User talk:Jvian

ItalianVisits.Com and "link spam"
Welcome to your own username; a good idea!

You give Calabria as an example of how much work went into that region at ItalianVisits. I don't think I reverted that one; see also for Campania, another subsite of ItalianVisits that has a fair amount of stuff in it; and Tuscany, though meager, I didn't object to. The question is not ItalianVisits, but pages that are nearly empty, or scant or uneven coverage of those regions, which are not useful to the reader of the Wikipedia articles. As those subsites improve, they'll be good resources too. Nothing "holier-than-anyone"; you'll notice that under Tuscany, for example, I don't list my own site, although it includes an entire book, plus 30 other pages with 66 (large) photos: my coverage of Tuscany is uneven, and inadequate as a serious link for Wikipedia.

Even more striking is my omission of my one-level-up subsite, Gazetteer of Italy, which has over 1400 pages and over 1500 photos total. Why? It's not good enough, because coverage of Italy is very uneven: lots on Umbria and Rome, some on the Marche and Tuscany, and a few other items. I think you, like anyone else, will admit to my fairness.... I've listed my own site under Umbria, Rome, because those subsites are adequate; but not my pages on Tuscany, Marche, Milan, Abruzzo, Veneto though, which are not &#8212; although for example my Marche site too is considerably deeper than ItalianVisits &#8212;

As ItalianVisits.Com improves those regional pages, they'll be a real resource. For now, that site is being worked on: it's a horrendous amount of work -- but it's not anywhere near done yet! Best, Bill 21:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for writing
I'm trying to find my way around Wikipedia and haven't quite figured out how to communicate with users like you, without doing an edit like this. If there is a more convenient way, please let me know.


 * Yes, this is it &#8212; a bit awkward, as you hint, but the standard way of talking with people is by edits on their user pages (or your own, as here, once a venue has become established). Normally the parties to the conversation write in sequence; here, because there's just you and me pretty much for now, and because of the length of your note, I've interleaved my comments in yours (notice how that's done, the usual method is to start your paragraph with a colon, which indents it. The signature (typing ~ will do it automatically, aren't computers marvelous) is an essential ingredient, and goes at the end.

I appreciate your reply, and your observations about ItalianVisits. I think we should continue the discussion, however, because there are a few issues that deserve to be aired.

First, I agree that the main text on a page, say about a Region of Italy, or even a city, town, village, park -whatever it may be - should have good, well-researched information. It should be written by those who know something about the subject, and preferably can provide references to support what they write,particularly if it is controversial.

Second, I do not agree that the "External" links section of a page need to be edited in the way you obviously think it does. What is useful to one reader might be of no use to another, or one person might object to it on whatever grounds, but another find no reason whatsoever to object. One can link to an underdone page on ItalianVisits (or perhaps your website), but through the mechanism of embedded hyperlinks, navigate to pages on the same or other sites that serve their purpose. I for one think having your site linked on some of these pages, would be exceptionally useful.

Thirdly, if a heading "External Links" is not sufficient to cover the variety of useful links that could be posted for viewers, Wikipedia is sufficiently grand in its scope to accommodate the introduction of other headings: e.g. Official links, Travel links, or whatever.


 * Yes. If there are many useful types of links, this is frequently done. On articles about Antiquity, for example, I try to encourage people at least to break out the links into Primary sources and Secondary sources.

Fourthly, there is no way to define a "removal" policy in the External links page that can be fair - or fair enough. For instance, you removed our link to the Umbria region of ItalianVisits, but as you say, not the Tuscany link. I can't determine the criteria which you use in a way that helps me to know when I have or have not crossed your "line". Fairness has to be based on ascertainable criteria, surely.


 * My line doesnt matter; I'm nobody in particular around here, and you are quite free to revert my edits, or anyone else's (although no more than 3 times in 24 hours, see the 3&#8209;revert rule). People wind up doing this back and forth, and sometimes it gets very acrimonious: you haven't seen nuttin'. . ..
 * On the other hand, I'm one of the people probably most interested in the articles for the various regions of Italy, so they're on my watchlist, and I like to guard them according to my own loose criteria. Other people's, as you point out, may have other criteria. My criterion for external links is fairly simple: if a page/site linked to is not one of say the top 5 resources online (for a small subject, like a particular town in Calabria &#8212; more about that below) or 10 or at the outside 15 resources for really big subjects (like Italy, ancient Rome, Catholicism, mathematics) &#8212; then it doesn't belong there. This loose criterion of mine derives, as I think I mentioned on that previous anonymous talkpage of yours?, from What Wikipedia is not, which among other things, is that Wickedpedia is not a link list or a directory. So a page, like ItalianVisits' Marche page, with 4 small photos and 4 links, fails to qualify, because there are many dozens of pages containing similar amounts of information on the Marche as a whole &#8212; therefore if they were all included, we'd have a long link list. On the other hand, IV's page on Buonvicino is an excellent resource that properly belongs, by my lights and probably by others' as well, as an external link if we have an article Buonvicino. Not only that, if we do not have one, it is legitimate for you to write a small article on Buonvicino, with the partial purpose in mind of providing a place for a link the the IV page. (On the third hand, IV's page on Cetraro, as it now stands, is not a legitimate link on Wikipedia, no matter how large and detailed a page it were, because it is primarily an advertisement for the Hotel San Michele, a commercial enterprise: see again What Wikipedia is not.)

Fifthly, for what its worth, some sites, like ItalianVisits are works in progress (as you point out). As you can see, we invite contributions from other writers and photographers. If there is a link to an underdone page, then by exposing it on Wikipedia might put us in touch with others who could add to the corpus, or help us correct something that is manifestly wrong (like the mispelling of the word "Colloseum" - drat!)


 * This one can land an editor (you are an editor, as am I, or any Joe-Blow who puts our tuppence worth into an article) in trouble with the consensus of Wikipedia users and editors, so be careful. One of the things that Wikipedia is not is a device for garnering publicity, be it ever so well-intentioned &#8212; as in your case, it looks like &#8212; for some other site. You should read What Wikipedia is not.

Lastly, Bill...do you have some sort of "right" to remove a link that you find objectionable for whatever reason? This is a serious, not a frivolous question, and I ask it in the spirit of wanting to know more about how decisions about content are arrived at on Wikipedia.


 * Anyone &#8212; including you &#8212; has a right to add, remove, put back, or change a link on any page in Wikipedia, or to change its description. It makes for a very curious environment, but which, by and large, works: if 12 people feel a link is good and 2 do not, eventually that link will wind up in the article; if the reverse, it'll be out. The Wikipedia myth is that this is "consensus" and emphatically not, according to to the Big Enchilada (Jimbo Wales, q.v. "an experiment in democracy": in fact, Wikipedia is a majority-rule setup; but the majority for each article, for each link, is whoever happens to be interested in it.

Very best Vian Andrews


 * And, as promised &#8212; I've already hinted as much &#8212; you've got my friendly encouragement to add some of those Calabrian town links to the corresponding Wikipedia pages; you might even add them on the Italian Wikipedia; the heading over there is "Collegamento esterno" (or of course "Collegamenti esterni" if more than one under that article). I'll try to beat you to it on English-Wiki, although there probably won't be that many articles written on these towns: do consider writing them yourself. Best, Bill 22:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * (A bit later)
 * Left your addition to Umbria; added a link to ItalianVisits to Cosenza and Bevagna; deleted the link back out of Italy, though.
 * In addition &#8212; this has nothing to do with Wickedpedia &#8212; I've added a link to ItalianVisits-Umbria to the link list in the footer bar of my own orientation page to Umbria and a link to ItalianVisits-Bevagna to the link list in the footer bar of my own orientation page to Bevagna. It's actually easier, by the way, to get me to add stuff to my own pages than to allow them onto Wikipedia, since on my site I have no ban on commercial sites. Anyway, I'll probably be adding a few more to both Wiki articles and my own pages &#8212; but deleting fiercely on high-level pages according to my usual criteria.... Bill 23:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion pages
Hi. Actually, the way to communicate to other users is to post messages on their discussion pages. For example, instead of posting a comment on User:JarlaxleArtemis, you should post one on User talk:JarlaxleArtemis. Oh, and I'm not Eduardo. He just posted a comment on my user page (it's supposed to be on the discussion page), and I haven't bothered to erase it ;).   ‡   Jarlaxle   21:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

More on italianvisits.com
Just to kibitz a bit, I hope you'll understand that these days we have hundreds of people adding links to thousands of wiki pages in transparent attempts to piggyback on WP's popularity, get more hits and therefore more money from their advertisers. We even have some evidence that some people have built bots to do this on a large scale. So people have generally come to take a hard line on this sort of thing; I want to see that the external link is more about offering additional info for free (since our tagline is the "free encyclopedia"), and less about trying to make a buck. Since any one of the thousands of editors can remove what you add, then basically your website needs to have enough unique free info to convince every one of those editors that it's worth keeping the link.

You might also want to think about a "division of labor" between WP and your website; if your primary goal is to attract visitors to lesser-known parts of Italy, WP can host all the factual details on these places (including lots of pictures), and sister project Wikibooks can host specific info for travelers (see for an example for London), and it would certainly be cheaper to use WP's software and server power than to try to maintain your own website. Also you can crosslink with the Italian wikipedia and get some input from native Italians that way. You may be able to accomplish all your goals entirely within the wiki framework. Stan 06:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note Stan.


 * As to your comments, I think a balance between what we are doing on ItalianVisits.com and Wikipedia is the best approach. We can not - and should not - abandon what we are doing on ItalianVisits.com in order to focus all our efforts on expanding Wikipedia. If you look at a typical page on ItalianVisits.com - say the page for Assisi you will see that the text has to be kept short, and relatively superficial. It is directed at English-speaking travelers and tourists.  The pictures, as pictures do, add significantly to the "information" available, and we have linked to the official website and to Wikipedia's Assisi article so viewers can access considerably more information about Assisi.


 * I am probably going to lose this argument in the short term, but the addition of so called "commercial" travel links to all the places on earth that are the subject of articles in Wikipedia does not raise an issue for me. There may be 1000s and 1000s of such links, but they will be spread throughout the encyclopedia. The fact is, that the information contained on such sites - and we're not talking about Expedia, Travelocity etc - is, or can be, exceptionally useful to tens of millions of people who are planning trips, and to millions of others who are looking for information, or pictures, about a specific place.


 * Once again, I am going to suggest that when it comes to "places", we might add a new section called "Travel Links", so that we are at least up-front about it. Then the commercial sites can be unmingled from others that are, well, less commercial.


 * People, like my daughter, Jesse, who is developing ItalianVisits.com, have to create an economic platform so they can do their work. Believe me, this is not a quick, get rich scheme - it is a hand-to-mouth affair for her and others like her.  Jesse and others, working at various locales around the world, are making the world more far more accessible, and they are creating the kind of interest and curiousity upon which historians,archaeologists, geologists, and other "academics" can build on.


 * Having said that, I think Bill's approach is a good one. It creates a useful balance between those who are operating "commercial" websites, with the non-commercial intentions of Wikipedia.

--JVian 14:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

User:JarlaxleArtemis
Hi, I see you having a discussion on User:JarlaxleArtemis's userpage with Eduardo Cuellar. If you wish to have a discussion with another wikipedian, it is best done on their discussion page, and not the userpage, especially if the userpage belongs to someone else. Please use User talk:Eduardo Cuellar if you wish to converse with them. Thank you for your understanding. &infin; Who ? &iquest; ? 08:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Vian
I might have been trying to contact Bill, i dont know lol.. im a religions student in college, so i been contributing a little bit to that kind of articles on wikipedia, and i saw jarlaxleartemis' contributions to the xolotl article, so my curiosity was piqued (also because of the screenname, which has artemis), thats all. nice to meet u. i guess u can delete this after u get it lol? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eduardo Cuellar (talk • contribs) 08:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)  moved from User:JarlaxleArtemis  &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  08:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

ItalianVisits.Com (never ending story)
Hi

I'm on a bit of a Jihad against the plague hotel-affiliate spam and other low-quality directory / template-based site links, in the course of which I deleted some links to ItalianVisits.Com. Having seen discussions such as the above, I feel there is some merit to the site (i.e. it's not "hotel spam", and the links seem to have been in place some time so I assume there is some consensus on their presence) and have readded the links.

You might want to consider adding an easily found "about" section or similar linked from each page, so the casual spam-hunter can get a better idea of the site's profile (the "contact" link only produces an email with the title "Tour enquiry"), and the link http://newsgroup.italianvisits.com/ doesn't work. If there's frequently changing content, some kind of RSS feed would also be useful.

Ianb 00:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Carsulae-siteplan.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Carsulae-siteplan.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 20:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Atri, Italy
I have moved your recently created Atri, Abruzzo to Atri, Italy and merged the histories of the article. Next time please request the move at Requested moves or WP:AN. Joelito (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[[Image:Carsulae-siteplan.JPG]]
This image has been deleted because the copyright status was never specified. I think the Carsulae article would be much improved by having it back. If you originally intended to upload it under a suitable free licence would you mind doing so again, and stating the licence when you do? If this sounds confusing to you then I can help you through it. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 23:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note regarding the Carsulae Site Plan. I am very happy to upload the image but to be candid, I forget how to do it.  Can you instruct? JVian 16:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I uploaded the image for you to Commons at commons:Image:Carsulae-siteplan.jpg. I assumed that you wished to release it under the GFDL but if this (or anything else) on that page is incorrect then you can change it. If you've changed your ming and prefer not to upload it then let me know and I'll arrange for it to be removed. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 15:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Vian-spello3.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Vian-spello3.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)