User talk:Eyeonit

June 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Kananaskis Country do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 117Avenue (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Hello, I'm Canterbury Tail. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 02:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Banff Springs Hotel. Wikipedia is not a collection 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 attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 18:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user has not added any content to generate search links. It has be added only to provide and enhanced article for the reader. Continued deletion of this material is not in spirit of wikipedia as this content is prefectly valid and in compliance with wikipedia guidlines. This is beginning to feel like targetted harrassment when I an being accused of spamming which is not true. No wonder people are no longer contributing to wikipedia, with this kind of inappropriate behviour by others, why would anyone bother. How do I get all that money I donated to Wikipedia back?

I see your having problems

As I am sure you have noticed all your addition of YouTube links has been removed all over. This would because Youtube is not considered in most cases to be reliable or helpfull to our readers. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID and Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#User-submitted contents. If you have any question just ask here.Moxy (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eyeonit, I've been looking at some of your videos. The problem isn't the content, they're beautiful shots. The problem is the youtube hosting. If you upload some of them to Commons, the way we do photos, they would be a valuable resource. Here is a help link: Commons:Video. It's not super easy, but it's currently the only way to get video onto Wikipedia. Two small changes though, the soundtracks and the watermarks would have to be removed. I can help you with the uploading if you'd like. And I'd disagree with my fellow editors in the liberal use of the term "spam" and "spamming" in this case. The Interior (Talk) 18:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for comments and I will consider that. Youtube is obviously a far superior platform to deliver video that is playable on a wide range of devices and speeds. I also note the Wikipedia article: [1] makes it clear the links I provided are in compliance with the guidelines. The labelling of such links as spam is innappropriate and I appreciate you recognizing that. I would also note that the above proposed YouTube policy was rejected and there is no current ban on links of the type I provided. This policy is incorrectly being used as an excuse for some apparently anti-youtube editors to delete YouTube links enmass as cited in this article:[2] My links are in compliance especially when used as part of an External Links section.

One point of disagreement - YouTube is problematic in that it is chock full of ads, getting worse every day. We're stauchly "anti-ad" here at WP, which might explain some of the resistance to you adding multiple YT links. The Interior (Talk) 19:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would be best to bring up all the links on each talk page if you wish. What has to be considered is what your here for - helping YouTube (BigRockies page) or expanding the articles in question. WP:LINKSTOAVOID is pretty clear on this - to quote "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." I simply don't see how a video like this helps or readers at all - its just a 2 min video of a river - not the least bit educational or informative whats so ever.Moxy (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Moxy. A video of a river is a visual resource, like a photo. It informs the reader of what the subject looks like. For anything in motion, river, waterfall, etc., video is a great way to give a representation of the subject. The Interior (Talk) 20:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will we have to disagree on this point - I would personally not give advise when its the opposite of our policy on the matter - It will only lead to conflict for the editor involved. I am sure you will agree videos of this nature will be removed post hast by most here.Moxy (talk)

It seems to me there is an unfettered bias against YouTube vidoes. I see plenty of written material here that adds absolutely nothing to the articles at all that goes unnoticed. YouTube is however easy to pick out and attack enmass. There is nothing that can deliver the experience of say SunWapta Falls like a piece of well shot video Sunwapta Falls HD Video. This to seems like a huge artifical barrier to the growth of the value of Wikipedia which some editors have taken on themselves without any actual approved Wikipedia policy to back them up. This kind of deletion of valid usefull content needs to stop.

[User talk:Eyeonit|talk]