User talk:Aghose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing. --Yamla 20:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You are posting link spam. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy. Please ask if you have any further questions. --Yamla 20:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you please explain which of the three criteria on WP:EL you think your links fall into? They certainly don't seem to fit into the What should be linked to category. It does not seem to fall into the Maybe OK to add category either. This only leaves What should not be linked to, which seems to me to be what your links fall into. Why do you think this is not the case? --Yamla 21:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You may also want to read Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming for more complete information. --Yamla 21:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

3. An article about a book, a musical score, a webcomic, a web site, or some other media, should link to the actual book, musical score, etc. if possible. (In this case, the Black Eyed Peas article links to music from the Black Eyed Peas)

Well, it doesn't work for me. All it does is produce a list of songs, I can't click on any of them. In any case, this point is clearly talking about linking to the official website. For example, an article on Penny Arcade should link to their website. Similarly, an article on the band, Black Eyed Peas, should link to their official website.

If that is the case, why are non-official fansites included with official fansites? For example, the Coldplay entry includes both the official fansite as well as non-official fansites.

Secondly, you can click on any of the songs and they will certainly play. There is also additional biographical and discography information if the reader wishes an additional source beyond Wikipedia.  :)

6. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews. (In this case, music from the Black Eyed Peas is meaningful and relevant)

A sample of their music (say, fifteen seconds) would certainly be relevant, more especially if the article was discussing some scandal regarding their lyrics and the sample demonstrated this. I don't agree that a list of what appear to be web-radio stations is relevant. Others may disagree, however.

Here's the reason I disagree - if a sample is relevant, then the full song should be relevant as well. Right?

3. Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (In this case, a collection of fansites and music)

Right, to one major fansite. Most (all?) of the sites you added your links to already had at least one such link, so this is a strike against adding more.

Here's the difference...more fansites simply equal more of the same (news, reviews, pictures, etc.). The site I added includes full-length songs, which is substantially different (and valuable) for the reader. Can we agree that the ability to listen to an artist's music has value for the reader?

Secondly, a number of articles (Coldplay) include links to more than one fansite. Some articles (the Beatles) include multiple fansites. Why should one fansite be included over another?

Additionally, under the what should not be linked to section, we have point 2, no linking by the site operator. I don't know if you are the site operator or at all affiliated with them. Points 3 and 4 talk about sites that exist to sell products or advertising, which seems to be the case here, though I can't tell as none of the links work for me. Point 6, the site requires Windows Media Player.

Then, on to the How not to be a spammer. By posting the site on all those pages, aren't you in violation of point 1, Review your Intentions? It seems that you are promoting the website itself. You also fall foul of point 5, Adding many links to (or mentions of) the same site or product. Also, Adding the same link to many articles.

On this point we're agreed. That said, how many links may I contribute without violating point 1? If IMDB (owned by Amazon.com) may be included in multiple instances, what is the appropriate number? Is it 1 link? 2 links? Please advise and I am glad to comply.

Anyway, in all of this, I do appreciate your willingness to stop and to discuss the problem. Thanks. --Yamla 21:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Likewise Yamla, I appreciate your time as well. Cheers.  :) ASG 23:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Artist 640 480.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Artist 640 480.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Home 640 480.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Home 640 480.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)