This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts
This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
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 lemon05:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The discussion below contain accusations of vandalism. The person making these accusations should note the section of Wikipedia guidelines which states: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Please refer to the Wikipedia guidelines.
Making false accusations against someone making a genuine effort to improve the content is unconstructive and undermines the Wikipedia community.
The Wikipedia policy on vandalism also states: "Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute ::::resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not 'vandalism' and should not be dealt with as such."
Please do not remove from this page. Please do not change material on this page. You have been politely asked on a number of occassions not to do this. Such activity only appears to be efforts to confuse and distort.
The only thing I attempted to remove were your personal attacks, i.e. calling people vandals when in fact they are content contributors with good intentions.Fpbear (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I contend that vanadalism includes (1) repeatedly inserting links to commercial sites into a number of articles.(2) ignoring requests not to insert such links, and continue to with these actions, and (3) when the links were challende and removed the response is to remove consensus approved content. You have done all these.
Please read the Wikipedia policy again, as well as my explanation about the links. My link in question has much less commercial affiliation than the links that you are inserting. As such this is a content dispute and not vandalism.Fpbear (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I contend that inserting links to sites with which one has a personal assocication, in what can only be an attempt to promote the site, is not a "good faith edit." Again you have done this.
I am not the owner of the site, and you have even gone so far to falsely use the owner's name and claim that is who I am, which is completely false. I have no relation to the owner of the site, instead a moderator.Fpbear (talk)
Removing personal attacks is not vandalism - you cannot get away with calling good-intentioned contributors vandals. What if I called you a criminal, would you remove that from the discussion? I'm sure you would.Fpbear (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You persist in littering the page with the term vandalism when use of this term is unjustified. Please re-read the official Wikipedia statements regarding vandalism above. Keep in mind, I can call you a criminal as an example, but does that make you a criminal? No, that is just name-calling. You are doing the same. You are engaging in unproductive name-calling over a content dispute. As I have pointed out, the link in question is less commercial in nature than links you are protecting which have heavy advertising all over the place. On a factual basis your argument has little merit, and you throw personal name-calling attacks on top of it. Amazing, I guess it is your strategy to dominate this article. A Wikipedia article is not owned by a single individual and you should allow "friendly editing" from other users.
Thank you for using this page correctly, that is to engage in discussion and not to remove any content with which you may be unhappy.
Inserting links to sites with which one has a personal assocication is a conflict of interest. It is not "friendly editing" and is not good faith editing.
The site you have repeatedly tried to include is for a commercial organisation. Other authors have previously expressed unhappiness with it, and deleted. Recently another has noted the article does not require any more external links.
I have not protected any links. I returned some because they have existed on the article for a long time, with consensus of authors. I returned them after you removed them, in what appeared to be a fit of pique, when your link was challenged. That was certainly not you "friendly editing."
I contend this behaviour constitutes vandalism.
Continually deleting material or changing other people's comments on an article's discussion page is not friendly. It is misleading at best, it could be classed as vandalism.
I have no idea what you mean by "On a factual basis your argument has little merit."
I have never "throw[n] personal name-calling attacks on top of it." I have never engaged in "unproductive name-calling." Please do not make such accusations. And with reference to this, and "I guess it is your strategy to dominate this article", please refer to the previously highlighted Wikipedia policy of commenting on content and not the contributor.
I will not speculate on your motive or strategy but you are again asked to review your intentions with the links. Wikipedia is not here for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, web sites or any other personal agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.105.0 (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Commercial sites & self promotion
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
There is a problem with users claiming to be "the editor" of Polymer Clay. Links to useful resources are being removed, while other sites that have heavier commercial advertising, such as Polymer Clay Central, and Polymer Clay Web, are retained. Further, users that are claiming to be editors of this section are posting threatening messages to users that are trying to make positive contributions to the content. The editors should remove ALL links that are related to commercial advertising, or include more links that are of interest to the Polymer Clay community. Editors or users that are masquerading as editors should not abuse their privileges in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpbear (talk • contribs) 02:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) that are hiding behind an anonymous IP address, and/or the user Theriac, are vigorously controlling the link content on this page. This goes against the community based philosophy of Wikipedia. These users claim that useful content is commercial or self-promotion, but at the same time they are militant about keeping two links that are heavy in commercial advertising (Polymer Clay Central and Polymer Clay Web). Any links to competing discussion forums are quickly removed by these users, even if the site does not sell any polymer clay products. Therefore this page is owned by a few individuals who are protecting select commercial pages, it is not really a Wiki page.
This is quite wrong. A number of authors have removed links to commercial sites. A quick look at the history shows these authors include myself, Theriac and Teapotgeorge. This is called consensus; which is entirely consistent with the "community based philosophy of Wikipedia." The author making objections is the owner of a shop. They have continually inserted external links to this - clearly in breach of the policy on commercial sites AND of a conflict of interest. This is why another author started this discussion, some time ago, with the dual title of "Commercial sites & self promotion." The above message is yet another example of Fpbear's unconstructive reaction when authors remove these link spam. Wikipedia does not exist to advertise their business. Claims of "hiding behind an anonymous IP address" is yet another smoke screen - Wikipedia allows editing both with and without registeration. Even those who do register use non de plumes: edits to Wikipedia are therefore anonymous. Individuals' identities are guaranteed, and deep routed in its philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.70.207 (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The whole problem though, is that the links that are being vigorously protected on the Polymer Clay article are more commercial in nature than the link in question. If you take a look at the link I tried to contribute at the Polymer Clay Forum notice that there is no advertising of commercial products anywhere on the discussion forum pages. In order for a user to discover that the website is hosted by a retail shop, the user would have to figure out how to leave the discussion area which is not obvious, the rest of the site is almost hidden from the forum. Statuary Place does not sell any items related to polymer clay and does not have any online ordering basket and does not have any online advertising whatsoever. On the other hand if you take a look at one of the links you are protecting, Polymer Clay Central has commercial content all over the place very prominently displayed on the page. This includes Puffalina "Home of the Miracle Mold," affiliate programs on Amazon and eBay, and the PCC Store that takes online orders, and polymer clay sellers such as the Prairie Craft Company. The traffic from Wikipedia that you drive to this page directly benefits these commercial merchants. The other link you are protecting, Polymer Clay Web is full of Google Adwords advertising of polymer clay commercial products as well as polymer clay items for sale on eBay. It is amazing that you can call the Statuary Place Polymer Clay Discussion Forum a commercial website when in reality, it is much less commercial in nature than those two links I mention above. And what makes your behavior particularly troublesome is that when I attempted to contribute this forum link for the benefit of the polymer clay community, you resorted to posting threatening messages on the external forum, vandalizing my talk page, and writing messages intended to bully and intimidate. Instead it should have been handled as a civilized content dispute "difference of opinion." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpbear (talk • contribs) 20:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible to argue that your website, www.statuaryplace.com, is not a commercial site. That you claim not to sell polymer clay products is irrelevant.
Anyway this particular line of your argument would carry more substance if you had not also spammed other articles, such as statue. Does your company sell statues?
You commercial website does include the facility for a discussion. But this does not change the fact the site is a commercial organisation. It raison d'etre is selling. Also how can it "benefit of the polymer clay community" if, as you claim, you sell nothing for them AND the last relevant post was in November. It would seem the polymer clay community has spoken: they are not interested.
I have no affiliations with the sites which you have tried to remove. I returned these simply as they have existed on the article for a long time, with consensus of authors. I returned them after you removed them in a fit of pique when your link was challenged: hardly the "civilized content dispute" you call for.
Please stop removing sections of the debate, from at least two authors, from the discussion page. None have been vandalism. This looks as if you are either trying to censor debate or desort its history.
As previously requested please stop making allegations about "messages intended bully and intimidate.' These are false, groundless and appear to be nothing more than tactics to divert from your spamming.
Hello 24.8.111.219. I have just deleted the lik you placed in the ploymer clay article as it would appear to be in contrvention of two of Wikipedia's policies on external links
"Links mainly intended to promote a website"
"Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services."
I would also ask that you consider if the books you have listed could be considered as self-promotion. Wikipedia's policy being:
"A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia" and
Self-promotion
Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links in articles, personal or semi-personal photos, or any other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor adding the material, or of his associates.
Examples of these types of material include:
Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).
Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages
Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.
Hello Theriac I'm sorry you choose to delete links to my 180 page website. Although I DO sell the three books I have in print on the subject of polymer clay, I also give away 20 years worth of accumulated information that I have accrued as a professional artist and author on the subject. My work is in many magazines and books and I instruct across the USA and have founded three Guilds, as well as worked for the National Guild. What do YOU in the world of polymer clay, Theriac? I dont believe I've seen your work yet. Sarajane Helm Sarajane www.polyclay.com16:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sarajane. Thank you for the reply. With your experience in Polmer clay I am sure the the article would benefit from you. However Wikipedia has policies and guidelines on both what external links are included and what is termed as self-promotion. Your polyclay link appears to be in contravention these, as does listing your own books. ThanxTheriac16:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sarajane. I see you have re-inserted the link to your site. Please could you reconsider this, as it appears to be in contravention of Wikipedia's policies which were previously highlighted. Similarly is the listing of your own books. In an article that already contains details of many books are these are necessary, or more helpful to you than to readers. ThanxTheriac09:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sarajane. Wikipedia is collaboratively written by volunteers. Not only does it have policies about content, it also has policies about dealing with editors, and one of them is "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia. Equally, accusing someone of making a personal attack is not something that should be done lightly, especially if you are involved in a dispute. It is best for an uninvolved observer to politely point out that someone has made a personal attack, and for the discussion to return to considering the content, not the person." Please note Comment on content, not on the contributor. ThanxTheriac16:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Theriac, I have now read more in the Wikipedia guidelines and information and I understand what you are saying. I have removed my website link and also my books from the listings. Nor will I re-enter them myself or ask others to do so. I apologise for asking about your credentials in the field under discussion; it was not meant as a personal attack but as reference information. Sarajane www.polyclay.com20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Theriac, you deleted the link to the Polymer Clay Discussion Forum which is a useful resource. There are not many forums for discussing this topic on the web so I believe it would be in the best interest of the public to keep this link. You may have felt that this is a commercial link, however it is not. There are no commercial advertisements or references anywhere on this page, or linked to this web page. The only association is that it shares the domain name with a Statue store, but note that this store does not sell anything related to Polymer Clay. The discussion forum is separate, other than sharing the root domain name. Please don't delete this, and if so, please explain why you feel this is commercial.
Hello TFpbear. Wikipedia is collaboratively written by volunteers, it is not for anyone person (me included) to decide what links are included. But Wikipedia does have policies, and these include those governing links to commercial sites. www.statuaryplace.com is a commercial site. The association with "The Polymer Clay Discussion Forum" is not that it shares the domain name, it is part of the same site. This can be cleary seen at http://www.statuaryplace.com/dicussion_frame.html. ThanxTheriac19:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Theriac, actually the link is http://www.statuaryplace.com/forum/ and not the one with the frame that you wrote. Note that the users cannot navigate to the commercial site from the forum. The way it is linked on wikipedia there is nothing commercial about this web page, it is only in the interest of those who want to discuss polymer clay. How many polymer clay discussion forums can you find on the web? There are not many. I would appreciate if you could reconsider and add this resource back to the page. I agree that wikipedia is not to be decided by just one person but by a group of collaborators, so if you don't agree maybe we can see what the community thinks.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
"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.
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 lemon23:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This article has recently suffered a sustained vandalism attack. The editor, TFpbear, appears to be the owner of a shop selling statues. After a number of removals of a link to this commercial site they responded by vandalising the article by continually removing other external links which, by pre-existing consensus, have been here for some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.70.207 (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a false accusation. An editor is trying to protect a link that has commercial content, meanwhile quickly removing any links to useful discussion forums that have much less commercial content. The motivation might be to eliminate competition from other polymer clay discussion forums. Making false accusations of vandalism is a violation of Wikipedia policy because this is just a content dispute difference of opinion. This editor is engaging in intimidation that goes beyond the normal civilized Wikipedia editing process. I also need to mention that I am not the owner of a shop, I am a polymer clay artist and the moderator of the polymer clay section of the discussion forum. I have no relation to the owner of the website.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpbear (talk • contribs) 20:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Antonio Lopez - thank you for your involvment I appreciate your comments. I recognise that the 3RR was exceeded. In my defence I did try to engage in a discussion before the 3R, but Fpbear not only contined with inserting the link to their store but then extended the vandalism to removing others. The messages above came later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.30.191 (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Link debate & changing the discussion page
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Dear Fpbear,
The site you have repeatedly tried to include is for a commercial organisation: http://www.statuaryplace.com. That it contains the facility to allow discussion is irrelevant as its raison d'etre is selling.
Also you acknowledge that you are the moderator of this discussion facility. Therefore your contribution of this to the Wikipedia article can be seen as being a conflict of interest. For Wikipedia this is questionable at best, and is certainly discouraged.
That you claim not to be associated with the commercial aspects of the organisation is open to doubt. Both the moderator and the owner of the store are listed as the same: Judy.
You have spammed other articles, such as statue, with the same link. This is certainly unwelcome and unconstructive. It can be classed as vandalism.
Not only did the vandalism include the continually insertion of link spam, but also in what appeared to be a fit of pique when you were challenged was the removal of consensus approved content.
You now make allegations of libel - glad to see you now recognise the errors of your original allegation of slander. You are mistaken in both. You have vandalised article, and you have been advised not to do this. Where is the libel in that?
The closest to libel has actually been the claim from you of "posting threatening messages" and "engaging in intimidation."
A Wikipedia guideline is for authors to comment on content and not the contributor. Your contribution have been commented on, challenged and removed. No comment has been made on you. Suggestions of "name calling" are false, and perhaps better suited to the school yard than "civilized content dispute" for which you have previously called.
You, however, have made comment on contributors by accusing them of making threats.
A further example of you not respecting this is the speculation of "The motivation might be to eliminate competition from other polymer clay discussion forums." This despite the fact I have stated that I have no affiliations with the sites which you have tried to remove.
Given such apparent concerns about threats it is surprising to see it has been you making threats, such as to contact "the authorities." Although it is unclear who these authorities are, what they would be investigating or what they are expected to do.
You have also tried to change the content of the discussion page. This should not happen. This page should remain as a record of the debate. Should you not agree then add rather than remove. Otherwise it could be interpreted as you trying to distort or confuse. Also should you again revert this page you will be in violation of another policy: 3RR.
For the sake of Wikipedia you are asked to review your intentions with the links. Wikipedia is not here for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, web sites or any other personal agenda.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Changing the discussion page
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Please stop changing this dicussion page, and similarly please stop removing material. To quote for Wikipedia's quidelines on discussion page "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning." Comment on the content rather than censor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.53.111 (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you found mud-throwing style personal attacks on a page I bet you would also remove it. I was attempting to clean up this page from your unrelenting personal attacks. For example, you mention the owner of the store, Judy, in some of your attacks calling people "vandals" when they are just content contributors. Let me tell you with honesty that this poor lady has no knowledge of, or participation on, Wikipedia and you have come to this false conclusion by looking at a display name on an external forum. There are in fact, multiple moderators on that forum. It is amazing what you are doing and I hope that others will recognize your character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpbear (talk • contribs) 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no personal attacks against you. There has been no mud-throwing at you. I have simply challenged your removal of content from the discussion page and your insertion of commercial links into various articles. Both contravene Wikipedia's policies. Again please comment on content and not contributors such as you have with "I hope that others will recognize your character." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.105.0 (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to characterize a well-intentioned content contributor as a "vandal" IS a personal attack. Vandalism is a serious accusation that should not be used when it doesn't meet the criteria. If everyone on Wikipedia abused this term as you are doing, then it would no longer be effective at stopping the real vandals. Don't you understand that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpbear (talk • contribs) 21:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I contend vandalism includes link spam placed into a number of articles. Vandalism or not the insertion of conflict of interest links, and ones that are to commercial organisations is not "well intentioned" or "good faith edits."
I contend vandalism includes the removal of concensus content from an article, without prior discussion, as some form of revenge. Vandalism or not it is against Wikipedia guidelines.
I contend vandalism includes changing the content of a discussion page and deletion of content from it just because the person disagrees. Vandalism or not such efforts to distort and censor are against Wikipedia guidelines.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
