User talk:Gmcbjames/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The beginning...

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please let me know what you think of a new article I wrote, Gladding, McBean. Perhaps we can collaborate. Cullen328 (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Cullen328, you did a fantastic job on the GMcB page. You took it from a non-notable company to notable! I am so happy. Editing the new GMcB page will be fun - and a complete first for me on Wiki - I look forward to our collaboration. Gmcbjames (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your very kind words. I want to emphasize that I am not an expert on Gladding, McBean in particular or pottery and ceramics more broadly. When a topic catches my interest, I read as many reliable sources as I can find, and try to summarize the topic in an encyclopedic way. I had been gathering information on Gladding, McBean for a few months, but was motivated to bring the article to Wikipedia main space because I was in Lincoln on business last week, and had the chance to take a few pictures of the plant. In my opinion, the images add a lot. It is completely a coincidence that you got involved at the same time. If I can help you in any way in learning Wikipedia policies, guidelines and culture, don't hesitate to ask. You might start by reading WP:SELFCITE. By the way, Gladding, McBean has been notable for a very long time. I just documented its notability for Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Jim, thank you! I am sure I will run up against something I cannot figure out. I have only been doing this for a week, and I have learned a lot already by your GMcB page. I will try to edit the GMcB page gracefully. I cannot believe how much you were able to gather for the page. I have been researching GMcB for about 30 years, and I am impressed. Thank you for the tip on reading selfcite. Gmcbjames (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Read selfcite. No problems I am aware of - being on expert on Franciscan Ceramics or on any of my other areas of interest as noted on my user page - has never been profitable. I would even settle for break even. My only interest has been on the preservation of the history of Franciscan Ceramics (GMcB & Interpace) as nobody was doing it and somebody should. Somehow I have become the expert, time does that. So if it is an article on GMcB or Franciscan Ceramics, my published books will appear. I will try to cite more directly to the source when possible - and not be too lazy to just cite my published works. Wikipedia is sort of limiting - news, journals, web site, or book - as so much of the research materials I use are from interviews (conducted by me), and original factory papers in my archives which are not offered as an option for citing. I could cite the Franciscan Ceramic Archives, however the collection is still mine yet to be donated & accepted by an archival museum. Also, I should let you know the Franciscan Web Site has been mine since its inception in 1996. So if it is Franciscan related, all roads will eventually lead to me. My rule of thumb - correct me if I am wrong - if it would be cited from my books as a matter of course, then I should go ahead & cite my books. If there is another source with the same information, use that cite. Unfortunately so much of the information available online or by other writers is inaccurate regarding Franciscan ceramics. I do wish I could cite directly the factory records in my archives - the only archives from the former Franciscan Ceramics plant in LA (Glendale plant) in existance...unfortunately. Gmcbjames (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Citing your books

I think you are taking the proper approach here. Cite other works whenever possible. Cite older works that you ran across in your own research. However, cite your own works when they are clearly the best sources, but disclose on the article's talk page that you are the author. Defer to other editors if they suggest alternative sources. Being reasonable and collaborative will win you lots of "brownie points", so to speak. I have great respect for those who study our history and heritage, and share their knowledge with others. It is a pleasure to make your acquaintance. Cullen328 (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Style regarding capitalization

I changed capitalization in one of the section headings. The accepted style on Wikipedia is to capitalize only the first word of article titles and section headings, plus proper names as well. Those of us who love caps in headlines may find it a bit "low key" but that's the accepted standard here. Cullen328 (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Editors have noted my use of "Germanic Style" rather than the more modern style - which is a really hard habit to break.Gmcbjames (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"Sort of limiting"

I understand your frustration, but the Wikipedia policy on no original research is an important component of Wikipedia's credibility. When we write here, we are supposed to be reporting strictly and only what the reliable sources say. We provide those sources, ideally, as inline references so that the interested reader can verify on their own the claims we make in our articles. Historical journals published with professional editorial control are the proper places to publish original research. Then, that research can be summarized and referenced here. Cullen328 (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Gladding, McBean et al notes

I will post my notes here - on my user talk page - on GMcB. Thank you for all of your help.

Here are a few notes on Gladding, McBean (GMcB):

I moved the merger of Interpace and added merger. I felt it wasn't part of decline as Interpace was quite profitable until the mid-70s - due to the gas crisis & inflation causing the collapse of the building market.

I am trying to find citation for the primary reason for the merger into Interpace. West coast GMcB & East coast Lock Pipe merged as they wanted to expand nationwide and then worldwide - hence the name "International Pipe & Ceramics." This has yet to be published, however this will be in a book to be published this fall. The other factor of imports was a concern, but not major at all as GMcB was already producing dinnerware in Japan for importation. Imports were a concern prior to 1955 and into the 1960s, and this is why the design staff was reorganized and the company began production in Japan. Two sources available are GMcB/Interpace annual reports & the corporate in house publication - Interpacer.

Just so you know - I was a contributor & the source for Kovels and the Replacements book by Bob Page. I was also the source for a number of publications on Franciscan & Gladding, McBean. Most of the time I am listed in the credits. Unfortunately I never had a chance to fact check prior to publication, so these sources are not very reliable at times. Also it wasn't until 2005 I acquired the archives of the Glendale plant - so many of the facts are inaccurate or incorrect - even in my own publications. Gmcbjames (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Added the Franciscan Ceramics to Wiki. Still needs to be review by someone other than me. Wiki linked GMcB with Franciscan Ceramics. Gmcbjames (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing question

When linking to wiki article, is it appropriate to do it on the first instance, rather than throughout the article every time? Gmcbjames (talk) 03:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the general practice is to Wikilink the first mention of another topic within an article here. In most cases, once is enough. It's not necessary to Wikilink obvious things. For example, if you write a lot of articles on companies, you don't need to Wikilink to an article about "company". But you would want to Wikilink to "Chapter S corporation" for example. If the article is very long, and the other topic isn't mentioned for many paragraphs, then Wikilinking at the second mention of the other topic may be advisable, but this is an editorial decision and is optional. The idea is to put yourself into the shoes of an interested reader who is a beginner to the topic. For U.S. topics, I think of an imaginary eager young learner in Bangladesh. Link to anything that would help such a person understand the main topic better. Hope this helps. Cullen328 (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

I want to offer congratulations on bringing your Franciscan article to the Wikipedia main space. You are now a Wikipedian and an encyclopedist. I would like to do a detailed review but I have a tough work project to complete tomorrow and then will be doing a 24 hour Relay for Life for the American Cancer Society this weekend. So, please forgive me if it takes a while to offer detailed comments. Cullen328 (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments, I really appreciate all of the assistance you have given me. Have a great time at the relay - you have way more energy than I do. I will look forward to your edits/comments. Gmcbjames (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Ink Dish

Hello Gmcbjames. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Ink Dish, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article asserts importance both through coverage in reliable sources, as well as asserting to win an award. Not an A7. Thank you. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 12:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately (CSDH) software cannot read - "being named to Metropolitan Home's 2009 Design 100 list" is not an award, just a list. All references are for press releases in "what to buy" sections of newspapers/magazines, and blogs (whose reliability can be easily questioned) - both not establishing notability. Ink Dish is an blatant advertisement, and hence instead of A7, I have sent it back to speedy deletion for G11, Unambiguous advertising or promotion - although this article has so many other problems.Gmcbjames (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed request for speedy deletion G11 and edited what I could to help the article Ink Dish conform with wiki policy regarding an encyclopedic article.Gmcbjames (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Pickard China

Moved discussion to Talk:Pickard China/Archives/2011#Content removed. Gmcbjames (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing with a conflict of interest

On the off-chance that your user name "Gmcbjames" indicates a relationship with the Gorham Manufacturing Company, let me direct you to our policies about editing with a coflict of interest. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I never thought of that before - gmcb could be interpreted as Gorham Manufacturing Company. No problem at all with WP:COI, as I have no connection to any companies including Gorham. Thank you for your concern. Gmcbjames (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, sorry to have bothered you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessments

Hi, thanks for helping out with assessing requests! When you assess an article on Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment, could you please post your comment to the article talk page? No one will find the comment in the edit summary removed from the article talk page and your comment which could help improve the article would be lost. Regards Hekerui (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

My comments on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment history page are for other reviewers & for the history of the page, and comments, usually the same, for the article are on the article's talk page for the history of that page and for possible improvement of the page.Gmcbjames (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed in your edit summaries you write "leave note." We can all use help for edit summaries...especially me. May I suggest using "left note" or maybe "see talk page" for clarity as "leave note" implies a reminder to oneself to leave a note or a request for someone else to leave a note. Gmcbjames (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's an abbreviation for "I leave a note" - I won't write "left a note" when it refers to an action happening in the present time. As for the assessment, I just wanted to make sure your comments won't go unnoticed by editors so I suggested you write them down on a talkpage because people really don't check article histories for improvement suggestions. Hekerui (talk) 08:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your recent assistance in fulfilling the backlog of article assessment requests for WikiProject Biography. Within the past few months, I have become one of the few Wikipedians to actively continue using the WikiProject's Article Assessment Requests page, and have thus far only recieved substantial assistance from one other user in fullfilling asessment requests. --TommyBoy (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Roca (company)

Hello, sorry for the late answer. When I created the Roca (company) page it was simply a company stub. Nothing written like an advertisement. Not sure how it looked before deletion, but the solution was to revert to a previous valid version, not to delete the page. That's what I think. —  Ark25  (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Mark Satin

I'm always interested in learning about other wikiprojects' assessment criteria, and this article is about to go to peer review. Do you have any opinion on which of the B-class criteria this article fails? You just assessed it as C-class. - Dank (push to talk) 16:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Dank, just a few MOS tweeks - captions should be concise, and clean up a few redundancies - terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. I find captions problematic myself as I tend to be wordy. Also, and very minor - the first instance of "wasn't" should be "was not" to avoid contractions per MOS, the second "wasn't" is ok as it is in a quote - contractions are fine if in quotes per MOS.

If it is a MOS issue easily corrected by me, I will do it. However, I don't correct captions or text. If you feel the captions cannot be more concise, please let me know.

Thank you for asking about my subjective opinion on how I assess - I may be a little too picky about style for a B class assessment, however I feel a B class assessment is ready for a peer review and all MOS fixes should have been addressed. Do let me know if you wish me to reassess the article, I will be glad to or else you can post it again for assessment on biography. Gmcbjames (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much; I hadn't looked at the captions myself. I'll check for contractions. - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3