User talk:Gemwise

Welcome!

Hello, Gemwise, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Vsmith 02:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that your username is identical to this blog and that your edits seem to be slanted toward promoting the book, "Secrets Of The Gem Trade", and associated website. We welcome your expertise in editing, but please use caution regarding the promotion of any product or website you may be affiliated with (please review WP:Spam and WP:OR). Thank you, Vsmith 02:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vsmith, I am new to this page and not sure how the posting works but let me respond. The book; Secrets of The Gem Trade, promotes a contrarian point of view in the connoisseurship of gems and my posts promote or support the same point of view. I have posted the reference for those who wish to read more. In some cases this material is online and free. It seems to me reasonable to add the book to the reference section where appropriate.

RW

Thanks for the response. However, please consider carefully the No original research policy and use published sources other than, or in addition to, your own book for references (Citing only your book would appear to be self-promotion). If there are no other sources supporting your contrarian view, then those edits may need to be removed. Also, please read WP:NPOV and use caution when writing about your point of view. Vsmith 12:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your edits as either self promotional and/or original research. You are welcome to edit, but please follow policy guidelines. Vsmith 00:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vsmith, I see that you have removed everything I added. Some was promotional, my apoligies. However, much of the material on quality in gemstones is necessarily without objective foundation, that is, if such a foundation must be measurable in some scientific way and is, therefore only an opinion. Seems like your approach to "no original research" includes both published and non-published if the author of the published material is making the contribution. My book is virtually the only book on the subject of quality in gems so much of my material has not, by definitin, been published elsewhere. I say modestly, I am one of the recognized experts in that field. (I wonder what you might have said to Galilleo were he alive and tried to make an "original" contribution. Given the rules, Wikpedia would still be promoting a flat world view) Much of what I might write would be, by definition, unsupported by other publications. Therefore I see little use in making any additional contributions. If it is not already posted you will construe it as orignal and delete it and if it is "my point of view" then it is "promotional" and you will delete it. Sorry, don't believe I have any wiggle room.

Richard

Ruby

Nomination as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month candidate

The Hope Diamond, an article you have edited recently, has been nominated to be a future United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month. All editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to participate. You can vote for this or other articles article of the Month here. --Kumioko (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at International_School_of_Gemology, you may be blocked from editing. v/r - T P 14:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your talk page posts. What's with the phoney "platitude" stuff? Vsmith (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense! The additions were all documented and factual!

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jean-Baptiste Tavernier may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

at the behest of his patron, Louis Xiv, published ''Les Six Voyages de Jean-Baptiste Tavernier'' (''Six Voyages.''.<ref>{{cite book|last=Alam|first=Muzaffar |coauthors=Sanjay Subrahmanyam|title=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

VSmith,

I take exception to your characterization. You had a stub you wanted expanded and you want attribution, I gave you both. Why do you have a stub only? Perhaps because there is little available in the literature. I just happen to be one of the acknowledged experts in this field. My book is referenced multiple times by multiple people on gemstone topics throughout Wikipedia and is the only one that really treats this gemstone variety in a comprehensive manner, If Joe Blow posted the same material would you delete? So...Let me repeat:

Much of the material on quality in gemstones is necessarily without objective foundation, that is, if such a foundation must be measurable scientifically. Beauty is, as they say in the eye of the beholder and my opinions are, therefore only an opinion. Seems like your approach to "no original research" includes both published and non-published. What if the author of the published material is making the contribution? Should it not be attributed? Must someone else come along and make the attribution? My book is virtually the only book on the subject of quality in gems so much of my material has not, by definition, been published elsewhere. I wonder what you might have said to Galilleo were he alive and tried to make an "original" contribution. Given the rules, Wikpedia would still be defacto promoting a flat world view. Much of what I might write would be, by definition, unsupported by other publications. Therefore I see little use in making any additional contributions. If it is not already posted you will construe it as orignal and delete it and if it is "my point of view" then it is "promotional" and you will delete it. Sorry, don't believe I have any wiggle room.

BYW Secrets of The Gem Trade is out of print. Hard to promote a book that is no longer for sale.

RWWPlatitude 16:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemwise (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 October 2015‎

(reply copied from my talk) It appears the book in question (Secrets of the Gem Trade) was published by Brunswick House Press and little seems available about that. Appears to be for self-publishing and not a reliable press. Self published material fails WP:Reliable sources. Therefore, it seems to not be a good source regardless of who would use it here. Vsmith (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting line of reasoning, borderline insulting, but perhaps I would be a bit crotchety if I had your job. If you check you will find that virtually all serious gem/gemology books are published by small presses or are self-published. This includes such luminaries as Richard W. Hughes, John Koivula, Rene Neuman, Antoinette Matlins, Fred Ward the late John Sinkankas. The book was a best seller and well reviewed by the major reviewers including Gems & Gemology, Gem Market News, Rappaport, etc. Much of the information in the book was taken from articles I published in Gems & Gemology, National Jeweler, Gem Market News, Colored Stone and GemkeyvMagazines. Unfortunately, several of these magazines have ceased publication and only G&G retains any sort of archive, so references would be difficult to check. /

So, if I paste in the information without attribution, it will not be promotional, correct? So, then you can tag as REQUIRING ATTRIBUTION and perhaps someone will come along and footnote my book. That, I take it, will be acceptable.

Platitude 14:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC). I believe this constitutes a signature.

Gemwise 14:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]