User talk:Gmcbjames

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
User talk page: This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at

A page you started (Woolland Brothers) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for the advice however the information on the BHO website is from different sources - I just didnt have the time to go through and put the sources listed on the wiki pageDavidstewartharvey (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Davidstewartharvey, you may wish to state the above on the talk page of Woolland Brothers, though not necessary or required, the statement on the talk page will alert editors the source used has additional sources for verification of notability. Editors tend not to actually visit the reference rather tend to tag the article as having only one source. Just a suggestion, I enjoyed the article and have added an external link with some great images of the former turn of the 20th century department store. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and adding the pictureDavidstewartharvey (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Waterford & Wedgwood[edit]

Thanks for the correction. Apologies for the error. Cloudbound (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No apologies necessary Cloudbound, thank you for being on top of the WWRD sale, your edits were greatly appreciated. We'll see if the sale goes through and clears the regulatory process in the coming months. I have no idea of what impact this will have on the WWRD portfolio of companies & brands. A Wedgwood brand of scissors? - just joking...I hope. I would not have seen this turn of events without your heads-up. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Cloudbound, on 2 July 2015, Fiskars Corporation completed the sale, I have updated the appropriate pages to reflect the change of ownership of WWRD. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Cloudbound (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Article Lincoln, Nebraska[edit]

Until later and you know where to find me ^_^ - I'll be back a bit later ^_~ heh~..... Hanyou23 (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hanyou23, have fun amid the real world work - I will look forward to hearing from you and seeing your images once again in a month or so! Thank you for making wikipedia fun for me - Knights in White Satin - those were the days and it is a miracle I can remember them! Until later....Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Decorated Warror[edit]

Harondor ambush.jpg Warrior of Middle-Earth Gold Shield
So awarded to Gmcbjames, for helping take the Lincoln (Nebraska) article to where it has never been. Three Cheers!!! Hanyou23 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

History of ceramic art[edit]

I noticed you moved Ceramic Art to History of ceramic art. I am curious as to why the redirect from the move instead points to Pottery. And also, Pottery seems to be mostly history as well - so shouldn't it be also renamed History of pottery? Just curious - Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The closest thing we have to ceramics is pottery. The pottery article is of greater scope than the topic's history, and therefore it wouldn't be subject to renaming to "History of pottery" — though it is ripe for splitting the history material off to that title per WP:SPLIT. Thanks for asking. The Transhumanist 01:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Doing some merging of the history sections would be a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Johnbod, I have opened a discussion on the History of ceramic art talk page regarding the move and renaming. I agree, the best redirect for Ceramic art was a redirect to History of ceramic art in order to preserve linked articles in the context of meaning within the articles. The articles Ceramic art and Pottery have always been sticky over the years and this may be a good time to clean-up and reorganize both articles. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! I opened a discussion here to try to get an NPOV resolution. So add your arguments --Cs california (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverting of my edits[edit]


I noticed that you have reverted some of my edits:

  • On the Maw & Co article you put back Category:Art pottery and Category:Ceramic art which I had removed. It is virtually an anomaly in Category:Ceramic art (but less so in Category:Art pottery). My question would be: why include this particular manufacturer in those categories and not any of the many other ceramics manufacturers?
  • It seems odd that you have redirected Ceramics to Ceramic art instead of Ceramic. Also, the ceramic article could do with more information on ceramic art rather than merely having a link in the See also section.
  • On List of Bunnykins figurines both of the methods that you use are inconsistent with most of the rest of Wikipedia.
  • On Clay pit I removed a number of things that were superfluous, including a red link in the See also section, which another edit has once again removed.
  • I am particular interested in the wholesale reversion that you did of my edits to the Kaolinite article. I removed a spammish external link and a completely irrelevant external link, I tagged a dead link, I removed a sentence that contributed the the systemic bias on Wikipedia, I reorganised the See also links, and I removed some irrelevant and unneeded links.

Regards. (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

First I would encourage you to get a username & set up a user page so you aren't confused with other IP users. Also this would enable editors to communicate clearly with you in regard to your edits and concerns. That said, let me address your specific concerns on edits I have reverted:
  • On the Maw & Co article, your first edit removed the categories Category:History of ceramics and Category:Decorative arts with the edition of Reflist|30em with the second edit removing Category:Art pottery and Category:Ceramic art. There was no need to remove the categories as the article - as read - includes all of these topics and are appropriately categorized. If these are appropriate categories for other manufacturers, then they should be added to those articles. Many manufacturers - and specific to Maw & Co. - as stated in the lede - began as "art potteries."
  • In the article List of Bunnykins figurines, the "References" are general references WP:GENREF used for the article, while "Citations" are direct cites from sources. There is no set style of reference sections and each article is unique in its style. A "Further reading" section implies differently than references which were used to write the article. See WP:FNNR. I prefer to use general references to avoid citation clutter.
Note: I changed the section to References, added subsections Citations and Sources, even though I may have reverted your edits, I have taken your edits in consideration. Gmcbjames (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Thought I would address your concerns regarding consistency with the rest of Wikipedia. All articles are independent of each other, there is no set style in regards to section heading names or format in the MOS. Consistency is in each article and to change style an editor must obtain consensus on the talk page. Style must be in the same format as what was used to create the article - i.e. American English/Month, Day, Year/Miles - for example - so the article remains consistent. So my advise is to always evaluate the article as written (American English/British English/Other English (many)), check for templates at the beginning of the article (say for instance use Month/Day/Year or Day/Month/Year) and don't sweat the small stuff. Gmcbjames (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • On Clay pit, the red-link was alright to remove, however this is not why I reverted the edit - and another editor removed the red-link after my revert of your edit so this has been taken care of though I don't think it was necessary myself. I reverted your edit as categories and the project specific stub tags were removed. This stub article needs expansion and the stub tags need to remain in place until the article is expanded. Again, the categories were appropriate and did not need to be removed.
  • On Kaolinite, we may have to disagree, as I found the edits - while some minor edits within your edits were fine - to not be constructive on the whole. My suggestion would be to add information rather than blanking/deleting information -- if you wish to remove a spammish external link to do so with one edit with an explanation in the summary as to why - rather than to make multiple ad hoc deletions of text with a misleading edit summary.
  • Do see the talk page for the Ceramics redirect here as this may answer your question.
On the whole, your contributions are constructive, my concern in the articles where I reverted your edits is the deletion of information with misleading edit summaries while using an IP address which has a record of only a couple of days. You seem to have a good understanding editing and I wonder how this came about in just a couple of days or maybe you may have forgotten to log-in to your account? Anyway, feel free to make edits - maybe go slower and rather than deleting information - add information finishing off with accurate edit summaries? And do set up a username - I do think you can make the encyclopedia better and would like you to become part of the "community." Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion for clearer edit summaries is to state what edits were made such as "removed redlink." Or when removing text or categories etc. stating in the edit summary exactly which categories were removed or text was removed. You then can explain why you removed the information briefly or if you have made a major edit, just state it on the article's talk page. These are just suggestions - nobody is perfect at edit summaries. Also this makes it easier for an editor to find "missing" information in the edit summaries when looking at the article history - and to avoid adding something already removed. Gmcbjames (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I reviewed your edits on Kaolinite, I agree the external link François Xavier d'Entrecolle [1] was unnecessary and have removed it. Your deletion in the lede: "Alternating layers are sometimes found, as at Providence Canyon State Park in Georgia, United States" as stated to be wp:CSB was not necessary. Instead of deleting where alternating layers can be found, to combat bias and to maintain neutrality, an option would be to add information - another instance where alternating layers can be found. Although tagging dead links is ok, frankly I have found the tag just rots as no one will fix it - so my suggestion would be to try first to fix the link, if it cannot be fixed or a new citation added, then go ahead and remove the dead link.
I hope I have addressed your concerns regarding reverting some of your edits. If you have any further questions, do let me know and I will try my best to answer. If you need assistance and am a new editor, feel free to ask me questions. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
Frankly, I'm surprised a third opinion was brought up from the IP about this considering a single question being posed does not exactly constitute a thorough discussion, but at any rate, while I do believe the IP's edits were made in good faith, I agree with Gmcbjames' reasoning for reverting them. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Malibu Tile[edit]

Hello, I believe you tagged an article I had chiefly written, entitled Malibu_tile, with: {{weasel|date=July 2015}} {{advert|date=July 2015}} {{peacock|date=July 2015}} Attempting to understand these rather broad assertions, I did follow the links and read the content. If the weasel tag refers to, "vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information," I have difficulty understanding how that applies to the article. Is it the vague part? The biased part? Or, the unverifiable part? I've tried to be specific and reference everything that seemed to need documentation. A previous editor did note that some of my descriptions were more emotional than factual--I am so enthusiastic about malibu tile that perhaps that comes across in my writing. On the advert issue, it is not an advertisement for anybody or any company, although Malibu Ceramic Works does play a prominent role. Once one understands that Bob Harris (founder of MCW) singularly revived this historic art form after it had been dormant for nearly 50 years, it is hard not to focus on his accomplishments. I am only a hobbyist in ceramic tile but Harris' body of work is unparalleled, in my opinion. And then the peacock reference (funny that there is a peacock in this article), my understanding is, "This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information." Yes, I acknowledge that it promotes the subject but does it not impart real information? If someone with no prior knowledge of malibu tile reads this article, they don't understand the history, the content or the process any better? I was a professor of Psychology for 17 years and published about a dozen research articles in refereed journals so I understand the importance of writing concisely and documenting opinions and other important references. Perhaps I am over-reacting to your challenge, however, it seems rather heavy handed to insert these exclamation points on top of the article. Wouldn't it be more constructive to place these following the sentences wherein they apply? It's rather difficult to know where to begin with such non-specific feedback. So, where do we go from here? I'd like to take down the exclamation points while you and I have some dialog about your concerns. Can we do that? Best, Dtopa (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Dtopa, hello and thank you for asking. The artile was "tagged" with issues needing to be addressed, and improvement tags are placed the top of the article. I agree tags are obnoxious. I used the least serious of tags which attract the least amount of attention. Actually the article has some serious problems which could lead to its being deleted through AfD.
First I am so glad you are working on an article about Malibu Tile, which is notable. The article has problems as the company Malibu Ceramics Works hasn't thus been shown as notable as required in the notability of companies. While Malibu Tile easily is notable because it is mentioned in secondary and third-party sources. The company MCW seems to be a rather local company with mention in local newspapers? While mentioning MCW is acceptable, giving undue weight to the company is not within policy for notability. If you wish I can give links to policy regarding this issue.
More weight needs to be given to Malibu Tile and the company Malibu Ceramics Works should be condensed down to a short section. I would say spin off Malibu Ceramic Works to its own article, however because of notability issues the article would be deleted. I think Malibu Ceramics Works is an interesting venture and can somehow be included in the artilc about Malibu Tile, however since MCW is only reproducing designs and techniques used by Malibu Tile without any other relationship, I am afraid down the road it will be deleted. Notability cannot be inherited.
As to the tags, you are an enthusiastic writer! Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is very dry - style is from WP:MOS. One cannot help writing favorably about what enjoys or likes, however to be encyclopedic, it has to be clear cut and dry for language. I could remove the "weasel" and "peacock" terms, which will address the issue of reading like an advertisement. Though I thought as a major contributor - creator? - you may wish to give it a go yourself. I am willing to help if you wish. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Very good. I can understand the advertising issue and I think I can reduce the footprint for Malibu Ceramic Works. I'd like the opportunity to clean that up and, at the same time, see if I can find any weasels or peacocks, both of which are pretty nasty animals. If it is OK with you, I will delete the two exclaimed warnings, leaving the advert in. I have a kind of action packed weekend but I will try to get to this at the first of next week. Thank you. Dtopa (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Give it a go Dtopa! I have added an under-construction tag - this will help, as most editors will not tag it further or submit the article for deletion - a process which seems to always end in deletion - unfortunately. See articles Bauer or Rookwood Pottery - both have been reproduced and they both have sections named "Revival." I prefer to give an editor who has worked so much on an article the time to improve it themselves. The Malibu Tile company (short-lived for sure) is an important article. If you need any assistance or have any questions, do let me know. All editors are allowed to remove tags - except in the case of deletion tags. Have fun - and take your time - Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)