User talk:Mh7

Concerning spamming / external links
Thank you for your note and inquiry on Talk:Pearl District, Portland, Oregon concerning the deletion of external links to http://www.portlandground.com.

---

Mh7 Response

OK, you have your rules. They don't make much sense to me, but it's not my game or club.

As for not adding links to your own site but letting other people do it, I'm really not interested in promoting my site, so I'll skip that.

My main interest was to contribute what I know about Portland (and share with the world on my site) to various discussions.

-

Please see Spam, especially the section on How not to be a spammer, #5. Red flags were raised by the following items associated with the addition of the links to the above site:
 * 1) Adding many links to (or mentions of) the same site or product.
 * 2) Adding the same link to many articles.
 * 3) The addition of 6 such links in 11 minutes by an anonymous editor (IP address) &mdash; flags a spam intention.

-- mh7

I added several links to different parts of my site, which were relevant to different aspects of PDX.... I see why the criteria you mention are useful flags for you, but I don't see why upon observing the relevance of my links someone would THEN remove them. I think I added links very specifically in subject relevant articles. All of the above are your flags... understandable... but when you look at what I actually added I think the content represents a contribution. Sorry that you don't.

-


 * 1) The notice on the website that says "I give you images to use and you give me links that bring visitors to Portland Ground."  This notice indicates an intent to advertise/promote/bring traffic to the website.

mh7

I find that an incredible and galling statement You state an essential premise of web based creative commons sharing as if it is some evil concept. You bet I seek to promote traffic and I also seek to promote traffic on OTHER web sites that ask me for a reciprocal links. I seek to provide information to people interested in Portland and to participate in the online community of those people. I consider that community to be much broader than Wikipedia. The Creative Commons license is central to what I do. Web traffic is central to what I do. Giving value and receiving value is central to what I do. If you have any experience with Google ads you know how little revenue is involved, but they do help pay server costs. What part of promoting interest in a subject area does Wikipedia have a problem with?

-

From Wikipedia guidelines on External links to be avoided:
 * "A page that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked....If your page is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let unbiased Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.

-- mh7

Fair enough, although you are basically discouraging an outsider from making a contribution here. Why not just own up and say that nonregistered users should not submit links?

--

It is preferable, if you have images that you think will enhance the article, for the image(s) to be added, versus directing the reader to another site. See #2 in the "How not to be a spammer" section.

-

mh7... As an outsider I would not want to go in and alter the appearance of a web page. I was (before I hit this buzzsaw) willing to make a small contribution in the form of a link to a relevant site.

---

From the above notes, I hope you see how the additions of the links raised a red flag.

--- mh7, I understand the red flags, not the response to them.

--

If Wikipedia is using your photographs in violation of your Creative Commons license (not attributing your site), please do point that out. According to your website, your CC licnsing is cc-by-nc, which is "non free" for Wikipedia and requires additional release for use.

mh7

Wikipedia probably is violating my license by keeping nonapproved derivatives of my images, but who wants to fight with people? My base assumption is that people have goodwill, although I'm rapidly being disabused.

I can't imagine why my Creative Commons license isn't pure enough for Wikipedia.... but it is the only license I offer.... true Wikipedia is using deriviatives of my images perhaps, but in the past I've let it slide on the theory that goodwill trumps complaints and threats and petty attention to detail every time.

-

As far as other commercial links &mdash; they are subject to the same external link criteria. Note that the particular site that you identified in Fremont Bridge (Portland) does not have the immediate appearance of being added by the site owner to promote the site. It was added, after the initial article creation, by the article creator.

--- mh7 Understood... it's not the content, it's who adds it. Club rules.

---

We encourage your contribution .... and your photographs undoubtably would be a great addition to many Portland-related articles.

mh7 I'll leave that for others to decide... my license still stands.

--- I hope this provides you with a better understanding of the reason for deletion of the links. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask.

&mdash; ERcheck (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)