User talk:174.65.49.241

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Someone using this IP address, 174.65.49.241, has made edits to Amazonite that do not conform to our policies and therefore have been reverted. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles. If you did not do this, you may wish to consider getting a username to avoid confusion with other editors.

You don't have to log in to read or edit pages on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free, requires no personal information, and has many benefits. Without a username, your IP address is used to identify you.

Some good links for newcomers are:

• Help contents – the main help page.
• Quick guide – a "cheatsheet" listing the main editing commands.
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask the Help Desk, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Again, welcome! Hecseur (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome again!

I thought I'd make this message a bit more personal instead of a standardized template, so first of all, welcome to Wikipedia! I saw your 2 recent edits to Amazonite and I see you're eager to get rid of that "citation needed" (I hate those things too). I cannot stress enough how great it is to see new faces try and improve various aspects of Wikipedia, and I very much appreciate you for this. I'm sorry to reverse your edit on Amazonite yet again, but Wikipedia policy pretty much demands it. I was new once, too, and I know learning "the policy" is a nightmare, since it's basically huge wall of text after huge wall of text. I just wanted to let you know I very much appreciate your efforts on Amazonite, and I really hope you find a reliable verifiable source that fixes that disgusting "citation needed".

Don't let policy discourage you from fixing articles!

On another note, you should really consider making an account, mainly for security, as anyone with access to your internet connection can impersonate you and cause havoc (spam, vandalism, among other things) which you will be charged with. I'd make an account for social reasons too, as it's a bit difficult to refer to someone as "174.65.49.241" rather than some username.

Once again, welcome to Wikipedia, I really hope you enjoy your stay and help improve the encyclopedia! Hecseur (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey Hecseur Thanks for taking the time to explain. Call me "174" or "P" if you like.

Ok, one solution is to remove the unsubstantiated opinions ("cheap" and "easily") and add a clear citation without anything that could even appear as promotion.

A couple of notes about the previous edit, though. The Amazon, Egypt and Mesopotamia are mentioned first in the article as sources, albeit historic ones and without any hyperlinks.

While it could be construed as unfair to mention Amelia County "first," indicating that gem-quality material originates from this specific area is neutral and factual. Amazonite is also mined for its mineral content and scientific purposes, not gems, in many locations (see inserted virginia.gov website or references 7 and 8). Any author would be free to add more locations (with citation, of course, haha) for stones used as gems and put them in any order they like, it would not expressly promote any region or interest to provide that information.

With regard to a reference loop, the new website citation to 'occasional use of amazonite as a gemstone' is unique. Although a reference is made on the "Amazonite" Wikipedia page to a PDF published by the same government department about specific gem-quality mine localities and fee and regulatory information in Virginia, that PDF does not make the above referenced statement. Nor does that PDF link to the newly referenced web page which provided the quoted information.

If there are other concerns about circular references or links, happy to help.

Maybe another solution to that passage is to just edit out the paragraph at the end of the intro about gemstones that lacked citation? The standards about bias and POV are in effect for all authors, right? It seems weird to visit this page and see unsupported, biased information without references. That version of the page, even with the label "citation needed," lacks neutrality.

Your attention to detail is appreciated! Cheers 174.65.49.241 (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC) "174" /P

Thank you for this comment 174, you are correct: The fact the information is hosted by the Commonwealth of Virginia is enough to make the source verifiable. I suppose I wasn't attentive enough to notice originally, and that's definitely my bad. Very well done on the (now not very) recent edit, which I tweaked a bit. Here's a pro tip on citing websites: When looking for a name for a website, or a publisher, it's best to first look at multiple locations (tab header, different locations on the website), and using a search engine to see if what comes up is the name you're considering using. The name should be common, simple, and descriptive enough so it's clear what the name refers to.

Going back on track: You deserve a big thank you for the contribution on Amzonite, because without your changes I guarantee that one "citation needed" would've remained there for aeons. If you have any questions, or want to collaboratively work on anything, feel free to contact me on my talk page, I'd be glad to help! Hecseur (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

---