User talk:Ewik

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded! Guy Hatton 10:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] superhighstreet.com link

Please stop. If you continue spamming, as you did in London, you will be blocked from editing. --Siobhan Hansa 13:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect this is not spam. Wikipedia bringing someone who is researching a famous London street, a way to literally walk along it looking at every inch of the architecture and shopfronts, is an incredibly useful tool. Paper encyclopedias can't do that, Wikipedia can. Isn't such a link within the spirit of Wikipedia? --Ewik 19:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I honestly believe that the link you keep adding is perfectly described by point 5 of Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided (external link spamming), and therefore I'm afraid it has no place in any Wikipedia article. Guy Hatton 10:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It actually proves the opposite. The article you cite states the link is suitable because it:

  • Does provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have. I see no interactive hi-res photo-realistic scrolling streetscapes on Wikipedia (any more).
  • I do not own the page.
  • It does not violate copyright - all photography is original according to their (c) statement on the footer.
  • The link is not intended to promote the site, but to provide unquestionably a valuable 'real world' experience to Wikipedia users like myself who are researching that very street.
  • The site is entirely free to use, you do not even need to join or sign up, or buy anything. For the vast majority of its visitors it is a virtual tour resource.
  • This is not spamming - can we drop the alarmism please. I am not putting links to Viagra on here. I am putting links to e.g. a Virtual Richmond Upon Thames High Street on the Richmond Upon Thames page! If that is irrelevant spam, what isn't?
  • It is not a blog, book store, search engine result, fanlisting, etc.
  • It is designed with accessibility in mind, in fact the site is approved by, tested by, and promoted on some Disabled web sites, as it allows people with disabilities who could not otherwise 'walk' down these roads, to do so. You, as editors, are preventing Disabled people from the knowledge of this resource, whilst you happily walk along streets yourself without thought of this.

I hope you can see the value and harmlessness of this entirely relevant link and will restore those removed. --Ewik 16:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We looked at the link and disagree with you. The low quality of the site (it crashes browsers, the "relevant" content is a small proportion of the screen real estate, it is slow, and the "unique" value appears to be a slide show of pictures of shops) makes it unsuitable without regard to considerations such as the commercial intent implicit in adding such a link to articles for which the site does not have any content. If you're interested in building an encyclopedia, please take a look at our welcome page for more on how to contribute constructively. --Siobhan Hansa 21:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If all you see is a slideshow of images, then you are not seeing the streetscape. 1.5 miles of Oxford Street painstakingly recreated for anyone in the world to walk along is not to be sniffed at. Can you elaborate on your claim that "it crashes browsers"? I have yet to see this - what "browsers" are you using? --Ewik 00:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User Ewik knows that I agree with much of what has been just said. For me, in addition, it is the placement of affiliate ads in-between and on top of pictures of shops which is the giveaway. Here is the test - if user Ewik is intent on improving the encyclopaedia, and really does hold the copyright that is contained in the pictures, then s/he will upload the pictures to Wikipedia for free and for the benefit of readers. Won't do it? Why ever not. That is the spirit of Wikipedia. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never said that I own the copyright or the site, quite the contrary. I am just frustrated to be accused of spamming for what I feel was a genuinely great addition to the content of Wikipedia. The Wikipedia pages on these streets give no actual representation of really 'being there'. This site gives you the sights, and sounds. Sure, okay, there are a few small ads in shop windows, but hey it's up to Wikipedia users to decide whether to ignore them and just use the site for free virtual tours isn't it? This is censorship and throwing power around that is most uncalled for in this case. Let users - disabled and able bodied - decide if they want to scroll along the streets cited in these articles. This is an encyclopedia to let people discover more about the world, not a fascist state. Can anyone here deny that the links in question give users a far more immersive user experience than reading the text and the couple of images on Wikipedia itself does? --Ewik 00:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, lets be explicit here: the specific objection is to 'Links intended to promote a site, especially if that site's primary purpose is to advertise or sell products or services'. I cannot see how superhighstreet.com can reasonably be construed as anything other than a novel way of presenting a collection of commercial links, and on that basis, it is link spamming. As for the so-called 'immersive experience' - I think I'm familiar enough with Oxford Street (for example) to know that this site in no way conveys the experience. Furthermore, if an apparent majority of other users who have checked this link are not seeing some marvellous streetscape, or are finding that it crashes their browsers, then it clearly is not of a suitable standard to be referenced. Guy Hatton 08:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I take your points. Where have a "majority of other users" reported that it "crashes their browsers"? I have yet to see one user actually state which browser it crashed, and only one user mention the word crash, seemingly in an exaggerating way "browserS" - unless that person browses the web with 5 browsers simultaneously or something. Seems a bit bizarre to me. If you do not find it recreates Oxford Street, in the fact that it looks exactly like it, sounds exactly like it (click 'activate audio') and that you can see exactly where you are in the aerial photo map... then I can only assume you refer to the fact that it doesn't smell of greasy sausages, fumes, and that you haven't been pickpocketed. But then aren't these good things? Well anyway, I am sorry that the fact it has some commercial links means its usefulness as a free virtual tour site must be hidden from Wikipedia users. I think I had better go through Wikipedia marking the 1000s of other links that feature advertising as 'SPAM!!!!'. --Ewik 12:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The commercial aspect is relevant in this case because it dominated the site and did not add to its encyclopedic value. But it is not the only reason for rejecting the links. Guy did not say the site crashed the majority of users browsers, he said the majority of users were not seeing a marvellous streetscape. In general the consensus of editors who have looked at your site is that it is of low quality - for all the reasons stated above. Removing every external link with advertising would be editing Wikipedia to make a point which is considered vandalism and can result in you being blocked from editing. If you'd like to edit on Wikipedia please see the welcome page for how to edit constructively.
By the way, it was my browsers (yes, more than one, on more than one operating system, I'm quite computer savvy you know) that your site crashed. What those browsers are is irrelevant, we have many readers using all sorts of browsers, so the fact that your website may be only unstable on some browsers isn't much of a plus. I'm not naming the browsers and operating systems because I have no intention of doing your quality control for you (though if established editors would like verification I am happy to discuss the matter with them). --Siobhan Hansa 16:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Siobhan, I really do value and respect your input. You know a lot more about all this than me, and I am still finding my feet with the laws of Wikipedia. I am however confused about this crashing business, as I have now had the chance to try the site I recommended fully on Firefox, IE6, IE7, Netscape, & Safari. I cannot get it to crash. I am also unaware of anyone getting it to. Just to be clear, when you stated initially that "it crashes browsers" this was your first comment. Yet, at this stage, apparently you took the time to load the site on 2 or more different browsers and/or computers. This seems a lot of work to go to when just reverting an edit. Surely if you do this for all sites it takes you twice as long as it should to do your editorial work. Anyway, would you be able to show good faith by advising what browserS this site crashed? I ask this with all due respect, and only because nobody else on this thread, or that I know of, can get the site to crash anything. I hope that you will be happy to support your claims. Many thanks. --Ewik 23:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm not prepared to do your quality assurance for you. Focusing on the crashing is irrelevant because it was only one of many reasons that made me think the site was undesirable. Even in the browser it loaded in it was not a site I think is appropriate link for an encyclopedia. --Siobhan Hansa 00:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned several times, I do not own the site. It is not my quality assurance. Unless you can validate that it crashed any browser - let alone browserS - due to your oddly over-enthusiastic multi-browser testing, people reading this will have to conclude that as you cannot back up this claim, that it may not be true. That leaves me with grave cause for concern, as you did use it as part of your argument for removing the link. It would be quite mean spirited to withhold this information on the basis that you would be helping the site's owners, and do not wish to do so. --Ewik 10:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I appear to be the only one who had the problem, so I don't think it is a big issue. The arguments against the link stand without it crashing anyone's browsers. --Siobhan Hansa 11:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What is of concern is that it appears that not only where you the only one to have the problem, but you also had it on at least TWO different browsers. This is quite a stretch from everyone else having zero crashes, to you having seemingly so much trouble with the site. If you can simply respond with details of the crashes, it will verify that you are being completely honest and that there is no foul play here. It would be pointless to not help this discussion by withholding such simple information. This is Wikipedia, not the FBI. --Ewik 13:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

How would knowing the browsers help this discussion? If you choose not to believe me that's your prerogative. If I had actually lied about trying more than one browser what would stop me from lying about which browsers they were? --Siobhan Hansa 13:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

To refuse to give out such simple info (we can decide if it is true or not) is very pedantic, mean-spiritied, cagey, and suspicious. My faith in editors has not had a good start here. --Ewik 17:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That really doesn't address how the information would be useful to this discussion. --Siobhan Hansa 17:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Because if an editor is resorting to possibly untrue/unvalidated information and refusing to substantiate the allegation of crashing made in a public forum, to the public, then it raises the strong presumption that the editor has some sort of vendetta against the site, as they used it as part of their argument for removing the links - which other editors then picked up on as 'fact' and quoted back in this very thread. I am no longer interested in whether the links are reinstated or not, but do wish to ascertain if that claim was valid. You made the claim in a public forum, then offered only to disclose/prove it in private to other editors. This is an open community and as such you should have no issue being open about what browser crashed, and what you were doing to cause it (so others can replicate). --Ewik 23:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems quite clear from this comment that you are looking for more detail so that you can some how prove me wrong, and that this conversation no longer has any connection to the content for any article. This is of no use to me or Wikipedia and I won't participate in it further. --Siobhan Hansa 12:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please provide an email address to complain about an Editor. In this case making unsubstantiated claims about a website as part of their reason for reverting it, which other Editors then quoted as fact without recreating the alleged crashing of browserS themselves, all whilst continually refusing to back up this very claim which they used as part of their reason for removing the link.

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Ford_Kuga.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ford_Kuga.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ford Kuga.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ford Kuga.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)