User talk:Titanic14

November 2008
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Canis Lupus 02:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Canis Lupus 02:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I utterly resent your tone. I have submitted links to quality work derived from hours of painstaking fieldwork. The website has been live for two years and has many followers. My photos are intended for educational purposes only. The website is completely non-commercial. Several pages have been listed on Wikipedia for many months and now those have been removed too. Most of the birds are rare and very few good pictures of them can be found on the web. What is the problem here?


 * You spamming your website all over wikipedia. that is against our policies and is rude. please see WP:COI and WP:SPAM Canis Lupus 03:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, your referring to painstakingly taken photos of rare birds as "spam" is just an outrage (and rude). I think there were just 14 species in all - not exactly "all over wikipedia." I sincerely thought I was doing wikipedia and the public a good service by contributing valuable reference material, in some cases where none at all existed. Whether or not you agree on the value of the content (which is substantive), I think you owe me an apology for your insulting tone and your totally false accusation. Furthermore, I do fully understand the "no-follow" policy and that is no problem because all I am seeking to do is help people learn about birds, nothing more.


 * Please note that I never stated that your pictures were spam, only that your behavior is spamming in the nature of mass adding links to your own site. there are a total of two accounts that have ever added this link, you and User:B14irdspix both have an obvious conflict of interest. please read our conflict of interest and spamming policies. I am not judging or making a statement about your images, just your behavior on wikipedia. Canis Lupus 03:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me rephrase this so maybe you can see this from a more objective point of view. This all started when I simply looked up a bird one day and got a wikipedia page. I saw that there were no pictures referenced, and I had some good ones, so I thought it would be generous to share some of mine (for example the very rare Galapagos Rail). So I added some. And this is what you call bad "behavior?" I just don't understand what wikipedia gains by refusing valuable new content. Furthermore there are other bird photo web sites linked just like mine was - no difference, so why not be consistent? Are you going to delete all of them too? And as I said before, my work is completely non-commercial so I have absolutely nothing to gain and no "conflict of interest" at all.
 * if you truly wanted to help wikipedia you would be uploading those images under a free license, instead of mass adding links to your website. have you taken a look at WP:COI or WP:EL? Canis Lupus 03:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems you are giving me credit for more computer sophistication than I actually possess. And now you've been rude again - insinuating that I did not "truly want to help wikipedia." You can safely assume that you are again mistaken and that I truly do wish to help. In how many ways do I have to repeat that before it is taken at face value? So, how would you like me to share the appropriate photos or should I just keep them to myself? And by the way you still owe me that apology for your tone.


 * the best method for sharing your photos is to release them under a creative commons cc-by-sa license and upload them to wikipedia or commons.wikimedia.org instead of attempting to promote your site for help uploading you might want to look at Help:Upload. Canis Lupus 04:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What then are you proposing to do about the other sites that are similarly linked? Shouldn't they be doing the same? And again, please apologize for repeating yet again the false accusation of "attempting to promote your site." That was never the case, and you certainly must realize it by now. I added photos the simplest and easiest way I knew how. All you have done is made me sorry now that I ever even went to the trouble. Your loss.

Your refusal to either apologize or address the question of the other linked sites indicates intransigence and lack of objectivity. After actually examining the several wikipedia species pages in question, some of which have no photos at all, another reviewer might better be able to judge these circumstances with the necessary objectivity.

The sheer meanspiritedness of the reviewer here is just so disheartening and discouraging. The submission of quality content has been carelessly treated like it came from someone trying to sell Ginsu knives. Apparently the submission of five or six references in one evening invited the derogatory hyperbolic mischaracterizations of "mass adding of links," "spamming," "conflict of interest," and "promoting," none of which are accurate. The website has photos of some 700 avian species collected over four years. Of these 700, just fourteen references total were submitted to wikipedia. Although those submissions were indeed made in two small batches (a year apart), they represented many many months of culling literally thousands of photos. The ones submitted for the most part represented the best of the best and were of uncommon and hard to photograph birds, some obtained in remote and inaccessible locales such as the Galapagos and the Pribilof Islands. The quality of the reference material should have been the sole criterion for its gracious acceptance, not the arbitrary manner of its submission that simply happened to call undue attention to itself. In fact the deletions occurred amost instantly, within less than one minute's time, indicating that the reviewer had not even so much as looked at the content but reacted in knee-jerk fashion simply to the manner of the submission. So as the result of the reviewer's actions, others can decide whether wikipedia is a net winner here or a net loser.