User talk:Photoarts

A welcome from Preschooler.at.heart
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for new users: *Stop by the New user log and tell others about yourself. *Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments. *The Five Pillars of Wikipedia *Wikipedia Glossary Instructionals: *How to write a great article *Naming conventions *Picture tutorial *Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial *How to edit a page *Manual of Style I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful. Thank you for your contributions. Happy editing! -- preschooler @  heart   my talk  -  contribs  04:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Mwanner | Talk 01:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding commercial or personal-website links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. Mwanner | Talk 01:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:
 * I am not sure this is the proper way to communicate with Mwanner or not. Admittedly, I am still learning my way around Wikipedia, so I apologize if this isn't the correct approach. I was certainly not trying to spam Wikipedia, but the links I made all add substantially in some way to the material on the subjects linked to. As I understand it and reviewing the same pages in question, I see much more commercial links on these page, which frankly I am trying to avoid. On a number of photographers I was simply adding each link to a biography and a special exhibit of images by those photographers or to a substantive group of photographs by the specific photographer for research. I also intend later to at least build stubs for a number of important photographers that are not yet in the system, because I have substantial bio information that I have written on several hundred photographers. I am also not certain how one disagrees with another Wikipedia person, the etiquette involved and how differences of opinion get resolved. But my intentions were pure, I can assure you.

First, thanks for your note, and yes, you did it correctly. I'm sorry that I jumped to the conclusion that you were a spammer-- you're edits yesterday fit the profile in a lot of ways, and you appeared to be pushing the site www.iphotocentral.com, which is clearly engaged in online retail trade. I would suggest that you read Wikipedia's External links policy (and maybe WP:Spam). As for the commercial links already on those pages you edited that I did not remove, please understand that when we think we find spamming in progress, the tendency is to quickly remove it without going through the more laborious process of checking all of the pre-existing links in every article involved. So yes, there probably are a number of other commercial links that ought to be removed, and as you are likely to be working in those articles far more than I am, let me urge you to be bold and remove any that you see fit.

As to your original (and admirable) intensions, it can be difficult to find good ways to illustrate articles. We have to avoid commercial links as assiduously as possible precicely because so many people see Wikipedia's high traffic and open access as an invitation to post free ads-- if there weren't a lot of people working hard to keep them out, our articles would be burried in spam. Nevertheless, there are, generally, non-commercial sites carrying the kind of images you're looking for (see, for example http://www.wesleyan.edu/dac/coll/photos.html, http://www.library.georgetown.edu/dept/speccoll/guac/japan_04/kusakabe_tea_1880.jpg, http://www.asianart.com/exhibitions/museum/7.html for Kusakabe Kimbei). Also, please note that generally, images published in the US before 1923 are in the public domain, and can be added directly to Wikipedia, not as external links (if you would like help and/or advice on doing so, I would be glad to be of assistance).

Wikipedia can be a vast and confusing place, but well worth the trouble. Happy editing! -- Mwanner | Talk 12:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "I have a question: the sites that you list as examples of alternatives to the one I used only show one image by Kimbei, and the link I had put up connected directly to a dozen images by Kimbei. And most of the other links that you edited out had even more images and often extensive biographical content. I used the site in question, because it often has good editorial material on photographers and a large number of photographs that are just not any where else on the web and can be brought together under one simple URL address, making it a good reference builder. Just an FYI--the very first external link on this page (Kimbei article) is that of a commercial dealer in Asian images. His site is still an excellent and pertinent resource, IMHO, and so should probably stay. Frankly I would probably have added him and the other non-commercial resource, which I use regularly. When I read the Wikipedia directions on this, they seem to say that commercial sites could be used as link references when they have a unique or important perspective on a given topic. If you agree, would you mind me adding a number of commercial (and, of course, non-commercial) sources that I might normally use in my research anyway, as long as they were clearly on point and had something important to add? Also, as you note, it is hard to get copyright permission for images after 1923 and even be sure of it prior to that date, so what if commercial sites are the best alternative to showing depth for a specific photographer?

Also, on another topic, I think you mentioned posting up such links to the talk page on the particular subject/photographer, but these pages seem not to get any discussion. Most have not even been started yet. I am not sure that this would move along the process of getting better descriptions/listings. Alternatives?"


 * Yes, it can be acceptable to use commercial sites when they have redeeming qualities. What sets off alarms is doing a long series of edits adding commercial sites and little or nothing else, as you did on the 17th.  And yes, you're right, the sites I offered as alternatives have fewer works displayed. I suspect, though, that they may prove to be more stable over time: When PhotoCentral sells "Vegetable Peddler", one assumes they will pull it from their site (which is another good reason to add the image directly to Wikipedia).


 * And no, I don't mind if you add commercial links sparingly. Understand, though, that I'm only one of many editors on the lookout for spam, so while I might forbear, another might not.


 * And yes, you're right, it can be frustrating putting posts on article talk pages and getting no response. You can try to find relevent Project talk pages (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts, e.g.), but they can be pretty lifeless too).  Also see the WikiProject Visual arts itself, though its usefulness might lie mostly its list of participants.  Probably the best approach when all else fails is to find another user who is actively editing the article (see the edit history), and contact them directly.


 * Finally, I'm not sure I understand your final comment/question, though maybe this is where the Project talk page might be appropos?


 * Anyway, please don't let my stomping on your run of ext links put you off. If another editor does take exception to some links, it might be useful to refer them to this exchange.  And being bold is a primary value at Wikipedia.  So enjoy...  -- Mwanner | Talk 13:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For photography in Japan, and certain aspects of the history of photography in general, there is a vibrant though small community of editors working on articles and forming a nascent WikiProject on Photography. The talk pages you have come across, if they are for articles on photography in Asia, are empty because the articles are relatively new (for the most part) - so don't think an empty talk page is a sign that there's no interest in discussion! One place to see just how much is going on in the photography-related articles is the List of photographers, which is itself a very active page along with its talk page. A perusal of that talk page will give you an idea of some of the other editors working on photography in Wikipedia.


 * As for commercial links, I'm reticent about them too, for the same reasons that Mwanner mentioned, but also because they aren't very reliable as research sources. Information on commercial sites is often poorly compiled, based on misreadings of other sources, or very out of date,... and they seldom provide any references for their information so that their assertions can be checked. Pinkville 03:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)