User talk:Paulfromwales

I work as webmaster for a Cottage Rental firm, but have taken and published many pages of photographs of the coast and countryside of West and South Wales. Over the past year I have taken nearly 10,000 pictures and I would like to illustrate some of the geographical topics that currently lack photographs.

I don't wish to give away my copyright wholesale and would prefer to keep the majority of images on pages I control. If I can master the uploading process (five crashes so far) I don't mind putting a small number of photographs on each page, free of copyright restrictions.

As an example of what I propose, I have put a photographic link on the Mwnt page and added information and a link on the Penbryn one.

The only "commercialism" on these linked pages (I have deliberately removed the web site main nav bar that normally accompanies these pages) is a small link to "cottages in the area"

If this is unacceptable I can upload a special page without that link.

I would appreciate a comment/judgement from an editor so that I can either continue in a similar vein or desist.

Paul


 * Hi Paul, I came across the link you refer to oearlier this evening and did consider removing it as spam because of the link to 'cottages in the area'. Your photographs are super and I would hate for wikipedia to lose them so my strong advice would be, as you suggested, to create a page without the link otherwise sooner or later an editor will come along and remove it from the article. BTW on Saturday week I am off to a cottage on the West Wales coast booked through your company, small world. Happy editing and I hope the image upload starts behaving for you. Kind regards, •  nancy  • 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nancy - thank you for those comments - I have amended those pages so that no commercial links exist. The next battle is to get the Penbryn article re-instated by a self-appointed "policeman" who thinks that I don't own the copyright of an article I have written!

--Paulfromwales 07:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:Penbryn18.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Pennbryn18.jpg. The copy called Image:Pennbryn18.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of text from Penbryn
Hi,

I'm sorry if you thought that I was acting as a 'self-appointed policeman' in deleting the text on Penbryn. However, the fact remains (as someone stated on the talk page) that even if you released the copyright on the text, it is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. As I am from Aberporth (and have been to Penbryn many times) I am well aware that the whole area depends hugely on tourism, and it is great that you are attracting visitors to the area with your website. Nevertheless, the point of Wikipedia is to relate impartial information about a subject, not to paint it in its best light. In particular, phrases such as "Penbryn is probably the most unspoilt beach on the Ceredigion coast", "It is, quite simply, just ... beautiful" and "it is also a paradise for bird watchers" have little encyclopaedic value. That's not to say that there's no useful information on the page, just that the flowery language should be minimised. Gareth 17:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The contrast between yours and Nancy's approach could not be more marked. You have a valid point and I could have easily amended the text. Reading your other contributions, I notice this obsession with minutae rather than making (and encouraging others) to progress the encyclopedia forward.

Rather than bothering to comment upon the style, you deleted. Not a very enlightened approach to progressing what was, after all, a basic stub!

Perhaps it is time you stepped back from your self appointed role of "overseer" and had a re-think!

--Paulfromwales 23:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)