terracotta. No idea whether there ever was a Sculpey II, but if it ever did exsist it is certainly no longer availible. This is rather awkward to put into an article, so any help would be much appriciated. I am a lemon 23:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I will help to improve this section.
Books
A list of over 20 is excessive. I will wait for comments before editing.
- This should been done long ago as Wikipedia is not a library list. I have been bold and editted down. I tried to be logical with the The criteria for removal, including: seemingly little relevance to polymer clay, multiple entries by the same author, old publication date (out of print?) and apparent advertisement (with price listed)
Advertising abuse
Can someone stop this? A link to an obviously commercial organisation keeps being inserted. Please can someone block this person. They are not trying to help Wikipedia, just promoting their own silly website business —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.81.106 (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- could you state who is it.--Antonio Lopez (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
External link by TFpbear
Link debate & changing the discussion page
Changing the discussion page
Dispute resolution
OK I checked the Polymer clay and the Statue pages
- note: I am not done yet, I am still checking the history for disputes that I was informed.
Fpbear did not commit vandalism and the edits were good faith, not vandalism. The link Fpbear added was just a link to a forum and this article had a lot of them, so I did not see the problem in it, though the links Fpbear removed were actually links that have useful information and Fpbear claimed they were commercial. All I know that the links Fpbear removed did not needed to be removed. I am currently going to check the content of the sites to see whether they are commercial or not. --Antonio Lopez (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I archived the past discussions to avoid this discussion to be mixed thought the page and keep it under this section, regards--Antonio Lopez (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah one more thing, 86.149.105.0 , you said you reverted the edits because the links were here for a long time; well, If your aware, wikipedia is constantly changing, which means one thing can't be preserved, pages are constantly changed. In some couple of years, say a hundred years this article is might get rewritten. note this page is not going to be preserved for that long. So preserving the old links is no excuse to revert, thats like reverting article additions.--Antonio Lopez (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone here... Antonio Lopez (talk)21:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- The external links have been excessive in the past and need keeping in check... as for the list of recommended books it's just ridiculously long and needs extensive pruning!! Teapotgeorge (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Antonio, everything you said makes sense. It is amazing because if you look at the other link that is being protected, Polymer Clay Central serves as an advertising magnet for the Polymer Clay Superstore with a huge banner at the top. Then if you can find the Message Board link buried in all the other advertising, another huge advertisement takes over the screen and you have to click on Continue to get past the commercial content. Meanwhile 86.149.105.0 was complaining about my discussion forum which has zero advertising and zero polymer clay merchandise to sell. My link got swiped off but Polymer Clay Central remains. I'm not going to spend time reverting because I have better things to do with my time. All that's important is that my username is clear of the personal attacks. I much appreciate your help to resolve this dispute. Fpbear (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm going to look through the list of external links and books later on to see which are not needed. The thing we should be doing is improving the article. Antonio Lopez (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fpbear just can not stop! The claim of "my discussion forum which has zero advertising and zero polymer clay merchandise to sell" is blatantly misleading. The removal of the link to this site was always because it is commercial (http://www.statuaryplace.com), that is doesn't sell polymer clay merchandise is irrelevant: this has been noted at the early stages of the discussion. As the link is to a commercial site it is unacceptable.
- Rather tellingly now that Fpbear's commercial site has, by consensus, been agreed to be unaccepatble she has stopped contributing anything to Wikipedia. The claim of "All that's important is that my username is clear of the personal attacks" is again smoke and mirrors - there was never any personal attacks and this was just a technique to hide spamming activity and to rubbish those people that objected. It would appear the basis of the original objection was valid: unhelpful contributions of commercial links.
- Just in case this comes up again: the statuary.com link is inappropriate per WP:ELNO's list of links to avoid #10: "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace or Fan sites), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists."
- Beyond that, it's not really necessary for us to consider the motivations or other activities of the editor. She thought it was valuable; she probably didn't realize that it's not appropriate under the normal guidelines. If it re-appears, please simply remove it again and don't worry about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm going to look through the list of external links and books later on to see which are not needed. The thing we should be doing is improving the article. Antonio Lopez (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Antonio, everything you said makes sense. It is amazing because if you look at the other link that is being protected, Polymer Clay Central serves as an advertising magnet for the Polymer Clay Superstore with a huge banner at the top. Then if you can find the Message Board link buried in all the other advertising, another huge advertisement takes over the screen and you have to click on Continue to get past the commercial content. Meanwhile 86.149.105.0 was complaining about my discussion forum which has zero advertising and zero polymer clay merchandise to sell. My link got swiped off but Polymer Clay Central remains. I'm not going to spend time reverting because I have better things to do with my time. All that's important is that my username is clear of the personal attacks. I much appreciate your help to resolve this dispute. Fpbear (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Criteria for external links?
A friend, upon learning that I edit Wikipedia, approached me with something that bothers him. In December he tried twice to link to his site, 'http://tutorials.theclaystore.com/', which contains tutorials that he paid people to write. Both times his edit was reverted because his site is commercial. However, some of the links in the article right now are to his competitor's commercial sites, and so he sees a double standard. I personally don't see sufficient cause for keeping any of the current External Links in this article, because this is an encyclopedia, not a web directory (WP:NOT); but I see there's been a lot of debate about the external links, so before I delete them I want to ask here first. This is exactly the reason why we don't encourage External Links - because opening the door to one fan site will open the door to all of them. Are the links that are up there right now truly justified as belonging in this article? - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'd be quite happy for them all to be deleted...but I'm sure others will protest!Teapotgeorge (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I asked about it at Wikipedia talk:External links#I need an example, and got some good ideas for how to handle the situation. Since there's obvious disagreement on which links to include, I'm inclined to replace the entire section with this link:
Okay, I've replaced the External Links with a link to dmoz. The sites linked were general resources about polymer clay; they belong in a web directory. - Brian Kendig (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Nan Roche quote about Phthalates
I'm deleting the quote from a polymer clay artist about the dangers of phthalate exposured. I doubt she is also an expert in the health effects of phthalates, particularly those found in plastic medical equipment. The quote is speculative and even grandstanding. I don't know anything about this topic myself but the flimsiness of her logic is immediately evident: she carelessly, but with a certain forecfulness and exaggeration, compares the exposure via two different substances containing differing levels of phthalates, involving different forms of contact with them (and likely, different time periods - she fails to distinguish between scenarios where artists would have constant exposure and most medical patients who would have one-off or occasional exposure). There's also the logical problem of saying there'd be "obvious toxicity", assuming the symptoms would be acute and that any research into harmful effects would be well-known, neither of which is a likely case.
Not only does the quote lack a citation, I don't think a non-expert quote - particularly with strong and misleadingly assured-sounding claims like "astonishingly high levels" - should be included without some citation of her source material.
I found this in the Phthalates entry references, and it contradicts her statement that phthalates are not harmful in medical equipment: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2F1097-0274%28200101%2939%3A1%3C100%3A%3AAID-AJIM10%3E3.0.CO%3B2-Q It suggests that people who have regular fluid transfers "may have long-term exposures to clinically important doses" of phthalates, and that research links phthalates to "to a range of adverse effects in the liver, reproductive tract, kidneys, lungs, and heart. Developing animals are particularly susceptible to effects on the reproductive system. Some adverse effects in animal studies occur at levels of exposure experienced by patients in certain clinical settings." Orangeblossomspecial (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)