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)

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)

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)

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)

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. This is an application of an unapproved policy that is being to justify the deletion of perfectly valid youtube links and it needs to stop. Eyeonit

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 External links/Perennial websites. If you have any question just ask here.Moxy (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

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: 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:  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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Sorry, Moxy, I wasn't arguing for its inclusion as a YouTube link, but defending video content in general. I do agree we shouldn't put it in as an external link to YouTube.  The Interior  (Talk) 21:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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. Eyeonit
 * Its the platform, not the content, that is the issue. If you want to donate video content to wiki, you will be fully supported in that.  I'll help you any way I can. But we are looking for free content, and freely usable content.  YouTube is a commercial service, with copyrighted, non-freely-usable videos, and to access content there you have to watch ads.  We're trying to give our readers an informative, yet ad-free experience. That's part of what makes the wiki so popular. As Moxy says, a YouTube vid would have to be a really excellent resource, say a video history of Sunwapta, before we'd consider it a valuable external link. We're weighing the benefit to the reader against the commercial nature of the delivery platform. For instance, I have a YouTube channel, with content that could help Wikipedia articles.  But instead of linking to the account, I upload my videos through Commons as freely usable, public domain content.  Then I put the videos into articles formatted like the images (which is much better - they get a screenshot and playing window). I've had no problems with that approach.  The Interior  (Talk) 21:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with The Interior on how to get vids here. Eyeonit you are correct in that " bias against YouTube vidoes" excites - but this would apply to any user generated site that is made for profit. The problem your going to have with adding YouTube videos is many editors (including myself) use a program  to tell us when YouTube or lets say find a grave  is being placed in articles. Thus basically there are many many editors that will get a waring of inappropriate links - and if they see your only contributions to Wikipedia is adding links to YouTube they will be reverted as spam (even if they are not). Sorry to say but this is the reality of the situation here.Moxy (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As the original remover of the links I must put my two cents in here (or since we've just abolished the penny here in Canada my nickel.) Basically I removed them as unencyclopaedic as in they don't add anything to the articles, and due to the only real edits by this account are adding links to their YouTube channel, sometimes wrapped in advertising holiday brochure speech. It comes across, very strongly, that you only edit Wikipedia to promote your site and drive traffic to your videos. The fact that they're YouTube wasn't the reason. While assume good faith is a central tenant here, over the five years the account has been active, bar really only a few edits, they've all been to add links to your videos and add seemingly tourist entries. This has made it harder for me to assume that you're interested in building an encyclopaedic and not in self promotion. I'll go with whatever everyone else agrees with, but this is where the removal edits were coming from. Canterbury Tail   talk  22:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact you are tunneling into my contributions I find rather odd and quite troubling, that seems really inappropriate especially as you have taken the time to delete the time to delete virtually all the text I wrote and then claim SPAM SPAM SPAM. Now you say it's not Youtube. The text you deleted on the Olive Lake tells me probably know little about the area. I am on the other hand am an expert on that area and was trying to convey the real world experience to the wiki user, isn't that what Wikipedia was created for? By tunneling through my previous work you are overstepping an indiviual edit, that kind of activity is deeply offensive to me, and from what I have read online one of the big reasons so many wikipedia editors have given up on the project. It's no justification to be deleting any particular edit because I have'nt written 10,000 pages on something else. It's these deletions that reduces the quality of the resource. In fact your deletions have erased corrections to other linked resources that I have corrected where the links were dead (which you did not delete or correct). Your activites in my opinion in regards to myself do not seem to be in the spirit of the cooperative nature of Wikipedia. I have no wish to engage in an edit war but I have as much right to provide content on Wikipedia as any you or anyone else does, and I have the reasonable expection that it will not be wantonly deleted and targeted. Eyeonit


 * The edit in question regarding Olive Lake is here. The text I removed is valid to be removed from Wikipedia due to it's nature. Wikipedia is not a travel site or a how to guide. Telling people how to tour the area, what to watch out for and where to have a picnic is not what Wikipedia is here for. There are other sites within the project for that. Also do be aware that every edit you make to Wikipedia is not your ownership, rather it becomes part of the project and may be edited by other editors as per the notice on the bottom of the edit page. Other editors may edit your work if they find it violates Wikipedia's policies, or if they believe it can be improved upon. Going through the edits of an editor who seems to be single mindedly (seems, not saying this was the intention) adding links to their promotional videos is not an unreasonable thing to do, and I'm sorry if you take offense at that. We are however all here to improve upon an encyclopaedia and I'm afraid what I saw didn't seem encyclopaedic. For instance in the Olive Lake edits you are referring to lines like "Bears are often in the area so always look for warning signs and follow precautions. Take a drive through the Olive Lake area:" are more suited to a travel guide, for which we have Wikivoyage. As I said above I'm willing to abide by other's decisions with regards to the videos, but I still believe my edits were valid for an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links and a video of someone driving down a road for 10 minutes, no matter how nice a road, I don't believe to be of encyclopaedic use. I admit I was a little heavy handed with the spam warnings rather than engaging you in conversation though which I really should have done so first. Canterbury Tail   talk  23:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)