User talk:62.136.11.225

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the commercial links/content you added were inappropriate, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be used for advertising or a collection of external links. See the welcome page if you'd like to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thanks! -- Solipsist 17:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but you may wish to create a account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, including:

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign and date your comments with four tildes (~~~~). -- Solipsist 11:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed tourism spam links

Yesterday you removed external links from several pages in the Norfolk section of Wikipedia to my online guided tours (TourNorfolk.co.uk), claiming they were spam. These high quality guided tours show what there is to see and do by using lots of pictures. Its a very unique way of promoting tourism to these places that depend on it for their livelihoods. I have attended local working groups with the aim of creating online tours to their town/villages and I do not charge anybody to be featured in the guides. If you take the Norwich guided tour for example, it extends to 18 pages and informs the best places to visit during your stay - it was featured by the BBC and the EDP (Eastern Daily Press), so why not Wikipedia?

Perhaps if the guides are currently unacceptable as an external link, what do I need to do to make them acceptable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.136.11.225 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 8 November 2006.

Yes I had some qualms about removing those links, since I thought the website was reasonably well done. However, TourNorfolk.co.uk is a commercial site (selling things and supported by advertising) and I also noticed that all the links had been added in batches by accounts that hadn't done much else other than add external links to this website. That is pretty much a straight down the line example of spam linking, which is why I removed the links. I should mention that in the process I noticed several more links on many of these articles that are likely to be inappropriate, but haven't yet found the time to check them all (the links to holiday cottages are much worse). You can find more on these policies at WP:External links.
Remember, that the purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia, and not to be a directory to other sites. We do allow for external links, most especially to point to reference sources, but also to provide links to additional information for readers. So there is scope, but they really ought to be added by disinterested editors who regard a given website as the most appropriate additional source on a particular subject.
That said, pretty much everything on Wikipedia is decided by concensus. That is to say any and all interested editors discuss an issue and do what most people agree on. It is not always easy to find the right place on Wikipedia to hold the discussion and get the attention of other interested editors, but that is a different problem. At the moment, WP:SPAM is a guideline not a policy. So for example, it might be possible to get the guidelines on spam linking changed by opening a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Spam. There is of course a lot of prior discussion there (note also the archive link at the top of that talk page). Getting editors to discuss these things and change their minds can be an uphill struggle though.
Another alternative (which is generally acceptable) might be to contribute some photographs under a free license, such as GFDL, and include a link back to your website as a source link on the image description page (for example, as with this photo from the gliding article). Although to do that you would need to register an account and you might need to provide additional information making it clear that you would have the authority to contribute pictures from TourNorfolk.co.uk and license them as GFDL if the pictures are marked there as copyright and all rights reserved.
So I'm sorry if my edits have caused you any distress, but I was largely just following Wikipedia's guidelines on these issues, as and when I notice the problem. Let me know if I can help. -- Solipsist 12:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand your position, it cannot be easy trying to judge what is commercial and what is not. If I remove the banner ads from the TourNorfolk site would that then be acceptable? I would also contribute some part of the guided tours in Wikipedia as you suggest - they are too large to include all the content! The main aim of TourNorfolk is to create high quality content to promote Norfolk as a tourist destination and not simply to promote hotels etc. I think it does add value to the encyclopedia by showing what there is to see and do in each location, which was highlighted by consultants as a great weakness in the tourism industry right now. I have created an account called TourNorfolk and we own the copyright to all our photos. What do you think?