User talk:User name for this site

You need to add REFERENCES!!!! Thank you. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are:

• ASTM Standard C242-00. Standard Terminology of Ceramic Whitewares and Related Products.

• Dictionary of Ceramics 3rd edition. Dodd A., Murfin D. The Instiutue of Materials. 1994.

• Whitewares: Production, Testing And Quality Control. Ryan w. & Radford C. Pergamon Press. 1987

• An Introduction To The Technology Of Pottery. Rado P. Pergamon Press. 1969

• Pottery Science: Materials, Process And Products. Dinsdale A. Ellis Horwood. 1986

User name for this site (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No - YOU NEED TO CITE THEM IN THE ARTICLES (and beware
  WP:COPYVIO - which will get ALL your contributions reverted). See Wikipedia:Citing sources, though personally I would avoid using templates. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • Hello Johnbod:- I do not understand you. Please understand I am new to this website. Would you be as so kind as to explain? And I would also be grateful if you would be both polite and not SHOUT. Thank you.
    • Come on! You must have noticed those little numbers, and the reference sections at the bottom. It's not my job to act as your tutor. There is plenty of help available, and you can ask at Wikipedia:Teahouse, which is full of patient explainers. You have been adding material at a huge rate, but referencing nothing. This is liable to get your contributions reverted. I'd also say you are pitching some additions at a too technical level for Wikipedia. I have to ask, do you actually understand the material you are adding? Some additions have made me wonder. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hello Johnbod - by some considerable distance the page to which I have mostly contributed is that on Pottery Terminology. When I arrived there I found next to no 'little numbers' (your description), and consequently I followed in the same fashion. So, if this is in error the fault starts with others. I did, however, add further sources to the list of books at the bottom of the page, and everything I have added is supported by these.
      • I would be most interested to know what material you wonder that I may not understand, and why you believe this. Please would you explain.
      • Would it be of assistance if I explain my background and experience? (and you as well?)
    • Ok, that's much better. But you need to add page numbers, & you don't need the full title each time. Just saying eg "Rado, p. 123" is fine, now it's listed in the refs. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hello Johnbod - I am still very interested to know what material you wonder that I may not understand, and why you believe this. Please would you explain?

See help:referencing for beginners. There is a tool that will allow you easily add a full citation such as {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, & {{cite news}}. These can include links to articles either directly or by reference. Thank you! Adakiko (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Adakiko:- thank you for the suggestion, which I will study. This is far more helpful and welcoming than 'You're doing it wrong.' User name for this site (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have spent quite a bit of time trying to help you above, with a very grudging response, combined with demands for more from me. On wikipedia, if you are doing it wrong, you can expect this to be pointed out, or often just reverted. Let's see how you get on with the "tool that will allow you easily add a full citation". Johnbod (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johnbod - I do not understand why you have joined a conversation between Adakiko and me, not least as it has nothing to do with you.

Nevertheless, I do not recall that I 'demanded' anything of you, so please would you advise when you consider I did. Equally, I do not recognise how any of my responses to you could be classed as 'very grudging', so please would you advise when I you consider I did.

Questions, questions - I still haven't had the time to do the work on your ones in the previous section. People will join in talk page conversations, especially when they contain a very clear reference to them! Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johnbod:- not for the first time I do not understand you as I am unaware of this apparent 'very clear' reference. I would, again not for the first time, ask that you explain; though to date you have not but have accused me of making demands.

'Questions, questions'. Well, yes. When you add ambiguous or confusing comments then it isn't unreasonable for the person to whom they are directed to seek clarification. Equally this when someone is accused of not understanding a subject about which they have written.

So that I am being very clear: I have not made demands of you. I have not been very grudging towards you. I have not made reference about you.

I kindly ask that should you add comments or observations here that they be polite, respectful and clear.

Seriously? "This is far more helpful and welcoming than 'You're doing it wrong.'" wasn't a reference to my comments higher up? If not, then what did ity refer to? Oh, and please sign your posts. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johnbod:- 'wasn't a reference to my comments higher up?' No.

Please read and follow this. See my corrections at Josiah Wedgwood for a minimalist way to do this. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Chopsticks into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 11:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pottery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dolomite.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is this gibberish edit summary supposed to mean? I can see you are still working on this, but so far much much of it does not seem an improvement. The usual typos & unclear language, & so on. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a

 → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks!

Hello Fred Gandt - thank you for your polite and helpful message: I'm new to Wikipedia, and so am still learning as well as having encountered a number of difficulties. I will try to follow your advice.

You are welcome. Wikipedia is massive and complicated and no one is expected to get everything right all the time. This is a collaborative effort and we're all volunteers. I'm posting a welcome template for you; it contains a lot of helpful info for new editors; no intention to patronise is intended if you already know all the things it outlines.

If you encounter specific difficulties and want to ask for help, you can {{

ping}} me or leave a message on my talk any time. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Fred Gandt - thank you again! Pleasing to receive such another positive, and helpful, message. I had previously noted on my hompage that I 'request polite and respectful dialogue'; this was inspired by many negative comments I've heard from others about this site (these include, to quote from various persons: 'toxic', 'agenda-driven', 'vandals', 'idiots', 'inaccurate', 'untrusted', 'don't believe it', 'biased content', 'contributors focused more on polishing their ego than making good articles', 'unwelcoming to newcomers', 'argumentative d*ckh**ds', 'Dunning–Kruger writers') Too early for me to conclude, but you are certainly helping me to consider it may be a little more positive than those observations. Thank you again.

There are negative and positive people in all walks of life, and editors of Wikipedia are no exception. The requirement to assume good faith lies at the core of the project, so any negativity toward editors and editing that are not obviously and purposefully disruptive is inappropriate. If you are subject to it, don't let it get to you; if reasoned discussion seems impossible, find something more productive to do than banging your head against that wall. With nearly seven million articles and a frankly mind-boggling number of other project pages, there's always something else to do 😊 Always remember that you've volunteered to contribute to a truly massive undertaking; we're attempting to summarize all human knowledge – take a moment to realise the enormity of that. Any and every effort made in good faith deserves respect and thanks. By the way: please sign all posts on talk pages, even your own. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fred Gandt - thank you for your wise words.User name for this site (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome User name for this site!

Hello User name for this site! Your additions to

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Diannaa - for the second time your edit summaries are confusing. In respect of ball clay, your recent edit summaries indicate widescale copyright violation (with the material being removed) whilst not only is the not true but the vast majority of these alleged problematic edits remain in the article.--User name for this site (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only removed the content that was flagged by our detection service. I am unable to gain access to the source article because it's behind a paywall. If you copied additional content from that source, I would appreciate it if you would remove it. The source being Powell, Patrick S. (1 January 1995). "Ball Clay Basics". Ceramic Engineering and Science Proceedings. 16. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 200–206.

doi:10.1002/9780470314708.ch38. — Diannaa (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Dianna - thank you for the reply, and:

• Your edit summaries describe quite a number of my edits as being hidden. The vast majority of these are unrelated to content supported by that single reference you quote. Nevertheless, the content for these erroneously hidden edit summaries remain in the article, which is why I noted confusion.
• Also, I believe I referenced the article from the original source rather than from that online behind a paywall. (althouhgh I can't remember with 100% confidence, and the hiding of the edits prevents me checking.)
• In respect of this 'Ball Clay Basics' article. The extent of copying from it vs written using it has inspiration/reference is open to debate. Neverthless, I can advise the current Wikipedia article contains nothing copied from it.--User name for this site (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In order to completely remove the material from the page history, all the intervening edits have to be hidden, from the time of insertion of the copyright material to its removal. This means that in many instances, harmless edits have to be hidden. — Diannaa (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you explaining the confusion arises from a crude system. Also, whilst I could debate the claim of the one instance of using copyright material (as noted the multiple hidden edit sumamries are erroneous) I won't as it's not worth the time.--User name for this site (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was amused to see you copying the source's typo here! And please learn how to format external links - it's very easy - copy what others do. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again; hope you're doing well. This message is not a warning or in respect of any particular edit or pattern of edits. There is no cause for alarm; I wish only to impart knowledge that may be relevant to you and important regarding your work. Okay? Cool 😉

You may or may not know that Wikipedia has some

Only you know if this information is relevant to you. I am not watching your every move (you're just on my watchlist because we talked before) and know of no reason for anyone to be concerned. Forewarned is forearmed as they say 😊 Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fred Gandt - thank you for the message. In respect of 'you're a published expert': I would not claim to be an expert! (and as an aside, I distrust anyone who claims to be) Nevertheless, I do have experience which inform the edits I have made. I will study the links you provided, although I don't believe they will be of concern.--User name for this site (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not ask if that's you!

Hello, on the kaolinite page, you re-added the "semi-dry noodle" form of the mineral. The talk page has been baffled about what that means for a while. Can you please add context or a link explaining the term? Cerulean Depths (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]