User talk:65.32.166.217

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 2006

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in From First to Last. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites that you are affiliated with, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. 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. --Nlu (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how adding a link to a site that provides photos of a certin subject is inappropiate, maybe you are just a wikinazi, the site is not was not commercial whatsoever and does not even have advertisments on it, your power to censor external links is abusive. Good Day Sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.166.217 (talk • contribs)

Please do not target one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ixfd64 06:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for vandalizing Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. --Nlu (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

August 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added to the page HIM (band) do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. AngelOfSadness talk 13:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You added the same link of that website to at least 30 other band's articles. It's seems like you are trying to promote the website in some way which is spamming. See WP:External Links for links to be avoided. Even if you say to me that you aren't spamming other editors might still see it as so. AngelOfSadness talk 20:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Again it's a link to a website which you added to at least 30 other band articles. Even if it's to seperate pages each time, it's still from the same website. You added the link numerous times to different article which is spamming. Sorry but I'm not the maker of these rules. AngelOfSadness talk 20:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Scary Kids Scaring Kids. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. 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. Thank you. AngelOfSadness talk 20:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

The same thing happened a while back when a photographer did the exact same thing that you did only he owned the website he was linking. But I had to explain the exact same thing to him as I'm explaining now to you. If you look under important points to remember: point 3 states :Try to avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site. also in links to be avoided: point 13 Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked. But generally spam or caravassing which is what you did isn't allowed. I'll try to find the bit about carravassing now. Also linking interviews is a different cattle of fish altogether AngelOfSadness talk 20:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as you seem very keen to keep these links, I'm starting to think that you are here to do point 1 of this this. But please tell me I'm wrong AngelOfSadness talk 20:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh I forgot to mention look at point five of the last wiki link please AngelOfSadness talk 20:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Point 5, last subpoint. Says it all. That's what I've been saying when I said the link was spam AngelOfSadness talk 20:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok and yet you missed Adding the same link to many articles. The first person who notices you doing this will go through all your recent contributions with an itchy trigger finger on the revert button. And that's not much fun. of how not to be a spammer taken from this page about Spam. Last subpoint of mainpoint 5 says it all.The text is written in black and white. Even if your not meaning to you are still spamming wikipedia with that link. I'm sorry but you are adding the same link(website) to many articles which is spamming. AngelOfSadness talk 21:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

When they say link, they mean website as in external links which are websites. AngelOfSadness talk 21:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if it was to a different page you still added links to the website on multiple articles. Looking at your contribution history, all you did was add links to that website which is spamming. I don't know how many times I have to say it, I showed you the wikipedia policies and still believe you weren't spamming even though you went against policies by adding that link. If you had added links to other websites in the process, I would have said fine but it was the same website by the looks of it. Even if you didn't intend it, it looks like you are trying to promote that website by adding links to articles with different webpages from the website. It may be a different webpage but it's not a different website thus adding the link is spamming. Other editors will see the links as spam. I know that on some of the other articles where you added the link, other editors removed the link counting it as spam because it is. I'm sorry but what you did was against wikipedia policies. AngelOfSadness talk 21:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, Even if it wasn't your intention but you still added links of a singular website to multiple articles which looks as though you are trying to promote the website which is spam. Read this again to jog your memory. But if it was intended or not it is still considered spam. I've said everything, I've given you all the links to the various wikipedia policy pages. The policy pages are written so there's no confusion, you were spamming by adding that link to all those articles. Even if you dont' believe it, it's written in the wikipedia policies that I've showed you or at least directed you to. And the conclusion is you were adding spam links and wikipedia is against spam. Pure and simple. AngelOfSadness talk 21:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You added a link of the website to the Paramore article. Here's what another editor did with that link. That's right called it linkspam. Obviously me and the other editor have learned and understood what spam at wikipedia looks like. In other websites, it may not be considered spam but at wikipedia it is. AngelOfSadness talk 21:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It is wikipeia guidelines actually. I found a few more editors who saw it as spam also on Three Days Grace andAndrew W.K.. Maybe it's something in the water or did we all read WP:Spam especially the "how not to be a spammer" part. Seeing as you went against it, you are considered a spammer. No matter what you say will not hide the fact that you added links of a website to numerous articles and this goes against subpoint 4, point 5 of how not to be a spammer on the WP:Spam page. Even if it was different webpages of that website, you still added links of that website to numerous articles and other editors have seemed to have seen this aswell. Also other "live band photos" links of websites added by other people are also counted as spam. So it's not like you are the first. I'll try to find the page history article which I saw that in when researching your contribution history. AngelOfSadness talk 22:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the Three days grace page diff I provided in the last message, you will notice other photo links were deleted aswell as spam. And then if you look at the Andrew WK page diff, you will notice that the person that deleted the link was an admin. Just so you know, it's impossible to become an admin without knowing all of wikipedia's guildlines & policies like the back of your hand. It's impossible to have a successful Rfa(Request for adminship) without knowing everything. If an admin made a mistake deleting the link, they would have gotten endless complaints by other editors about the removal of the link. But they didn't. No-one objected so everyone must have agreed with the deletion of the link. Which was deleted as spam in the edit summary. AngelOfSadness talk 22:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

But you're forgetting:Adding the same link to many articles. The first person who notices you doing this will go through all your recent contributions with an itchy trigger finger on the revert button. And that's not much fun.. This is part of how not to be a spammer. If you look at the very top of WP:Spam you will see a box and that box says This page is considered a content guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this page's talk page.. True the part about it's not written in stone could affect here but this is not an occasional acception as every live photo website, like the one you linked, is spam. Well known across wikipedia. It now it doesn't even matter if the link was spam or not, you still added it to multiple articles which is considered spamming. You went against the policy whether the policy is right or wrong. At this moment in time, you have broken current policy by adding the link on a whole load of articles. Seeing as policy is generally followed, it will be followed here. If the policy changes in your favour tomorrow, I'll say far enough add the link. But I seriously doubt that so I'm going by current policy.Also by the amount of guidelines that I went through today, I by far proved my point, all the way to the moon and back that you spammed wikipedia articles. Current policy and the other editors edit summaries on the articles I cited prove that.
Here's what you did in a nutshell: You went against current written wikipedia policy. It's a simple as that.<end of nutshell>But I will admit that some of the regulations need to change or at least be more specific. The photographer I mentioned in an earlier message thinks that the policies on spam and external links are very unclear aswell. I would change those policies if I could because I wouldn't mind having the live photo's external link at the end of band pages. I think a lot of those links are actually helpful to the reader. But the majority of the wikipedia community obviously think otherwise. Anyway all I'm doing is going by current policy(whether I agree with it or not) and it's pretty much saying that you went against it. That is what the warnings were for: to inform you that you were going against current wikipedia policy/guildeline. Anyway I'm tired and it's way past by bedtime. All I can say now is all the best and Happy Editing AngelOfSadness talk 23:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough I found a message by the owner of the website on Valo Daily(Ville Valo fan community) and someone was mentioning saving the photos from the website onto their computer when the owner stepped in saying "Hello, I am the owner of ishotyourband.com, please refrain from stealing my images and reposting them. Thanks. The photo that was posted will be deleted as for any others that are stolen.ps: photobucket accounts will be deleted if found with my photos." I'm guessing they don't want people to take their images by saving them onto computers. You might find there is a lot of live photo sections in band articles but a lot of the time the links were added by the owners of the images/website for fans to use on fansites (this is based my wikipedia experience). So by linking that particular website, the link could be misleading fans into thinking that using the photos on their fansites is ok. Seeing as the owner takes copyright fairly seriously, not having this particular link may prevent future legal battles between fans/wikipedia and the owner of the images. Even though it's ok to link to copyrighted works, I would be extra careful when linking this particular website. AngelOfSadness talk 00:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Every edit you made to those articles was linkspam(according to WP:Spam) and I'm sick to the bone of quoting the the part of WP:Spam which you went against. The part I quoted was part of a current policy. You did the opposite of what the policy states which is the same as going against it. Therefore you went against current wikipedia policies. Pure and simple. Thats's why I gave you the warning in the first place.
Anyway, I will agree that there is a difference between looking at copyrighted photos and reposting them somewhere else. But there are a lot of fans who think that it's not copyright infrigement if they give credit as to where they got the photo from if they repost it in let's say a forum. But in the Valo Daily link I provided in the last message, the owner sure wanted to make this perfectly clear that reposting images is copyright infrigement even if given credit. Anyway, I've gotten so off point by now, very sorry. But I think it's better not to link ishotyourband.com on wikipedia articles considering the owner's views. Other owners of images whose websites are linked to wikipedia articles, put the link there themselves so fans can use the photos on their fansites without the need for permission. Linking ishotyourband.com might mislead some fans who don't know what it means by copyright infrigement into thinking that it's ok to use the photos without permission. Even if the photo's are to look at, who's to say many fans haven't already posted the photos on forums worldwide and fansites for that matter. People on buzznet and flickr have already posted these photos. It seems that not everyone knows international copyright laws like the back of their hand. I don't know much about copyrights and the like so that's why I never upload images to wikipedia let alone add external links like band photos. Even though everyone should know about copyright infrigement, a lot of people don't or they simply ignore it. They think their actions are innocent at the time but the website owner will not think so and this could start a legal battle. The person who copied the photos could point the blame on wikipedia and could sue wikipedia for misleading them and the website owner could sue wikipedia for not asking permission to link their site. But it is known people will sue other people/organisations for anything and everything even if it wasn't the organsation/persons fault. See Weird Al's "I'll sue ya" lyrics for a comical break :). You probably think I've gone way overboard with this thing and that I'm overreacting. But all I'm trying to do here is trying to prevent confusion caused by a link on a wikipedia article. Even if a serious thing like that doesn't happen, still there's no harm in deleting the link as it's not like deleting the link will prevent the article from becoming a featured article. If it can be nipped in bud now well then get me my garden clippers
And yes it would be great if you made other edits than just adding external links. But your current edit history looks of that of "a spammer" as WP:Spam puts it. I sorry but that's what it looks like to me and to other editors. Also, if you didn't know already, everything on wikipedia has to be taken with a pinch of salt. This not written in any policies but a lot of editors seem to know this and have mentioned it in various debates. That includes content, policies, whatever really. Even if the link you provided doesn't seem to be in violation itself, you only adding it to multiple articles was a violation of wikipedia policies. Anyway I'm sure your sick of discussing this like I am so the debate ends now. I will not contact you any further regarding the matters at hand. For now All the best. AngelOfSadness talk 13:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 20:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • Traceroute • Geolocate • Tor check • Rangeblock finder] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]