User talk:Theriac

To Just H
Thank you for the welcome, the advise and links Theriac 19:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ceramics-stubs
Hi. You are clearly knowledgeable about ceramics: thanks for your helpful contributions in this area so far, and I look forward to your future contributions.

On the matter of the "ceramics-stub", which I note you have been removing from articles not relating to art pottery narrowly defined, if you look at where this stub fits into the overall stub structure, you will see that it is also a sub-stub of decorative arts, and is intended to include tableware, ornamental ware and so on and the factories producing such items. I am therefore in the process of replacing those you have removed and would be obliged if you would not remove any more.

Stub sorting is an extremely useful activity, and if you are interested in stubs and how they work (the stub system is tightly controlled, much more so than categorisation) take a look at WP:STUB. Best wishes, HeartofaDog 13:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Heartofadog, Thank you for the message. I thought it more logical to reply over at ceramics (art)Theriac 13:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

HI Theriac Hello Theraic, I did not start talking about your IP address I have no idea how people do that and did think it is NOT necessary anyway your obviously have a good point of view. I think you must have mixed up my words with those of HeartofDog? Goldenrowley 18:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Goldenrowley - sorry, I hope you will excuse my mistake asI'm still learning about Wikipedia. I will go over to Heartof Dog to see what he means about the IP IP address thingTheriac 18:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

New user / IP Address
I am sorry if I have got this wrong. When I was back-tracking on your edits to revert the stubs you had changed, I noticed on one or two of them that someone - and I presumed it was you - had edited the same stubs on those same articles from an IP address, ie, without being logged into Wikipedia as a user. When I looked at the log of edits for that IP address, it had a history of ceramics-related edits going back about a year, and I assumed that this was you editing before you had registered as a user. The reason why I mentioned it to Goldenrowley was that if you have year's experience on Wikipedia, and are not a new user, we don't need to explain to you, e.g., what a stub is or how categories work - we can assume you already know. My apologies if I have misinterpreted what is there.HeartofaDog 19:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi HeartofaDog, thanks for the reply and no problem. I did wonder what was happening, and tell the truth it was a little spooky to read about others talking about oneself (especially as it was incorrect) Not being an IT techie person I don't know much about IP addresses and but I wonder if there may be a confusion as I log on through my employers's network, and there are something like 12,000 users going through the same server. ThanxTheriac 19:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone else using the same network has contributed anon edits to Wikipedia, then they may well all show up under the same IP address, and that is doubtless the explanation. Sorry to have startled you! All best,HeartofaDog 19:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Could well be. Because of the field of business I would not be surprised if more than one person is adding to articles on geology and ceramicsTheriac 19:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikigender
(Hurray - something that has no bearing on ceramics at all) Re your passing remark on the Talk page of Ceramics (art) - which is now so huge that I don't want to add another word to it that's not totally relevant to the article, so I've come here instead - the reason why I was not sure of your gender is that there is no way to find it out. You have no user page, and there is no other way to tell. So "he/she" is not being funny - it simply means that your gender wasn't clear from the information availble. If you want people to know you're male, you have to tell them... on your user page... HeartofaDog 23:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello HeartofaDog,

Thank you for the reply, and sorry for being a little late in replying. I hope you didn’t take offence at my flippant comment; it was intended to be nothing other than lighthearted. Yes you correct that I have no user page. This is for two reasons: (1) I’n new so am still learning about Wikipedia’s policies and procedures, and (2) I have thought for some time about joining Wikipedia as I have received mixed comment from a number of people in the real world. Negative views have included that it petty arguments can easily start, and these can sometimes degenerate into quite vicious arguments. Because of this concern, which to be fair I have not experienced, I have been somewhat disinclined to be too public in who I amTheriac 13:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there - it's no big deal! You're probably right to be cautious. I hope you didn't feel nagged. It's very difficult to judge "tones of voice" here, and I am always worried that I am not taking people's comments as they intend, so I always err on the side of caution, and take things seriously - often ,as here, too seriously! Best wishes, HeartofaDog 13:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Pottery article
Thanks for your recent edits to the pottery article. As you will have seen I've started to give this a working over, which is what it needs, I think. At present I'm pretty sure that I haven't got the words on granulate pressing anywhere near right and I can't make any sense of litho at all. Any help in these (or any other) areas would be appreciated. Regards, Nick. Nick 19:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick follow-up. Pottery is made by forming clay body into objects of a required shape and heating them to high temperatures in a kiln to induce reactions that lead to permanent changes that include an increase in strength and make their shapes permanent. This is really good stuff, because it makes the important point that what happens in the kiln isn't just melting or vitrification, as many people seem to think. As a sentence, it's a bit unwieldy, but this can be sorted out. How would you describe what happens in a clay body in the kiln? As I understand it, with porcelain what happens is (in simple terms) that mullite grows in the body together with glass, but I wonder what happens with the lower-fired ceramics. From what I've read, I think you probably know a lot, lot more than I do about ceramics technology. Sorry to be a pain. Regards, Nick. Nick 10:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Nick, Thank you for the comment, and I didn't think you a pain :-). Yes I would agree that the Pottery article needs quite a bit of attention, which I see you have started. It's getting quite big maybe some could be spun off to separate article. There seems to be a awful lot of blank space underneath the ‘Techniques’ section, I think it may be related to the photographs but I don’t know. Can you tidy it up? Also there are many internal links. Do you think all are necessary?


 * litho – I understand what is written, but there again it is a technique with which I’m familiar. However I’m sure it would benefit from an edit / re-wording
 * Granulate – same as above. With time I’ll try to edit them both
 * You’re right firing of ceramics is more complex than melting and vitirification. Yes mullite crystals are found in some porcelain, but not all. (high temperature & longer soak times promote their growth) Again I’ll try to get round to adding something about the lower fired, such as the dehydroxilation of kaolinite.ThanxTheriac 13:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Theriac, yup, I'll have a look at the links and also have a think about what needs to find a home elsewhere. Starting with with that section on the development of Islamic glazes which has some good words but that either needs moving to Islamic pottery or to the article on glazes, I think. You've probably noticed that I've been skirting round doing anything with the section on history, because I know that this is going to cause problems. But I'll have to get round to it before too long. Regards, Nick. Nick 14:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

New user?
Hi Theriac,

May I ask your real name? Also, have you been using Wikipedia for long? --Sean Brunnock 19:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Sean. No problem. My name is Terry. I have been using Wikipedia for about two years. I have been writing for much less than that (Colleagues has warned me it can get a little hot. I have seen this with the personal abuse I got last week.) Is here any reason you ask? Have you been using Wikipedia for long?


 * 2 years! That's a long time (by Wikipedia standards). Have you been editing articles under a different name? The account you're currently using started up on Jan 5. --Sean Brunnock 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again. You not spying on me are you? :-) Before January I had made a couple of small edits but without registering. I pretty soon picked up Wikipedia could be addictive and so made it official. But I have to be careful as I only log on when I am at work (hope the boss is not looking!) I have listed am email address on my user page if you want to contact me.Theriac 19:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it's just that your edits seem very similar to another editor who seems to have disappeared- User:AndyAndyAndy. I guess it's just a coincidence. Happy editing! --Sean Brunnock 20:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Maybe it is that Wikipedia is very big. The emaill address is there is you want to talk in private.Theriac 20:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Theriac, the chap Sean was talking about has a user talk page, see User_talk:AndyAndyAndy. The page has pretty good coverage of the alleged sock-puppet incident, nothing was ever proved I believe. As for me, I've no idea what a sock-puppet is and have no real inclination to find out, I might add. Regards, Nick. Nick 10:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Nick. I do not know what a sock-pupet is either. From Sean's replies it does not seem a big thing. An email address is shown on my user page if anyone wants to contact meTheriac 10:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

melodifestivalen 2007./matrix17
Hi matrix17. You wrote "if you have some time to spare please help me wikify some of the articles on the performers in melodifestivalen 2007./matrix17" Well I don't understand. I didn't know what melodifestivalen 2007 was until I looked it up. Apparently it's a music competition is Sweden. I think you may be consused me with someone else as I know nothing about Swedish music. ThanxTheriac 20:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Shuhei Fujioka (Iga pottery)
Theriac, you've deleted the non-English external links in the article Shuhei Fujioka (Iga pottery). Those two links were also listed as the sole source for the articles. Would you mind keeping them up until English sources or translations can be found? This might raise the issue of notability of the subject, but this article is necessary to differentiate this person from a more notable person with the same name working in a similar industry. It's kind of an elaborate disambig page. :) -- Emana 21:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Emana. Thanks for the message. Yes I did delete the links along with a few others, mainly to commercial sites and blogs. :The reason I deleted the Shuhei Fujioka (Iga pottery) links was to follow the Wikipedia policy of ""English language links are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. It may be appropriate to have a link to a foreign-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English, when the link is to the subject's text in its original language or they contain visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables, per the guideline on foreign-language sites. When linking to a site in a foreign language under the exceptions above, label the link with a language icon, available for most languages, using two-letter language codes: for example,, , etc."


 * I have no overly strong feelings about either link. Certainly there may be value to "Shuhei Fujioka Exhibition" as it does contain many images. But the link to "Kuroda Toen Gallery"? This is entirely in Japanese. It is reasonale to assume that readers of this version of Wikipedia are English speakers, and somewhere from many to nearly all will not be able to find any value to this page. How about replacment with link to a site that may actually help readers. ThanxTheriac 08:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed External Link
Hi Theriac. You recently deleted a link I posted in the External Links section of the Raku article. I just wanted to ask for further clarification about this. I am new to Wiki, I have read the guidelines, and I do not see why that link was censored. One of the External links pages currently on the site is covered with ads and is even selling products. I added the link to provide some visuals so someone could actually see the full Raku process. I did not want the content added directly to the article because I was cautious, and deemed the External Links section the safest place to put this content as a newbie. As I stated previously, I am new to editing Wiki, and I understand if I am misinterpreting the guidelines. However, could you please help me understand why the link was removed so I can prevent any future mistakes like this? Thank you kindly. Rob


 * Hello Rob. Thank you for your message, and, in case no one else, has welcome to Wikipedia. Yes I deleted the link on the raku article. As you probably know Wikipedia is collaboratively written by volunteers, and consequently it is not for any one individual (such as me!) to decided what is included. Sadly though they are quite many people who use Wikipedia to promote their personal views or commercial interests (Please, I not saying that is you, just that such links often pop up). However Wikipedia does have policies on external links. Your link appeared to contravene of two of Wikipedia's policies on external links, I have copied these below. ThanxTheriac 08:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Links mainly intended to promote a website"
 * "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services."


 * Or 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."


 * Hi Theriac, I can see how there is a fine line that I don't want to cross. I respect your experience opinion. Thank you for your help. Rob —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quzopilaty (talk • contribs) 14:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Hi Rob. Thanks. Yes I would agree there is a fine balance. But I hope you will use your experience and knowledge to expand the raku article ThanxTheriac 20:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ehtical Pots
Hi Theraic, if you have a minute I would like your opinoon and to start a conversation this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_pot -- have you heard of this term before, there are not sources, and it is a dubious to put an ethical pot as the opposite of a fine art pot, and I value your experience. Thank you, Goldenrowley 20:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Will do. See you over there! Theriac 20:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What to do about vandals
Heya, Terry. Here's a link you may find interesting: Administrator intervention against vandalism. I've been reverting vandals for many months now, and it seems like a losing battle. I just recently noticed this page, and have been dropping those tags whenever I revert vandalism. Let me know if you need any help. Keep up the good work! Cbdorsett 19:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cbdorestt. Thank you for the link, I will have a look. Although I have only been editing for a short while I have already noticed that vandalism is rather common (I guess from the content, "poop" crops up surprisingly often, that is just immature school children. But it is annoying! Firstly, of course, it diminishes the value of the articles, but when editors take great care with the precise choice of words it's really annoying. Another common abuse I've picked up on is the insertion of advertising or commercial links, and just watch the criticism when they are deleted! Thanks also for the tip regarding POV over at ceramics, I'll read and then modify the link accordingly. ThanxTheriac 08:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Commercial links?
I'm not sure how one decides if a link is commercial or not? Surely ANY link to a potters OWN website could be deemed commercial? In which case there are hundreds of links to be deleted!! http://www.wenfordbridge.com/index1.htm is a link to the "old" Wenford Bridge website would that be acceptable? or should I seek permission to use the photos and re-write the text for wikipedia RegardsTeapotgeorge 14:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Teapotgeorge. I see what you saying but the link takes you to a site where pots are for sale, a cottage is for rent and B&B accommodation is available. To me it seems a clear-cut case that contravenes the no commercial links policy. Any thoughts ThanxTheriac 14:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes you're right.. I thought it was an archive page only...I'll see if I can get permission to use the photos and info to improve the Wenford Bridge Pottery page. As regards other potters own websites... Wiki says... What should be linked 1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any. ...So if "official" is also "commercial" ...hmmm?? The studio pottery page has been rather messily edited recently. regards Teapotgeorge 14:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Slip,Blunger and slipcasting
Thanks for the improvements and spell check! have you looked at the wictionary meaning of the word? I must research the origins... presumably it could have been a wooden mixing device originally? Teapotgeorge 09:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Teapotgeorge. Thanks. In industry the accepted origin is blend + plunge. I can't add a citaion to support it though. ThanxTheriac 09:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've used one every day for more than 30 years and not thought about the words origins! Fascinating! thanks Teapotgeorge 09:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally... can you qualify what you mean by "other minerals" in the slip article? I've never added anything but water and sodium silicate? Teapotgeorge 09:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Teapotgeorge. No problem. Clay bodies never contain just clay. The most common other minerals would be feldspars and quartz, though others will be present to a greater or lesser extent. These could be naturally associated (it is extremely rare to dig 100% pure clay, say kaolinite, from the ground. Also it would be very diffifcult, verging on the impossible, to use this for pottery). Or they will have been mixed together at the body preparation plant. For example consider the "classic" bone china recipe of 25% kaolin + 25% china stone + 50% bone ash. None of these three are a mineral, they are mixtures of minerals; and for kaolin this would be kaolinite + various feldspars + various mica + maybe a little quartz + maybe smaller traces of other minerals. ThanxTheriac 09:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean... I was thinking (narrowly) from my own perspective of the pottery workshop where one makes a casting slip by adding "already formulated" clay to water and deflocculant. Thanks Teapotgeorge 12:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. ThanxTheriac 12:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Both, forgive me for intruding, but one sees quite a few dialogues like this one in Wikipedia ceramics discussion pages. Some time ago I mentioned to Theriac that a section on the terms used by potters might be appropriate in the Pottery article, but thinking about it, it might be better to have a separate article Ceramics terminology or Pottery terms or some such. Any suggestions? Regards, Nick. Nick 17:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Nick. I don't think you're intruding. I like the idea of a separate article on Ceramics terminology or Pottery terms. For a number of reasons:
 * There are some rather unusual words and names. For example: in addition to the old favourie of "saggar makers bottom knocker" how about "pig stick", "fussing" & "sticker-upper"
 * The decline of the UK ceramics industry will mean these names will be forgotten. Wikipedia may help preserve this unique etymological resource. Please don't interpret that as being nationalistic, it's just that the UK has contributed quiet a few words to the ceramic language (for example even though both the French and Germans have their own words they are both happy with "blunging".)
 * The start would be relatively easy as this is quite a good article http://www.studiopotter.org/articles/?art=art0001


 * One thought: some may be difficult to support with citations.


 * Thanx. Theriac 17:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nick and Theriac...count me in I'll be happy to contribute where I can. Teapotgeorge 19:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: McCoy (pottery)
While I appreciate your efforts, I believe your deletion of the link to Chiquita Prestwood's website was not proper. The site is not a blog, rant, or commercial site (eg. selling anything). Chiquita Prestwood has been on television as an expert on McCoy items, and she personally knew Nelson and Billie McCoy. Much of the content of my original article came from details I either learned from her website, or from links she provided. It is likely that the typical reader who is interested in the subject of this article will appreciate the external link. If you decide to delete the link again, please provide detailed rationale as to why, citing policy or community concensus, if possible. Thank-you. Jerry 04:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Jerry . I deleted the link because it is a commercial site. I can not understand how you can say The site is not a blog, rant, or commercial site (eg. selling anything). It is selling: have a look at http://www.tjbailey.com/chiquita/forsale.htm

To me this is a clear violatio of Wikipedia's policy. ThanxTheriac 09:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank-you for your reply. I assume by "wikipedia's Policy" that you are referring to WP:Spam.  The policy says for the purpose of promoting a website or a product, which this external link was not added for.  The external website provides an enormous amount of information about McCoy, and includes many photographs that are copyrighted, and therefore can not be added directly to our article.  For this reason an external link is desirable.  The fact that in addition to providing a huge amount of historical information, including unique perspectives of Nelson McCoy and his wife, means we can tolerate the fact that the site also has around 30 McCoy items for sale.  Most websites used as sources will have somewhere on them something that is for sale.  Look at any magazine or newspaper website link, and you will see you are normally presented with an advertisement or two right on the linked page, if not maybe one click of the mouse away from being able to buy something from the site.  You have to browse away from the link I provided in the article (several pages away) to get to the page that offers items for sale.  The link was not added for the purpose of promoting a website or a product.  As the editor who added the link, I am in no way affiliated with the owner of the website.  And I used the website as a primary source for the basic information in the original article stub.  Since the link was added to an article that is directly related to it, and has not (to my knowledge) been added to more than one article, I am certain it is ok.  Please have a read over WP:SPAM and see if you agree with me.  Thanks, Jerry  14:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Jerry . Thanks also for your reply. It was not WP:Spam to which I referred. As you know it is not for any one individual (such as me!) to decided what is included, but Wikipedia does have policies on external links. The link would seem to contravene Wikipedia's policies on links to commercial sites. I feel its inclusion would set a precedent: if this one how could it be argued that Sothebys or an antque dealers not be permitted? ThanxTheriac 19:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What would help me here is if you would specifically state what policy you are referring to "Wikipedia's policies on links to commercial sites" is not specific enough for me to go read it. If I know where it is, I might be able to read it and find I agree with you.  But as it stands right now, I'd say that you should make an inquiry at WP:RFC.  In the discussion below with User:Teapotgeorge, you state "you don't actually learn much from them. To me the sites are out-and-out commercial".  These do not seem to be the standards you apply to this article.  This is not an out-and-out commercial site, it is the personal site of an expert on McCoy, with oodles of highly encyclopedic, yet unfortunately copyrighted, information on the subject of the article.  The site just happens to also sell a very small number of McCoy peices.  So to be clear: please specifically cite a wikipedia policy that applies to your argument, or please submit this to WP:RFC, or if you prefer, please let me know, and I will submit this to WP:RFC.  Thanks, Jerry  20:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Jerry . The discussion about the Wenford Bridge and Seth Cardew sites is noted below, but in summary: I believe they should not be included, however I accept Teapotgeorge's argument for inclusion as they are official sites for the subject of the articles. BUT TJBailey.com site is not the official site of McCoy, it is the personal site of a collector. I am also puzzled about your promotion of it as being suitable for an external link:
 * You claim "oodles of highly encyclopedic, yet unfortunately copyrighted, information" I can find one short page on the company's history, one page of marks, one page about fakes. Thats' hardly oodles! But there is lots of information on the collector herself, her career, and even her cat.
 * You claim "sell a very small number of McCoy peices" There's over 100! That's considerably more than a "very small number"
 * Another commercial aspect is the link on the opening page to her eBay auctions. And although no listings at present previous sales have included neck ties, gloves and books. Wikipedia is not here to promote someone's yard sale!
 * There is a whole page of "wants" Surely you agree that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not something more akin to the classified section of a newspaper?
 * Its inclusion would be in violation of Wikipedia's policies, and set a precedent for other personal pages, dealers and commercial activities.

For policies on external links have a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links


 * ThanxTheriac 21:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I reset the tabs so we aren't talking way over there---> The very small ammount of commercial aspect to the site is I think tolerable. There is information on her site that I have never found anywhere else. Especially the following copyrighted on-topic content:
 * Photo of Nelson McCoy
 * the chronological events list that I based most of the first draft of the article on
 * The McCoy logo that I used in the article infobox
 * one of the most complete picture galleries of McCoy pieces I've seen --- identifies products mentioned in article
 * Extremely complete and well-annotated gallery of McCoy maker marks
 * collection of old McCoy advertisements
 * great description about fake McCoy pieces

The above does represent to my estimation "oodles" of information that is on-topic, pertinent, but not directly includable in the article due to copyright restrictions.

Jerry 23:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jerry. Thanks for your reply. I can not agree with your repeated description of "very small ammount of commercial aspect", there is:
 * Over 100 items for sale
 * List of items sought for purchase
 * Prominant link to eBay auctions

I believe two of your recent comments have confirmed my reservations:
 * Your recent bulleted list of information was not easy to find. I had previously spent quite a bit of time at the site and found considerably more information about the collector, her family, her career and her cats. (Nothing wrong with that on her own personal site but not for an external link on Wikipedia)
 * You earlier referenced my recent discussion with Teapotgeorge regarding the Wenford Bridge and Seth Cardew sites. This shows that editors check the discussion pages (as they should!) but if the tjbailey.com is included what is to stop another personal and commercial site being listed against the argument "well tjbailey.com" is there.

Whatever the merits of sections of the site it contravenes what is accepatble for an external link. ThanxTheriac 06:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We will probably not come to 100% agreement on this, so perhaps it would be a good idea to seek a broader input from the community. The right place for this would be WP:RFC.  On my talk page, I have listed the external links that you have removed from articles over the past 2 months, and although I do agree with many of them there are several that concern me.  It would be beneficial to get a good concensus on which external links can stay and which should not.  Jerry  05:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jerry. I agree for WP:RFC regarding the McCoy Pottery but not others. Your comments about these have come out of the blue, I do not think it apporpriate for them to be included: ThanxTheriac 06:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * the discussion has been about McCoy pottery
 * it would confuse the case
 * WP:RFC should be used after editors have not reached agreement. You have not previously commented about these links
 * that links have been removed for 2 months without comment, or with the agreement, from other already shows some concensus
 * And to be fair, I think you are being unfair in suggesting this


 * I do not view this as a conflict between you and me. I see this as a question on policy and the interpretation of it.  We have (I think) identified a policy that is too vague for editors to easily agree on what the right thing to do is.  I do not seek any kind of censure or punitive actions of any kind.  I just wanted to find out what the community concensus is, as to the application of this policy.  I can see your hesitation to use WP:RFC, as it is often used between editors in conflict.  Perhaps you would be more comfortable with village pump?  As I said, I am not 'out to get' you, or even at all having any problems with you, as an editor.  I believe that your contributions to wikipedia have been very valuable, and that your intentions seem very good.  I am concerned, though, that deleting links that include some commercial content is potentially devaluing the articles, as there is content that can not be included in the articles due to copyright restrictions, that is vital to complete the whole picture of the concept.  In many of the links you deleted, Company ABC products article has a link to the Company ABC website photograph gallery page, or company history page, and you delete them because the same website also has an online catalog and shopping cart system.  I do see your concern, but I think we need to find out what the community thinks.  Perhaps we should continue our conversations to get some agreement on the scope of what we want to ask the community, so we can put it out as "we together seek community input" as opposed to "we want a vote for which of us is right and which is wrong".  Jerry  20:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Jerry. Thanks. I also do not view this as a conflict; disagreement on an issue perhaps but nothing unpleasant. I am happy to defer to your suggestions as a suitable location for a discussion, or where to seek guidance. I do believe though that including all the commercial links I have deleted is inappropriate. (I did find it somewhat intimidating, and I confess a little excessive, that you had searched through all my edits) Their inclusion would considerably over complicate any debate. I am more than happy for McCoy(pottery) to be the subject, and I will accept what is finally agreed. ThanxTheriac 20:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

{reset tabs] As a compromise, I would be willing to present the question on Village Pump without reference to any article. Restricting the question to the McCoy article would put undue scrutiny on the value of the one particular link for that article, and would probably limit community participation to mainly those concerned with defunct companies, pottery, and Zanesville Ohio. The question as to the interpretation of the External Links policy is much larger in scope. As for my generation of that list, it was not the result of a huge research effort on my part. I am a software engineer, and generating this kind of list from a formatted text file, such as user contribs is very easy for me. User contributions on wikipedia is not a privacy issue. My use of the list was to explain my concern for your deletion of links was much greater than just the McCoy article. It is a very serious concern that I have. I in no way intended to intimidate you or provoke you. Jerry 22:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, if you used that particular site for research, you could always just link directly to the pages you used material from... in the References section, instead of as an External link. If the photos could add value to the article as well, then link directly to the page on that site that houses the photos in External links, instead of linking to the main site. I've seen and done this many times without complaint, and it seems to me that if the information is there, accurate and valuable, but hard to find without a direct link, then a set of direct links would be preferable. Runa27 16:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please review the article history. I did exactly as you suggest here.  Theriac removes any link to a page which has links to other pages in the site which he/she considers to be commercial in nature.  Under her/his rules, the only links allowed would be to pages on sites which had no other pages in them that could be considered spam, which is unreasonable  Jerry 05:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

commercial links
You have removed what you consider to be a "commercial" link... www.ceramics-directory.com/ Free online database of ceramic arts and industry I can't see anything commercial about it...it's free? Am I missing something? Teapotgeorge 15:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you have been a little heavy handed in your deletion of what you consider "commercial" links... The Wenford Bridge and Seth Cardew sites in particular, both of which have a LOT of extra copyrighted material.... Wiki says... What should be linked "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity SHOULD link to the official site if any." Links normally to be avoided... "EXCEPT for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—" I agree that links which are only placed there for commercial reasons should be removed but these weren't. What do you think? Teapotgeorge 17:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Teapotgeorge. Didn't we discuss this earlier? The site is heavily commercial: pots are for sale, a cottage is for rent and B&B accommodation. To me the sites exist to sell pots and holiday accommodation, so surely a link n Wikipedia is therefore being placed for commercial reasons? ThanksTheriac 18:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But my point is that regardless of whether they are commercial or not the sites are the OFFICIAL sites for the subjects of the articles and as such SHOULD be linked to according to wiki policy? I put them there with NO commercial intent and I have no connection with either.Teapotgeorge 19:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Teapotgeorge. I can see you point, and I never believed you did have any connection. But in response? I don't know, but I favour leaving them of as: they're heavily commercial, and you don't learn much from them. Iguess you're tending towards they're inclusion? ThanxTheriac 19:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I tend that way for fairness and uniformity... Wedgwood's official site link is on the the Wedgwood article page... Wade Ceramics is on theirs, Bennet Bean and many, many, many other potters, artists, illustrators, sculptors and authors  articles have a link to their own sites [whether they sell from them or not] Even the eBay article has a link to it's official site and you can't get MORE commercial than that... can you? :¬) Teapotgeorge 19:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Teapotgeorge. My decison was to delete for three reasons: the sites are selling stuff, the holiday accomodation, and you don't actually learn much from them. To me the sites are out-and-out commercial (nothing wrong with that but I felt not for Wikipedia.) However because of the "official" bit I don't feel as strongly about these as the McCoy (see above) which, to me, has no case for inclusion. ThanxTheriac 19:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you entirely about the McCoy link....but feel strongly that links to "official" websites when they are on that subjects article page should be allowed? Great work on the pottery terminolgy page by the way. Teapotgeorge 19:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Teapotgeorge. If you consider the links are worthwhile I'll not fight it :-) Thanks for the comments about the Pottery terminology, I'll keep adding to it (you also?) but I don't think much this week as I'm far, far to busy :-( ThanxTheriac 20:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Dunt
I did some work on the Dunt article that you started, mainly wikifying. I think that the article would be improved if you could insert a picture or two, especially if you could contrast what a heating dunt looks like compared to a cooling one. If you need help uploading an image, let me know on my user page. Happy editing! Cynrin 03:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Cynrin. I do not thnk you will thank me but I removed your text, as:
 * It was copied from a commercial site
 * It contained incorrect information

ThanxTheriac 10:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not add any content to the site, rather I wikified and cleaned up the content that was already there. Since I have no knowledge about ceramics, I did not know that the info was incorrect. Looking at the history, I have found that added the content on March 20. That history also shows that someone added the 'wikifiy' tag on February 8 to the article when it contained exclusively your content. If you have any questions about how to properly wikify an article, please let me know. Cynrin 19:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

McCoy (pottery)
Please see my reply on my User talk:Jerry. Also, since we will apparently not be able to come to agreement on this issue, I have opened an Request for Comment dispute resolution process on this article. Below is your courtesy notification. Jerry 15:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC/discussion of article McCoy (pottery)
Hello, Theriac. As a prominent contributor to McCoy (pottery), you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:McCoy (pottery), in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. --

Until the RFC is closed, please do not remove the links from the article. Jerry 15:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your lack of response on this RFC is being interpreted as a concession. It will be closed in a few days if there is no input from you or anyone else.  However, I see from other comments left here and a review of your recent contributions, that you continue to remove external links from articles under a policy that you seem to have created yourself, in absence of community concensus.  As I explained earlier, my concern on this issue extends far beyond this one article.  I suggest you familiarize yourself with the existing policies, and suggest changes to them before you continue to enforce your version of them.  Your unilateral removal of external links is in some cases, damaging the articles; by removing important references for the reader which can not be directly included in the articles due to copyright restrictions.  By not discusssing the issue and just doing your own thing, you are failing to abide by the Bold Edit-revert-discuss cycle guidelines.  Jerry 05:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jerry lavoie. I have previously expressed concern with your approach towards me. Your recent comments support this: (1) You earlier reviewed every one of my edits, and then listed nearly 100 of them on your discussion page. (2) Your latest comment to me “I see from other comments left here .." suggests that you may be monitoring my discussion page. (3) Making accusations “a policy that you seem to have created yourself”

These suggest stalking and harassment, and I ask you to stop.

I have did not respond immediately to this RFC as I have been very busy. I have been able to carry on with some edits to Wikipedia, but could not devote time to a debate. Your choice of words again concerns me: “..is being interpreted as a concession.” I have already noted I do not view this as some form of battle, yet your wording is one of confrontation. ThanxTheriac 12:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Theriac, you strike me as being a good editor and I feel your enthusiasm for Wikipedia is a great asset to the project, however I would strongly urge you to reconsider. Accusing another editor of violating the WP:HARASS guideline is treated very seriously.  Given the lack of clear evidence in your favour (of course Jerry has your talk page on his watchlist, just as most people "watch" the talk pages of those with whom they have discussions so as not to miss any replies; likewise, when there is a question about how an editor is interpreting Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it is normal to review their past edits and flag ones that merit concern), I fear that most people would find against your harassment claim and instead find you in violation of WP:POINT.  Also, specious statements such as "I ... did not respond immediately to this RFC as I have been very busy" only serve to make you look disingenuous when your edit history clearly shows that you actually made over 180 edits (some of them rather large copy edits) in the three weeks plus since you were notified of the RFC.


 * Please note that my intention is not to make you feel "ganged up on" or belittle your views. As a firm believer in our guidelines on assume good faith and do not bite the newcomers, I only want to see you succeed at being a great Wikipedia editor.  Please let me know if you have any questions or issues. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Theriac, no offense, but you're starting to sound a little paranoid. All other issues aside, merely "watching someone's talk page" does not equate with stalking and harassment. Anyone can do it on Wikipedia by hitting the "watch" button, and it's sometimes useful to do so, if you've left a comment on someone's talk page - WHICH HE DID DO, so that portion of the argument seems somewhat spurious to me. Additionally, one could see the "other comments on here" simply by glancing down the page, as I did. This is NOT a private page, Theriac. It is publicly-posted. Saying that his comment about reading other comments here is evidence he might be "stalking" you is the equivalent of posting twice to LiveJournal or MySpace and then freaking out when somebody writes about your post in their own LiveJournal or MySpace in both cases (in reality, it is easy to put them on a "watched pages" type of list, and they will show up there with anytime they've made a change and you access the page, which on Wikipedia is Special:Watchlist). In case you should be inexplicably worried I'm "stalking" you just because I'm posting here, I'm here because he left a note on my talk page about writing an answer to a comment I made here, which in turn was made because I think I found it through a ceramics page.


 * Second: I hate to tell you this, but you do seem to be... not exactly making up policy (though actually, if you're referring to it as policy, it verges on it), but enforcing it in a much different manner than is usual for Wikipedia, which is apparently causing some strain. FURTHERMORE, I'd like to add the the External Links issues here deal mostly not with POLICY, but GUIDELINES. See External links. Guidelines on Wikipedia are meant to be much more flexible than policies, but this wouldn't be the first time someone took an unusually hardline approach to a guideline they mistakenly thought was a "policy" (you see it much more often with WP:Autobiography though, as it's well-known but more often mistaken for a policy than the external links guidelines are, and somewhat more concrete, clear-cut and obvious in comparision).


 * Not to say that Jerry isn't pushing things a little too fast (most of us do have lives outside of Wikipedia, after all, though 3+ weeks is actually a fairly long time to wait, to be fair. Check the date stamps - March 22, RFC; April 15, the second note. Do the math), but there's no need to get insanely paranoid over something as silly as this, especially when I fail to see any real evidence of him "stalking" you. Even listing your edits isn't necessarily "stalking". He is concerned, apparently, that you are not following consensus on some of the types of edits you're making. I can understand how it would be a little unnerving to have someone dig up a whole bunch of edits like that, but really, calm down. Keep in mind I haven't looked at that part of your claim more closely yet, but at the moment I'm going to hazard a guess and say he's trying to establish a pattern (i.e. show that you've taken this stance in the past), not "stalk" you. I'll check, though, probably, to see what the fuss is about.  Runa27 19:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been going through Jerry's talk page history, and fail to see any evidence he did this "stalking"/"harassment" you speak of, where he was supposedly bringing up old edits and posting them to his talk page. Please explain, else I will have to assume you're lying and/or paranoid. I've yet to find an instance where he did this. Runa27 20:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Runa27 & Kralizec! Thank you for your input, and I think it best to consider the two points individually:
 * Harrassment This is how it felt to me. It was not a call to investigate any violation of WP:HARASS; I described the behaviour as "suggesting" rather than making an accusation. The list I refer to has previously been archived on jerry lavoies discussion page, I hope this like will work, please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jerry&oldid=111897656  I found listing > 100 of my edits to be excessive, and certainly intimidating. I am aware that "merely "watching someone's talk page" does not equate with stalking and harassment." However because I was already concerned about how I was being dealt with, and commented about this to jerry lavoie, the obvious monitoring & then responding to comments to me from someone else fuelled my worries.


 * Yes, that's quite close to what we call "a weasel word". "Harassment" can be a minor thing and thus I didn't really comment on that... but STALKING is not. "Stalking" (your word, not mine!) is a serious offense, and even saying behavior "suggests" it is a serious accusation. I don't care how mild you seem to think "suggests" makes that statement, the truth is that when paired with "stalking", it's not mild, or a minor accusation. That was pretty much my main bone of contention; the use of that very powerful, very slurring word. There is no suggestion of actual cyber-stalking here, cyber-stalking being far more specific (and creepy) than mere "harassment" (which as a definition can extend to something as trivial as bugging you about something). Accusing the user of it in this case is patently absurd, and that's what you did when you said it "suggest[ed]... stalking". I'm sorry you feel "ganged-up on", but you need to be aware that when you use a word with such a powerful, specific, strongly negative meaning like that, people are going to react accordingly.  Runa27 20:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I do begin to feel somewhat as being "ganged up on" when I read the comment "will have to assume you're lying."


 * First: you can stop feeling "ganged-up on" over THAT, because I'm the only one who said it. :P Pretty hard to be ganged-up on by one person, I think. Second: I had reason to believe that you might be. Note that I failed at the time to find anything confirming your claims; also note that I said I will have to assume. Pay attention to the language there. For someone who's complaining about my ignoring the word "suggest" in "suggests... stalking", well, let's just say this surprised me:


 * Note the first-person SINGULAR pronoun. I did not use "we", which would have been a lot stronger and (considering I'd be speaking as if speaking for others) more ominous and more offensive. I was merely stating what I was interpreting from the data. Me. Only me. I can't help but notice you removed this pronoun from the phrase when quoting it.


 * Note the "assume" in "assume you're lying". This acknowledges an assumption. Not a completely, utterly indisputable fact, but an assumption based on what facts were available to me. Note that I did not go anywhere near so far as to say "you're a liar"; I would never do that. I merely went so far as to say that unless given more information ( Another part of the post you didn't quote, I notice), I would, personally, assume you were, at that time, not telling the whole truth.


 * Note that I DID leave room open for more information changing my mind. I did not automatically assume you were lying; I merely stated that unless more information changed my mind, logically speaking, I would not be able to find a reason to think you were telling the truth (and not telling the truth = lying, by definition). Runa27 20:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I do not think it should be necessary for me to defend myself it is inappropriate to claim I was being disingenuous when I noted "I ... did not respond immediately to this RFC as I have been very busy." I noted this because it was true! If, as I am sure administrators can, please check the IP address where I have logged on for my edits during the last 4 weeks. These will show locations across Europe and Asia. Whilst I made edits when sitting in airport lounges and hotels rooms I did not have to time I felt a debate needed. (In brief I noted this, saying "I have been able to carry on with some edits to Wikipedia, but could not devote time to a debate."


 * I agree he was going a bit fast (many editors who have less sporadic access forget how much some of us have lives outside the Wiki, I think :P), but honestly, three weeks does seem like a long time on Wikipedia, and a debate could easily last less month. It's not exactly uncommon, so this struck me as simply a bit of misunderstanding. I will say though that extensive copy edits would not really take much more time than weighing in once or twice, so though I understand how you could make a lot of airport edits and still not make your way over to the debate (I know I've often not been able to address issues when concentrating on one or two articles in specific), I can also see how some people would think it not very logical defense, since you still were on quite frequently and for a long enough time to do an extensive edit on what sounds like at least a few occasions. Think about it logically, and you can see how people would feel that way. I think if you'd noted you were editing while traveling and in airports earlier, maybe that would have cleared things up more, but hey, hindsight is 20/20, right? Runa27 20:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * External links I have placed a comment at Talk:McCoy (pottery) but I also note here: The external link under discussion is http://www.tjbailey.com/chiquita/index.html  I consider very strongly that inclusion would be in violation of policy / guideline on links to selling products or services. Its commercial aspects far outweigh useful information with:
 * Less information on McCoy Pottery than on collector herself, her career and even her cat.
 * Over 100 items for sale.
 * A whole page of "wants." Surely Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not something more akin to the classified section of a newspaper?
 * A link on the opening page to eBay auctions, which have included neck ties, gloves and books. Wikipedia is not here to promote someone's yard sale!
 * In addition to being counter to Wikipedia's stated policies it would set a precedent for other personal pages, dealers and commercial activities.
 * As afar as consensus:
 * Earlier on this page the debate, titled "Commercial links", about a link on the Wenford Bridge Pottery shows that I do take note of consensus.
 * Whilst it is not for me to quote names of other editors but another contributor has already agreed on my discussion page that this page should not be listed.

ThanxTheriac 22:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand why you're concerned, and admit that I haven't had a chance to look at that page yet (and I won't for at least a while yet, as I'm at work and will have to switch to an activity soon that will require my being away from the computer), but, the bulk of a site being unworthy does not necessarily mean that something cannot be mentioned from a single, apparently reliable page. The photo gallery isn't exactly "necessary" or particularly useful so we can safely ignore that; but my main concern, if any, with that is that someone has noted one page from this site as being as being a major source for the article. If it is considered a reliable source as far as the information is concerned, I don't see anything inherently wrong with citing it in the References section. In fact, I would argue strongly against it. Part of the reason many people do not trust Wikipedia is that "oh, anybody can edit, so anybody can make stuff up"; if something is used as a source for the sake of clarity and honestly in encylopedic reporting, that source should be noted openly. This way, if that source turns out to be inaccurate later on, or removed from the web, it will be MANY times easier to correct/edit the article to compensate for this, which in the long run benefits the article greatly. Again, though, I don't know enough about this particular issue to say anything much more than that. I'll try to get around to looking at it sometime this weekend, if I can. Runa27 20:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Your BOLD! edits to Elongated coin
Thank you for your hard work to help clean up unnecessary commercial links from Wikipedia articles. We love to see new members doing such BOLD! work, and to see it within a member's first 100 days on Wikipedia is most impressive! In regards to your six edits to the Elongated coin article, you did an excellent job in removing three of the external links, however I felt that sharpened versions of the final two links were quite valuable to the article, and added  them back in. Per our guidelines on external links, both contain "meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion" (in this case, both list hundreds of locations where coin elongation machines can be found across the world), and neither have "objectionable amounts of advertising" (I could not find any ads on the sharpened links that I re-inserted, or any commercial links on the sub-links from those pages). As such, I feel that both of these links merit inclusion in elongated coin.

Additionally, as a relatively new member to the community, you may wish to familiarize yourself with our official policy on consensus and specifically the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which indicate that when a fellow editor reverts one of your bold edits, rather than revert it back (as you did ), you should instead take the issue to the talk page and discuss the change. This is especially important because unilaterally reverting other editors' reverts can lead to a counterproductive -and often disastrous- edit war. (Personally I am an adherent of the one-revert rule.) Thanks again for your hard work and enthusiasm to improve Wikipedia, and please let me know if you have any other questions or issues. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As it has been over a week and you have not replied to this message, I am unsure if you found my reasons sound and no longer objection to the inclusion of this external link, or if you just have not had time to formulate an answer. Either way, if you could leave me a message, I would greatly appreciate it.  I will wait several more days, and if you still have not replied, I will presume that my reasons above have satisfied your objections, and restore the sharpened version of the link to Elongated coin.  However if you still object, we will need to open a request for comment on the issue.  Please let me know either way.  Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Faulty bot
Your recent edit to Hat (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 18:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was reverting vandalism. Please check the history

Response to comment you left on my talk page

 * Nope. I did review your edits, because what you are doing is wrong.  You agreed to take the issue up at RFC.  Than you did not reply or participate in the RFC.  I do always read user talk pages before entering a new comment on them.  I do not believe any of the above is stalking.  Stalking would involve any attempt to locate you in real life or to disrupt your use and enjoyment of wikipedia.  You can not continue to revert another persons edits and then refuse to discuss it.  If you feel my actions are/ were unacceptable, feel free to use RFC.  Jerry 03:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Jerry lavoie
 * I have replied to RFC, as I have already explained there were very strong reasons I was not able to do immediately.
 * I have also previously noted that you actions towards me were making me feel uncomfortable: listing > 100 edits was, at the least excessive of you and unnerving to me. These feelings were enforced by your clear monitoring of my discussions pages, and your subsequent comment; especially your choice of words such as "concession". This is suggestive of a battle, which I have neither engaged in nor am interested.
 * I am aware that a history of my edits remain in the public domain. However just as my conversations on the daily commute are audible to others, and theirs to me, there is generally reasonable behaviour therein. Just as I would feel intimidated if all my conversations were subsequently reviewed and broadcast similar behaviour of wikipedia brings similar reaction. As I have noted listing > 100 of my edits was excessive and intimidating.
 * I am concerned with how you are presenting this debate: the use of words such as "unilateral", "By not discussing the issue and just doing your own thing" and "You can not continue to revert another persons edits and then refuse to discuss it." is a distortion of facts. As you participated in the debate about the external link to Wenford Bridge Pottery you know that I disagreed with it inclusion, but after discussion I agreed with the conclusion for it to remain. There are other such examples, including raku & polymer clay, where I have discussed these with other editors to reach a consensus.
 * There is already some consensus on the TJBailey site, and whilst I do not like to reference other editors without their consent, myself & another feel it should not be included. In crude and simple terms 2 is > than your 1.
 * ThanxTheriac 08:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we clearly have a different way of thinking, it seems, about most things in general. My choice of words is probably attributed more to the part of the English-speaking world I am from, and not related to some ill-intentions. Please try to assume good faith. In a discussion about editing policy I do not see how a very meaningful conversation can be had without using very specific examples, and citing diffs. I always do that, and I expect it from others, so instead of saying "on several of your recent edits", I say "on the edits I have listed below". I think it makes it less likely to be interpreted incorrrectly. And instead of someone else saying "according to wikipedia policy" I always insist that they cite a specific policy, and provide a link to the exact place that I can read the policy. This is where you and I have had our difficulties, it seems. You feel intimidated when I list specific edits you have made, and you seem very much against the idea of specifically stating what policy it is that you are following. You seem rather fond of the idea of just stating that a policy is out there that supports what you are doing/ saying, and that I should just accept it, or go find it on my own. These are, indeed, incompatible idealisms. I truly believe that there are incompatible schools of thought, and that may be why our species is so prone to world war. I do not wish to wage war on you, so perhaps we should just drop the issue altogether. These external links are not nearly as important in the grand scheme of things as your happiness. So to be clear, I do think that the inclusion of external links to sites which have commercial aspects to them is acceptable and encouraged where the sites provide content that is beneficial to the reader, including images and text that are subject to copyright restrictions. This is the last communication you will receive from me, unless you respond to me on my talk page, as I do reserve the right of "last word", since this started with a revert of my edit. Jerry 11:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I can add a bit of clarification for Theriac on the disconcerting "list of 100 edits" issue. When editors disagree on the implementation or interpretation of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, and both sides are intractable, eventually Administrators are brought in on the issue.  Being very busy, admins often cut straight to the core of a situation, so they normally only want to see diffs that show exactly what the problem is.  As such, when an editor feels that another editor has a truly systemic issue, they normally create a large list of diffs illustrating the scope of the problem.  --Kralizec! (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Kralizec!. I can see the value in an administrator having ready access to any edits in question BUT the list which so concerned me appeared at a very early stage of the discussion when no intractable differences were evident, and long before there had been any suggestion of calling in the opinions of others. As I have noted before I considered it excessive and I found it intimadating: it was a disproportionate response when so little discussion had taken place, and at the time I felt it to be bullying. ThanxTheriac 15:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Based on your edit history and pattern of perpetually removing external links from articles with no regard for concensus, I believe that you are a sockpuppet of User:AndyAndyAndy. Please comment if you belive that I have this wrong.

Jerry 23:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

add another to the list:

JERRY talk contribs 01:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

and another:

JERRY talk contribs 04:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)