User talk:Npgallery/Archive1

nationalparksgallery.com

I've noticed that you have been promoting this site through insertion in a large number of articles. I don't mean to take away from your work, but I'm concerned about partiality. Would you care to disclose your relationship to nationalparksgallery.com?

Jbetak 22:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just think it's a relevant site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npgallery (talk • contribs)

Well, that may be so. I think it would be far more helpful to incorporate most of the info contained there into Wikipedia. Especially since the site is loaded with online ads.

Jbetak 23:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not going to violate copyright by copying material from there to Wikipedia. The site isn't "loaded" with ads either, and it's a moot point anyway.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Npgallery (talk • contribs)

Certainly -- I'm not implying that you should, and I would be happy to explain how. I think that you have done some good work on Wikipedia and I hope that you'll continue doing so. However, from my experience creating 30 links to a site of commercial character on a single day will raise an eye brow or two. Especially when your user ID implies some sort of affiliation with the site in question. This is frowned upon and I can point you to several examples of similar situations if needed. Normally, this results in a wholesale removal of the links in question.

Jbetak 01:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

>I would be happy to explain how

How?

What examples of similar situations?

BTW, how do I go about contributing images? There's Wikipedia but there's Wikipedia commons. I think I'd like the Creative Commons attribution license. Can attribution links for images appear in articles?

Npgallery 02:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your follow-up and my apologies for the delay :-) You might want to risk a look at e.g. Carpictures' talk page. Images can be contributed via the "Upload file" link from the menu on the left. Ideally, one would contribute to Wikipedia Commons, but that's not a prerequisite. AFAIK there is a migration taskforce (including several admins) - I'd let them mop up ;-) A direct upload with a permission from the photographer (or license holder) should be more than enough. I have found Flickr to be a great source of images - most amateur photographers are thrilled to see their images published and are more than willing to grant the requisite license...

Best

Jbetak 02:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some Wikipedia policy against adding links for a specific site? If it's relevant and distinctive, then I don't see a problem. Several other users have added links to the same sites (compassmonkey, terra gallery). Is there some Wikipedia policy against commercial sites? The number of ads a site can contain? If Wikipedia wasn't funded, you can be sure it would display ads too. Npgallery 22:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Perhaps I can answer some of your points. There is no policy against adding links for a specific site per se. However, Wikipedia is one of the 50 largest websites in the world and can do wonders for the Google ranking of any site that is linked within it. Because of this we are regularly link spammed, which means that commercial concerns who wish to increase traffic to their site tend to try to add links to their websites in an effort to increase traffic. Often, since the addition of such links is concerned with their profit and not the benefit of improving an encyclopedia, those links are unwanted and may be removed by other users. One tell-tale sign of a link spammer is that their contributions tend to be solely or mostly the addition of the same link to numerous articles and such users tend to start getting their contributions reverted (ie rolled back).

There is no policy against commercial sites. However, because of the reasons stated above, links tend to survive only if the site offers real value to a reader interested in the article that the link exists in.

Nobody counts the number of ads at the commercial sites linked to.

If Wikipedia was not funded (and this is only my opinion) it would more likely not exist rather than contain ads, since many of the volunteers that make it what it is would abandon ship. Another way to look at it is, "if Wikipedia were funded by ads, it would not receive funding". At any rate, it is no point arguing about "what ifs...".

Our full policy/guidelines is available here: Wikipedia:External links. --bodnotbod 02:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to want the link to your website (based on your username, I assume it's your website) on the Bryce Canyon National Park page. I removed it stating spamish - low quality pictures, commercial website with lots of ads, many better pics out there, but then you put it right back saying rv vandal. Nationalparks 04:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not only this, but you've added similar links to many of the other NPS sites. Also, for others looking at this, please see Talk:Bryce_Canyon_National_Park#nationalparksgallery.com. Nationalparks 07:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 6, 2006

May we remind you to be civil and to not form personal attacks or edit wars through your or others' comments; doing so will only cause tension and annoyance. (CJ) Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Pschemp | ^Talk 07:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks? Whatever, you're the one who committed libel and defamation and made personal attacks - see Pschemp's remarks on nationalparks's talk page. Npgallery 20:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -gadfium 08:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's NOT link spam. They are high quality links that have been in Wikipedia for a long time. Where do I complain about your knee-jerk abuse of power in reaction to Pschemp? Npgallery 20:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although they have been here for a while, there have been numerous edit wars over them in the past (see this for just one example). The three of us are not the only ones who feel this way. Look at the above conversations on this page, those at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#Spam_or_not_Spam.3F, etc. Nationalparks 21:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for spamming

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.

Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jdavidb clearly didn't see that I didn't "continue to add "spam" links since receiving a warning from another mod. Yet he banned me anyway - clearly a case of admin abuse and his not paying attention to detail.

Just before he was blocked, he started this: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-06 Pschemp. Nationalparks 22:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]