User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is my discussion page. Thanks -- (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Zodiac stones[edit]

It is not the quality of your qualifications that count on Wikipedia (as you seem to think with this edit) but the the quality of your sources. Sad to say, your sourcing for your edit is rather poor. The first reference, as far as I can see, does not support any of the statements to which it is attached; that AGTA's use of Tanzanite is a marketing ploy, that most jewellery shops have never heard of zircon, or that zircon and cubic zirconia are mistaken for the same thing. The second reference is attached to the statement that blue topaz is incorrect for December but again fails to actually support the statement. In any case both sites seem to be self-published and do not really count as reliable sources. Would you care to give reasons why your edit should not be reverted? SpinningSpark 11:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I said SHOPPERS. As in CUSTOMERS. Most customers think zircon is another name for CZ. Blue topaz has never been a birthstone for December -- stores list it that way figuring "eh, its blue, it'll work as a substitute". Again, please don't tell me my business. -- (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Now I am the second person you have recently asked if they are a gemologist as if only a gemologist is entitled to edit or comment on gem articles. That together with your rather uncivil comment above not to "tell you your business" leads me to believe that you are badly misunderstanding the way things work here. Absolutely anyone can edit here and there is no realistic way of checking their qualifications. Wikipedia needs a differnet way to ensure that material is accurate. This is done by requiring reliable sources so that the facts can be verified by anyone. That is a matter of Wikipedia policy, and if you want to edit here that is the way you have to work. I am not trying to tell you your business, I am telling you Wikipedia business - that your sources are unreliable and in any case do not support your claims. They certainly do not support the claim that most shoppers do not recognise the difference between zircon and cubic zirconia. It may even be unverifiable, and should therefore not be in the encyclopedia, unless of course you can find a reliable published survey that investigated this. SpinningSpark 20:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Still unaddressed: I said SHOPPERS. Customers. If you're going to undo my work based on incorrectly reading it, Don't be stunned when I revert it back. And yes, actually it is my business. I'm tired of people who aren't even out of high school on here undoing cited material. -- (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I had not missed that you said "shoppers" although you seem to have missed that I recognised that point above. It really makes no difference, the refs you provided still do not support it and are still unreliable. I have not, so far, reverted anything so I don't know what you mean by that comment, nor am I just out of high school. I am trying to discuss with you in a reasonable way the problems of this article, please do not treat it as a confrontation. I see you have added some new references, mainly promotional material that show that some traders give out deliberately confusing material, but hey, what's new in the world of advertising. It is still original research sythesis on your part to generalise that out in to a claim about all/most traders or shoppers. What this article badly needs is some solid book or academic references. Random things off the internet is not really helping to establish anything. SpinningSpark 21:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I added about half a dozen more references a few minutes ago -- (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Input requested[edit]

... at Talk:Perineum#Slang and piercing. Whatever404 (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)