Talk:Came glasswork/Archive 1

External link proposal
Wish to include website titled...  *"Stained Glass Art Tips" in the external links section of this article. My family has been in the stained glass business for over 100 years and our experience is described within the pages. I have removed all sponsorship advertising that may be interpreted as spam. I am truly excited about Wikipedia and it's wealth of information. My newbie status here has led me to some conflict with editors but I think I finally figured out what it is all about. Thanks for your involvement and wish you will consider my request.

Thank you,

Desg 01:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose The main website (one click away) does appear to be a commercial site. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. If you have 100 years of experience to contribute, add content, not links. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
 * The other site in the external links listing contains bold sponsor advertising and clearly links back to a commercial site. Why have you let that remain? Why have a different set of standards for me? Respectfully... I find your reason for opposing my link unacceptable. Desg 02:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've only looked at your proposed link, and haven't scrutinized the existing links on the article. Other editors, however, appear to feel that link is appropriate (according to edit summaries in the history). Still, the existance of one link in violation of policy (hypothetically) does not justify the addition of a 2nd link out of policy. Finally, what's the big deal about having a link to your site? Just add content if you want to contribute to the encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So we agree the other link in violation of policy should be removed. I have tried to do so and was blocked. Being the person responsible for actions taken against me for removing content that is clearly in violation of policy why have you then allowed it to remain? Or... Why did you take action against me? As I see it we know have 2 votes to remove the violating link. I will give others time to decide if the link is indeed within policy or deems removal for violation. If nobody disagrees with our conclusion, I feel it only fair the link be removed.Desg 03:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I've made no such claim that the other link does or does not belong on the site. I noted a hypothetical condition above. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The agreement doesn't concern the "other link" which appears, for reasons known only to you, to be a bee in your bonnet. The agreement is that the link you suggest should not be listed.

RogerJ 03:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So the reasons my link should not be listed given by you, I believe was referred to as spamming. Then... How is it right another link remains that is far worse spam by your definition? This would clearly put you in the delete the link corner. Correct? What are your thoughts? Please respond.Desg 04:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC) PS. I wish to keep this discussion civil and free of unwarranted comments such as your bee remark. I accept your apology in advance. Again, Please respond. Desg 04:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record: Oppose
 * Please examine the edit history of this page. Some knowledgeable Wikipedians have investigated the link and found it more than appropriate. Please refer to these edits:, , .  In particular, note that Captainktainer wrote "Re-adding a removed link; this particular link actually is helpful and relevant" and more importantly to you, "External link that satisfies WP:EL criteria #4 and #5 and does not fail removal criteria."  Let's now approach the links from an objective, stained glass perspective.  The site whose listing you advocate, which happens to be yours, contains very little material, all of which is common knowledge, and some of it of debatable technical accuracy.  To me, it appears to exist merely to establish a bit of credibility and good will for your commercial entreprise.  You may wish to compare it with this page [] which contains far more detailed and, possibly, far more accurate and credible information.  Perhaps this page should be considered for inclusion in the internal links instead, if it complies with the philosophy of the Wiki.  For the life of me I cannot comprehend why you were hell-bent on removing the link to this superlative, well-researched and learned web page about restoration Preservation of Stained Glass  and replace it with a link to a very unimportant forum that belongs to you at stainedglassville.com.  This is very much against the spirit of Wikipedia.  Since this failed, you are now hell-bent on removing the Art of Stained Glasspage, which does contain a lot of unique and well-presented information, and is abundantly illustrated with photographs and videos.  I think we have discussed the inclusion of your personal and commercial links, and the deletion of sites that perhaps belong to your competitors, quite enough.  Thus far, it appears most unlikely that you will garner support for listing your link, and unlisting the other.  I invite you to participate in the Wiki project in a more constructive, and less selfish manner in the future.  We are here to help others, and for the common good, not to pursue personal and commercial agendas.  RogerJ 12:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok so add the link to DeBrady's site if you feel it contains valuable information. The earlier editing by me was done with no experience here. I made some rookie mistakes. The link to the Nation Forest website listed here for stained glass seemed to be wrong so I deleted it. I assumed there was an error. Before I forget...Please check if Debrady's website contains excessive advertising before putting it up. We wouldn't want to support pages that violate policy. As far as being here for the common good, that comment seems a bit hypocritical from you since you have initially acted to remove everything I edited from the start. Could you have come to me and ask? Or explain your concerns? I believe in compliance. As for your opinions re: the web-o-rama link... It is clear you show a great deal of bias with your comments. You are wrong with your analogy of both my site and the other. My site contains ZERO advertising and far more instructive content. For the record: I am insulted with your shallow comment about my site. Please refrain from your attacks here as we try to have a civil discussion.Desg 13:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (1) After some consideration, I did add a reference link to a specific section of the Debrady site, a very learned article by restorer Art Femenella, as it pertains to the different opinions concerning the stretching of lead came. If other, more experienced Wikipedians disagree with this, I will not argue with them.  (2) There is no "Nation Forest" website that I am aware of.  You probably refer to the Preservation of Stained Glass, a cr.nps.gov subdomain of the National Park Service, where the "cr" stands for "Cultural Resources." This page could not posibly be mistaken as being about anything other than the preservation of stained glass. (3) I agree with the assesment of other Wikipedians concerning the value of your sites vs. that of the sites you dispute, which hardly qualifies as bias on my part. (4) Most reasonable people would agree that my removal of your gauche spamming attempts were for the common good. Thank you for stopping it. (5) As to contacting you personally, no, I prefer that everything be open to the scrutiny and arbitrage of third parties.  (6) On a positive note, my faith in mankind has been somewhat restored when I saw that you actually made an effort to contribute. I hope we can now consider the issue of your external link, and those of your competitors, settled once and for all. RogerJ 13:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It has not escaped my notice that you have found another way to spam the Wikipedia, which is by repeated referrals and links to your commercial page in the talk pages [] []
 * RogerJ 13:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Another link that is being removed is Stained Glass Soldering Tutorial. DrippingGoofball has removed it twice, with an explanation that the site adds very little. The linked page has a step-by-step tutorial, with pictures on how to solder stained glass using copper foil - exactly the tecnique that is the topic of this page. True, it has Adsense ads on the page, but everyone needs to make a living, i don't understand why would that prevent from adding a link to an interesting (IMHO), relevant content ?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.104.8 (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Other link proposals
This link was recently added: Stained Glass Tutorials. Given how little the page contains, should it be included?

Might this one be considered instead? Technical ArticlesRogerJ 12:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, an important subsection of the article I suggested is probably better as a reference on the practice of stretching lead, than as an external link.   We should still discuss the inclusion of the recently added Stained Glass Tutorials page. RogerJ 12:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So reasons for opposing listing my site Stained Glass Art Tips is why now? I am not clear to the actual reasons. It qualifies as a non-biased resource related to the topic "Stained Glass" absent of blatent advertising. I feel the additional information therein is an asset to this subject. Please explain. DESG —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.2.158.180 (talk • contribs).


 * It has been repeatedly explained to you, please read again. I point out that you have already added two links to your website on this page, the second one being wholly unnecessary, this in addition to another link in the Admin Noticeboard []so in a way, you have achieved your goal of a link on Wikipedia at least three times.  I have started a discussion about links other than those to your website.  Please do not derail the discussion so that it focuses on links to your commercial website instead, and confine your opinion to those mentioned above. RogerJ 20:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the stretching lead link you point to and your opinion based information added to this article I feel this is no place for it. If you wish to add a subcategory for Myths I would agree inclusion is warranted. Respectfully... The information is a debated issue and most professionals agree with a contradictory point to the one you share.

I ask permission to remove this controversal information.

Desg 00:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There indeed exists a controversy regarding the worth of stretching lead, which is based on science and facts. Regardless of one's personal stance on the matter, I do believe it's worth pointing out that there are practitioners that believe stretching lead may be of little use, and perhaps harmful.  There is no reason not to expose the Wiki visitors to both points of view.  RogerJ 01:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Last call for reasonable opinions
To RogerJ:

Perhaps you have failed to recognize my original post here for discussion. I was asking for consensus from a non partial group of members for consideration of my link. The topic keeps getting diverted to other issues. You display your disdain for my existence at every turn with your remarks and insistent comments pertaining to me as a spammer. I have truly apologized for my naive action when I first came here. I have been instructed by administrators and other knowledgeable members to the steps involved in using my material and content in articles and am following the rules. What is it you want from me? I have eliminated all sponsorship ads from my site, checked the content for substantive and relative information and just short of begging within this discussion for a rational conclusion. I have yet to see anyone give a straight answer to why my link shouldn't be included. If I were a third party here viewing this topic I would be ashamed to see this unfair censorship going on and insert the link myself. Alas... I cannot use my own link for fear of having it booted and getting blocked again. The comparison I was using with web-o-rama was simply done to point out the Hippocratic spam issue. Why is it OK for other external links to display very obvious sponsor text and images and ban mine especially when all traces of were removed? Please don't waste everyone's time with your biased-content-better issue. You know the reason is your disdain for me as I have mentioned earlier. Up to now I haven't described in detail your past dealings with me for respect of this community and care not to. You have a craft to come of concerned for my wellness as displayed in your posts. This tactic wears thin when you continue knocking me and my stained glass knowledge. I ask again please consider allowing me to use my stained glass art tips page as a cross reference to articles here. To add all of the text would bog down the reader within the key articles which I feel need to be pithy in nature and not stray from the definition value therein.

Desg 00:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Added:

If someone could let me know the steps for possible arbitration regarding my concerns, please post it here or send me mail.

Thank you,

Desg 00:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Stretching lead
The Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a collection of editorial pages. Efforts should be made to remain impartial regarding the value of stretching lead. Presently, the page mentions the existence of two different practices, and does not advocate one or the other. It is impartial, and this impartiality should be preserved. RogerJ 03:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification to the opinion you have made regarding stretching lead is necessary for definition. Tensile strength is crucial for larger work and must be pointed out. You have failed to do so in this article. I am going to revert the edit. Please educate yourself in the importance of stretching lead for tensile values before you submit to removing this vital information. Thank you Desg 03:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I revised the section to give both points of view equal value but I had to remove the following sentence because I didn't undersand it.
 * This theory is applied to the actual lead composition rather than tensile strength which is crucial when assembling larger windows as earlier mentioned.

Can you explain exactly what you mean by this so we can work out how to put this back into the article in a clearer way? Thanks --Spartaz 06:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Stretching the lead as described in the article link Stretchinglead contains information relating to the composition of lead as when stretched weakens it. Though this may be valid in regard to the molecules within lead and does weaken the molecular bond as described. However when the "theory of weaking a stained glass window" is applied by stretching lead, the facts are highly disputed by many professionals including myself. In fact as my edit describes, stretching lead adds lateral strength to a stained glass window by stiffinig the came. If the lead is left unstretched it will have a better chance of moving causing the window to prematurly sag. The term "theory" is a polite way of giving an adverse opinion without discrediting the objecting view. Desg 11:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Also: In my opinion, which is shared by most professional stained glass craftsmen, the article poorly explaines to the reader any objection to the opinion therin and leads to a sided view of the lead debate and does so stating complete discredit to the stiffining issue described here. I will gather more facts on this subject and post when available.

With that said: I suggest removing the link in the article and mention of the "theory' altogether.

Desg 12:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Wiki page does not exist to settle this debate, or advocate one practice over another, therefore, the explanations you propose for a future date are not desirable. Remember that the WIki is an encyclopedia, not a manual.  In order to remain neutral, the existence of both practices is pointed out. That is the correct way to present it.  We take no side.  Please do not revert the edits to give more prominence or credit to your belief.  Remain neutral and see:NPOV_dispute
 * RogerJ 12:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral third-party opinion: if the practice really is controversial then the controversy should be described, neutrally and with references to credible sources. It currently reads as neutral to someone not familiar with the controversy, but does not explain the basis of the controversy and should be expanded. Presently the only reference is a website that seems to be maintained by one of the editors. The linked site takes a position of advocacy and does not provide any references. This seems likely to be original research, citing oneself, citing a self-published source, and should probably be removed from the article and replaced with more reliable sources. Chondrite 20:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. I assure that the article/website cited is not mine.  My personal belief is that no one really knows whether stretching lead is good practice,  because it has never been tested in a controlled experiment.  However, the arguments in favor of stretching lead are based on "that's what I've been taught" whereas arguments against stretching lead are based on the physical properties of the material.  The source given is the best there is on the topic.  On one side, you have people that have a "belief" and on the other, people that question this "belief" based on inferences about what is known about lead.  It's very difficult to determine who might be right.  There exists no proof that either is correct.  I'll definitely keep my eyes open, in case I do come across suitable material. RogerJ 12:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The subject in relationship to stained glass is not debated by a majority of professionals. The science you speak may be valid but has no value toward stained glass. The "that's what I've been taught" comment you suggest as a relation here was used to mislead any editors not familiar with this subject. Your intentional biased opinions should be avoided in an open discussion especially when you lack experience on the subject. If you need help learning about lateral tensile strength and the properties of "H" channel lead for stained glass go to any online glass message board and pose your questions. There are many professionals that visit these boards on a regular basis. As far as proof of being correct... Go to any TGI Fridays restaurant and look to see if their 8 & 9 foot ceiling panes are sagging. These panels were constructed by stretching the lead as far back as the mid 70's in a studio I personally was involved with. If the lead wasn't stretched to it's "tensile limit" in a few years gravity would have taken care of it. There are over 1200 windows done this way, to do so otherwise would be reckless. desg68.110.142.229 14:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A proof exists when a proper scientific experiment has been conducted. Had 200 windows with the same glass and design been built, 100 without stretching the lead, and 100 stretching it until it nearly snaps, keeping every other variable equal, and the builder waited 25 years to assess the presence or absence or sagging, there would be proof of something.  To my knowledge, no proper experiment has been conducted. The example you provide proves nothing and message boards aren't a proper scientific source. RogerJ 22:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

safety precautions for lead added
This article may and will be viewed by many newbie glass artists. The importance of lead safety shoud be included within. Desg 04:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea. I have expanded and added references. RogerJ 12:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

TX Desg 00:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is actually a bad idea. Please see my new section below. --Philosophus T 22:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Instructional style and Safety Warnings
While safety warnings would be appropriate for an instructional manual, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The purpose of the articles is not to provide instructional material, but a description of the methods. It shouldn't contain instructions, tips, advice, or warnings to the user. If you want to write instructional material on glasswork, you should look into creating a textbook on Wikibooks, which would be the appropriate place within Wikimedia for such a style.

This style is a considerable problem with the current article. I've tried to remove some of the warnings and advice given, but do not have the time or knowledge to remove all of them and refactor parts of the article if necessary. Others with more knowledge of the subject need to do this. --Philosophus T 22:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input and advice to would-be Wiki editors such as myself. I will give it a go sometimes in the following days. After seeing the types of changes you have made, I think I get the idea. RogerJ 13:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree Philosopous. I have made many attempts to correct this article removing instructional material but the user RogerJ reverts at every move. This user is displaying an intentional disruption of my edited articles. I have added a link to the "instructional" material to my web site for additional information about stained glass technique that doesn't belong in this article... stained glass art tips I feel at this time will be in vane as before for it will surely be removed by RojerJ herself or she will canvass another user to do so. I will look into the Wikibooks you describe for additional options. Thanks,Desg 23:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you feel it is "in vane" [SIC], then why did you add it? You suggested adding this link above, and no consensus emerged. Please don't add it again. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Desg & RogerJ
Enough already please. Both of your edit summaries are way too agressive and you must stop taking chunks out of each other's contributions. This talk page reads like a war zone with allegations and attacks left right and centre.

I am concerned that the article is becoming too much like a how-to manual. Some of the work on Desg's website is absolutely beautiful and taking the how-to to another site is a sensible idea. The ads are problematic but actually they are as bad or worse on the other two sites linked to - so either they go as well or we allow Desg to link his site. Decide between yourselves on one option or the other.

What I would like you to both do is cooperate. You both clearly know your stuff but have different approaches and beliefs. Instead of reverting each other all the time, how about discussing the bits you don't agree on and - where you cannot reach an agreement - keep stuff out of the article unless you can reference or cite a source for the statement or fact?

Finally, play civil. The article is coming along nicely but is still in beta. We have plenty of time to get it right. Let it evolve and perhaps we can have a look at it in a couple of weeks and see what needs changing?

?OK --Spartaz 12:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Spartaz, you might also want to officially request a third opinion if you can't agree on something. Edit wars are never productive. Or, consider disengaging for a bit... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I did ask for a third opinion (RfC, I think), still waiting. The problem was not so much with advertising on the sites, but with content. I would be in favor of removing all external links, personally, but there seemed to have been some kind of pre-existing concensus regarding the [Art of Stained Glass] website, and other, more experienced editors seemed to be of opinion that it was of value, and I simply concurred. I am happy to disengage.  On a humourous note, I'd like to point out that I am ignoring his referring to me as a "she" and "herself" on account of my contribution to articles on homosexuality. RogerJ 13:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's a thought: keep gender & sexuality out of this discussion. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you interacted with Desg before? I have removed all external links per my suggestion. --Spartaz 13:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I finally feel justice has been done. Thank you! For all this time referring to me as a spammer while page links of equal or worse advertising with less information remained. That was my problem from the start. I applaud your actions Spartaz and how you have dealt with this ongoing dispute. I am more than happy to add content that is truly relative on an "encyclopedic" basis. I understand the value of avoiding objectionable or controversial content. To RojerJ, I am sorry to mix-up the gender thing. It was accidental.

Desg 13:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. I am wise enough not to be offended by such things.  Do you now agree to stop introducing links to downeaststainedglass.com? RogerJ 13:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes,but not for the reasons you imply. I don't feel external links are appropriate at all unless used within content of an article in a unbiased way. I originally added my chapel window (descending dove) for an example of a memorial stained glass window. I am very proud of my work and the example given is not just a regular everyday panel. The chapel is the only house of worship on Bald head island. Named a "Chapel" to open doors to all denomination and faith. The editing I did for "chapel" added on the main stained glass page was short on describing why the picture was added. I felt it was appropriate due to the relationship with a chapel and as a memorial window. Stained glass memorial windows are not mentioned in the article prior to my edit and do not now due to suspected spam removals. Spam was not the intent. When I looked around deeper in the stained glass article and found the disputed link I felt that Wiki was OK with posting of somewhat commercial pages. So I added mine. This is when the walls came down and the dispute began. I am satisfied with the end result here and hope first impressions have not been influenced by any bias here.

Respectfully  Desg 15:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is an image on your website that you think is appropriate for the article, consider adding it as an image, not an external link. (Be sure to follow all guidelines, especially copyright, when uploading images). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have looked over the copyright policies and was wondering if someone could help. I am not clear on the public domain issue. I would like to post some images within this article. Thanks, 75.110.153.141 12:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Candy machine example
I would like to propose that this part of the article be removed. It is an uncommon use of the foil method, and I am not comfortable that it should be given so much weight. I'd like some input before making such a significant change. RogerJ 17:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove it. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)