Talk:Glassblowing

message: I added the informational website www.glassblower.info to the Wikipedia page about Glassblowing.
It was removed by TeapotGeorge less than 8 hours later based on the (false) assertion that the external link I added to the page Glassblowing "do not comply with our guidelines for external links", and further makes the claim that my external link falls within the definition of "spam by COI editor" (Conflict of Interest).
But that assertion is false for the following reasons:
1. The guidelines for External links specifically allows that "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or AMOUNT OF DETAIL, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."
2. I argue that that guideline was fully met with the including of the www.glassblower.info link
3. I would point out, I carefully chose the domain name within the fullest goal for the INFO TLD, namely "the domain is intended for informative Internet resources."  I would note that even wikipedia feels that "COM" meaning COMmercial is more appropriate TLD for its own website?
4. With more than 2,200 web pages (based on XenuLink scan) www.glassblower.info contains far more content than a wikipedia article could ever contain on the subject of glassblowing, and it is solely for the acceptable purpose to "contain further research" for anyone who is interested in learning more (much more) about glassblowing.
5. I would also argue that TeapotGeorge's COI assertion is not accurate.  From the Wikipedia page concerning COI: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups."  In fact, the purpose of the external link is to provide INFORMATION (just as the TLD states) far beyond that which Wikipedia itself can provide.
6. I would also take TeapotGeorge to task for labelling my external link "spam", which under the most common definition is based on "unsolicited bulk messages", which was certainly not the case, and i had, in fact, tried to describe my change in the "revision history of glassblowing" which, I would have thought, shown this to be a fully-thought out re-adding of an informational website which had been part of this article in the past, but was found to be missing, I had assumed due to vandalism. 
In summary, I assert that www.glassblower.info is a non-commercial INFORMATIONAL website, and is definitely appropriate resource for someone seeking more detailed information about glassblowing.
Tonyspatti (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have made one edit in 3 years...namely to add your own website to the glassblowing article. The article already has numerous external links. Your addition is more about promoting you and your website than improving wikipedia. TeapotgeorgeTalk 20:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, rather than address the substantive points in my discussion above, there is a new criteria you hypothesize as to the number of edits per year, that can be applied to remove someone's addition to wikipedia?  And why, might you ask, would I not be making a lot of changes to Wikipedia -- for the exact enumerated reasons above -- that I am adding tons of content to www.glassblower.info.  And please, tell me, just what is the differentiating factor as to why "Glossary of Tools & Equipment for Glassblowing" (which is a COM TLD) by Mike Firth (the last of the "General" links) acceptable but the much larger www.glassblower.info (truly INFO TLD) is not? Look at the title and H1 header tags of Mike Firth's website http://mikegigi.com/start.htm is somehow NOT self-promoting (with his name first in both) and you apparently accept as a valid external link for Wikipedia??? Your thinking seems not very well reasoned in this matter.  Tonyspatti (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My point exactly you are more concerned with adding content to your OWN website rather than improving Wkipedia by adding content to the article. The other external link could also go probably ? Feel free to ask for others comments here...Wikipedia:Requests for comment TeapotgeorgeTalk 22:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

text:  I am a subject matter expert in glassblowing, and the article on Wikipedia is a decent brief introduction to this topic, but my goal of providing MUCH MORE INFORMATION through another website is not reason enough to remove the external link, especially since Wikipedia implictly envisions through its guidelines for External links that such external websites will be there to provide MORE INFORMATION for those who want to drill-down into greater details .  By your own admission, you have not applied the  same criteria you apply to my link to the other five links, when in fact, you don't dispute the Mike Firth's web page is (literally) on its face very self-promoting -- using his personal name at the beginning of the TITLE and H1 -- have you removed that external link yet? Tonyspatti (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

text:  TeapotGeorge, I must also take you to task for self-contradictory statements you made about me and what I wrote.  You claimed that my one-line addition to the Glassblowing article constituted "spam" (which I take to be a very serious accusation since spam email involves US Federal Laws, it seems to me that a person should not accuse someone else of spam without sufficient cause), but on the other hand, you stated later that I only made one edit in three years.  So, I must insist, do you stand-by your earlier claim that I SPAMMED Wikipedia, and if so, what is your definition of spam, because it might be different than most people (and Wikipedia itself)? Tonyspatti (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Spam, at Wikipedia, refers to improper external links added to Wikipedia articles...
Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a Web site or a product is considered spam, and isn't allowed.  (For more information, see WP:SPAM.) TeapotgeorgeTalk 22:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

text: That's exactly my point TeapotGeorge, the guidelines you cite state (direct quote) "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." BUT THE PURPOSE IS **NOT** TO PROMOTE A WEBSITE, but as I've said multiple times, THE PURPOSE OF WWW.GLASSBLOWER.INFO IS TO PROVIDE AN EXTERNAL WEBSITE WITH A GREAT DEAL MORE GLASSBLOWING INFORMATION, WHICH I STATED IN MY ENUMERATED ORIGINAL POINT #1 ABOVE IS WHOLLY WITHIN WIKIPEDIA'S "Guidelines for External links" from which I quoted directly.  I feel that you, and Wikipedia, should apply the guidelines consistently, and yet you have failed to address the issue with respect to Mike Firth website still, haven't you? Please answer this one direct question: how is his website (with his name first) not self-promoting and acceptable to you, but my website with more than 2,200 pages of glassblowing information truly within the INFO TLD is not? Tonyspatti (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Since there has been no further posting by TeapotGeorge, I note for the purposes of this discussion that at 22:31 UTC 18 May 2010 TeapotGeorge removed the external link www.glassart.org for the Glass Art Society (generally known by its acronym GAS), the largest international non-profit organization to advance the appreciation, understanding and development of the glass arts worldwide. WHILE LEAVING THE VANITY DOMAIN http://mikegigi.com (Mike Firth and his wife Gigi).  I further note that since making the change at 22:31 UTC, there has been no further discussion by TeapotGeorge concerning my claim that the external link of www.glassblower.info is in the spirit and intent of the quoted sections of Wikipedia's "Guidelines for External links".  So, TeapotGeorge, can you explain the reasoning behind your choosing one external link and not the other (and removing mine, whose purpose is in conformance with Wikipedia's "Guidelines for External links")? Tonyspatti (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick notice: the issue has been raised at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Glassblowing by Teapotgeorge; feel free to continue the discussion there. jonkerz♠ 14:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I have responded in detail on that page, and hope that the Wikipedia community will agree that www.glassblower.info is a valid external reference providing a wealth of Glassblowing information, and the addition of www.glassblower.info fully conforms to Wikipedia's Guidelines for External Links. Tonyspatti (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion concerning removal of www.glassblower.info external link by TeapotGeorge earlier today

message: I'm sorry - but I've never heard the term "glassmith" used to refer to a glass blower.  Can anyone verify that this word exists?  Is it specifically British usage? 130.91.117.61 17:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Glassmith...

message: Nice example of the timeless art of glassblowing...*cough*... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.173.46.2 (talk • contribs) 2005-06-17 20:39  (UTC)
To the poster above: Say something constructive, or screw off.
Anyway, this is a fairly decent article, but maybe breaking things down into better categories a bit and expanding things would make it better. I'll be looking for some things to add. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.19.206.239 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-17 19:44  (UTC)
::Good work, whoever developed this article, amazing list of schools! -Fennel 06:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice example...

message: When it comes to present day glass blowing, the whole paragraph is only about US studios. The famous work from e.g. Sweden and Czech Republic is missing. I didn't know how to put that particular box on the article section, so I left my remark here. I can add something about Sweden (will do soon) but then the rest of the planet is still missing. Pepijnk (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  US focused / lacks world perspective 

message: There is a large jump in the historical section.... There is no information about glassblowing from the middle ages through the 1960s! Particularly, no mention is made of the late 19th/early 20th c. revival of "art glass" - Lalique, Tiffany, etc...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.242.137 (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something missing between the middle ages and the present.... 

message: I came to this page following a pontil link from the Crown glass (window) entry.  Eventually I found a reference to a punty with a link that redirects to the same page.  I am no wiser! Old Aylesburian (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circular Reference 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Glassblowing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324192422/http://nostetangenmuseum.no/?page_id=14 to http://nostetangenmuseum.no/?page_id=14
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Added Image of Glassblowing demo in 2010 LukeRichards18 (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Article has a lot of images already, so without an obvious place for this I'll leave it here for regular editors of the page to decide -- a featured picture on Commons. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  FP 

message: “Literary sources have traditionally given the birthplace of glassblowing as the Phoenician coast. However, on archaeological evidence it seems more likely that the invention took place in the Aleppo-Hama-Palmyra”
Source: 
Conservation and Restoration of Glass - Page 101
The history section can be renewed. Whatsupkarren (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glass blowing oldest evidence