Talk:Plasticine

message: A picture of plasticine is needed.--Patchouli 00:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: oh, come on. Who can get confused about plasticine and peistocene? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.226.196 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 16 February 2007
:The question is who wouldn't confuse pleistocene and plasticine?! That's one of my all-time favourite confusions, don't knock it! Or, if you are going to knock it, at least spell pleistocene correctly. Thanks. --Oolong (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peistocene 

message: native resolution:9768x2416 image of a Plasticine art installation.. Suggestions or matters of relevance, please. --Devinly (talk) 03:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panorama 

message: Can someone please find some better external links than the existing two? I understand this may be difficult but really, those links are appalling. One leads to a visual display hosted by the Museum of Bath on which the videos are disabled, meaning there is no information available, and the other appears to lead to forum thread that is barely legible. I will try and find some links when I have time, but until then could someone else please have a go? Faerie Queene (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: swimming ear plugs look like this and windows office does not have this word in its dictionary - I wonder why? is it not a English word?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgkprog (talk • contribs) 19:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk 

message: Though Plasticine may be formed into an infinite variety of shapes, this may be done using just a few simple basic procedures, such as the following:
1) Tubes, rolled, using a flat surface, such as a melamine cheese board, for example.
2) Flat sheets, rolled with a rolling pin or a thick rod. These may be cut into flat shapes with a preferably blunted, pointed kitchen knife
3) Balls, rolled between the palms of the hands in a contrary orbital motion.
4) Freestyle modelling, using the fingers or appropriate tools.
These 4 modes may be combined to fully realise the astonishing range of forms available to the Plasticine sculptor.
In addition, the original Harbutt's factory provided a miniature brick-forming mould which consisted of a small hand-held board about 1 cm thick, pierced with several slots measuring about 1cm x 2 cm. This came with a matching push rod of the same dimensions. Plasticine was smeared into the slots, and the perfectly formed bricks were then rapidly and accurately extruded using the pushrod. 
The author's grandparents possessed an example of this tool which they used regularly at the start of the last century, much as children would now play with Lego.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.124.214 (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  basic modelling strategies 

message: James May's Toy Stories on BBC2, aired 11 July 2010, featured Plasticine, designing a garden for the Chelsea Flower Show, with remarkably good results.78.20.145.31 (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  James May's Toy Stories 

message: But stupidity triumphed again.  I tried to remove that poor quality example of a figure made of Plasticine, but repeatedly the page was vandalized by people putting it back in.  Instead of that piece of crap there should be an example of professional work, like out of Wallace and Gromit or any other professional stop-motion animation using Plasticine.  A bunch of nerds kept blindly reverting my edit and unjustifiably calling it vandalism, though, so I guess that's that.  It's too bad the idea Wikipedia is based on is total bullshit, though.  It's a bit depressing actually.  You're supposed to be able to make an edit, justify it as I did, and at least have a discussion take place before the change is reverted.  No wonder non-nerds like me don't want to bother even changing a typo.  If I did that, no doubt someone like Reaper Eternal would revert it within seconds and call it vandalism.  174.91.1.138 (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the reasons that you were getting reverted was because you didn't use the WP:Edit summary, so it was assumed the removal of content was vandalism. If you would like another picture to be used instead, please visit commons:Category:Plasticine and pick one out, so it can be added to the article. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP may also profit from reading Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Except the article's now been protected against IP edits, after that threat to use "infinite" addresses to keep reverting the deletion. So I've picked an image from the category and put it up myself. --McGeddon (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave a reason in the edit summary that Reaper Eternal either ignored or didn't read.  I would do as you suggest, but we both know that would be changed back in seconds.  The "threat" to use infinite addresses was based on Reaper Eternal not running to his nerd buddies and getting someone with greater power to protect the page.  They don't seem to care that the request was unjustified.  It's funny, a personal attack seems to be considered so much more heinous than unjustified, blind reverts.  A personal attack on someone doesn't automatically make the edits unjustified.  Think about that.  Think - for a change.  174.91.5.19 (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, if I had gone in and made the change you just did - replacing that ghastly picture with something professional that gives people an idea of the quality possible in professional hands instead of something that looks like it was slapped together by a two year old - it would have been reverted.  Even if I had put something on the talk page, a guy like Reaper Eternal wouldn't have looked there before he changed it.  His style is to blindly revert, then seek blocks and page protections.  Imagine if he had been an anonymous IP like me - and had done exactly what he did?  He would no doubt have also quickly found himself blocked.  174.91.5.19 (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you go back to the very first edit today, see , there was no edit summary, and it was immediately reverted by ClueBot in the next edit, probably because of the use of the word "crappy". Perhaps, if you had queried on the talk page first about changing the picture, and not fed the fire in subsequent edits, this wouldn't have happened the way that it did. Think about it. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The first few I didn't give a reason, that's true, but after they were reverted so quickly I did.  Yet they were still reverted because Reaper saw who it was and probably didn't bother to read any justification or if he did read it just rejected it out of hand.  I'm not saying it was all other people, but if someone had bothered to even ask instead of just blocking me...  I could have put someone on the discussion page but at that point I thought it was pointless.  Well, anyway, a better picture has been put up which is all I wanted.  You never know who is going to read this article, and it seems a better idea to have something of professional quality as an example.  174.91.5.19 (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well, I tried 

message: To the best of my knowledge, Aardman don't use Plasticine, they use an equivalent - and in their opinion, superior - product called Newplast.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.194.33 (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aardman Animation 

message: From both this article and elsewhere I looked, it seems that the material actually used by children is indeed "plasticine" or stuff with similar names and composition. But AFAIU in modern American English the activity itself is usually described using the word "clay" like "making models out of clay" or "clay modeling" etc. For instance google search { "clay modeling" children } returns 100K hits. That being said, Wikipedia has clay modeling article and apparently the "real" meaning of the term is some specialized process in automotive design. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMHO in English child play with plasticine is called "clay modeling" 

message: How about the reference to "plasticine porters with looking glass ties" in the Beatles' Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.17.141 (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we have included songs, how about a mention of the film "Dreams in Plasticine"? Kdammers (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucy in the Sky 

message: The periods at the end of the captions in the article's two photos should be removed, per WP:CAPFRAG. Nightscream (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: The two photos' captions

message: "A similar product, "Kunst-Modellierthon" (known as Plastilin), was invented by Franz Kolb of Munich, Germany in 1880... is wrong!
"The story of Kolb begins in 1890 with the invention of plasticine by the Munich pharmacist Franz Kolb. This resulted to the formation of a company, that since then produces modeling clay..."
http://www.kolb-technology.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF-Dateien/Kolb_Classic_D.pdf
End request -->
Nikopolis1912 11:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The English version of that document says the "history of Kolb begins in 1890 with Franz Kolb". According to http://kpi.ua/en/node/9993, his earlier invention was patented in 1880, in agreement with the article. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Disabled for now.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 16 February 2016