Agunther
Joined 9 June 2007
Latest comment: 17 years ago by JohnManuel in topic Regarding edits made during July 13 2007
Adding unrelated external links to articles is considered vandalism. If you continue to use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing. John Manuel-00:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the message, but I have explained everything in the discussion and I have NOT added unrelated links. Did you even bother to read the discussion? I would like to get clarification on this (thats why I put it up for discussion). I would like to know why you think it was unrelated. Agunther
I also fail to see why the NG article remains on the page. It is nothing but a collection of links and no more related then the article I have added. Agunther
- Dear user Agunther, Hello and welcome, sorry but this is not an advertising agency, your link indeed has some information but cannot be compared with the neutrality and scientific rigor of the UNESCO, National Geographics, and the like. Why? simple, for instance NG has and is still founding expeditions in junction with other entities. NG content is an official source, they founded Hiram Bingham, the rediscover of MP in 1911. NG has an academic and scholarly reputation thas has past well beyond the test of time. Sorry, but your link has advertising this seem to violate Wikipedia policies. However, I invite to join or I can help you to upload some of your Pictures into Wikimedia Commons so we can improve the galleries. Also you are free to edit if you have sourced and verifiable information to add density and richness to the content of MP and other articles. Please let me know if I could help you and I wish you the best for your future endeavord here at Wikipedia and elsewere. Below so you could contiue well. Sincerely -John Manuel01:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hello John. Thank you for the explanation. I am still struggling a bit with this, although I have no choice but to accept it. Here are a few points I really don't agree with:
- I was under the assumption that Wikipedia is a source of free speech and most of all free information. By channeling the flow of information to "established" sites and thus silencing the small guy, individuality and most of all different perspectives are lost. At what point is a resource valuable and valid? Apparently the article in question is good enough for the editors of About.com to link it, but not good enough for Wikipedia.
- You have criticized the usage of advertisement on the site and I agree with you. If it were up to me, it would be ad free. Unfortunately I have no foundation to pay for the server and I have no corporate financing (like NYT or NGC) that pay for my expenses . The amount of advertisement is purposely kept low, but enough to pay for the expenses (compare it to the in-your-face-ads of other websites). If we are only going to accept ad free content, we are effectively silencing independent publishers. In the long run, only big corporations will be able to publish their opinion (or sites that receive financing elsewhere), thus we are shutting out independent opinion.
- About the pictures: I am glad you find my pictures noteworthy. I have contributed to the MP page over time (hadn't bothered to create a user account until now), but now all my credits have been taken away. I am afraid that the same will happen to my pictures in the long run.
- All in all, I am slightly offended that my hard work was removed together with all the spam sites with the simple statement that someone cleaned up all the spam.
- On a brighter note, if you want to enjoy something else Machu Picchu related, check this out: 222 Megapixel Pix Agunther
- I have to disagree with John. The mere presence of some advertising on a site does not disqualify it from being linked. What disqualifies a site is excessive advertising, such as huge pop-ups, multiple banners, etc. or having a store or shopping component. The site you linked appears to be informative, and IMO can stay. Calling your edits vandalism was in my opinion completely out of line. IPSOS (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Do you mean IYVHO? -"-Todos Llegan de Noche, todos se van de día" 12:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with John. The mere presence of some advertising on a site does not disqualify it from being linked. What disqualifies a site is excessive advertising, such as huge pop-ups, multiple banners, etc. or having a store or shopping component. The site you linked appears to be informative, and IMO can stay. Calling your edits vandalism was in my opinion completely out of line. IPSOS (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia!
edit
|
-01:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
On Licenses and its goodies
edit- As you see I have so many fans, they follow me any place I go. In response to your views about the small guy versus the big guy. You see this is not the place to make business. It is simple, whether one simple pop up or banners (your side have more banners) probably is too much, you see? The site MP is under a very intense change and it is semiprotected because IPs were vandalizing it. So perhaps you where victim of a paranoia, but really you didn't. I think, I would ask others with more experience than I have on this policy, you also can check this, but be patient. Now, why you lost your credits? simple if you remember you IP I will found your diffs for you, but them how can we proof your identity? Nowadays, there are many socketpuppets. Great! that you create your account, I am glad, because is the beginning for developing your historical background and the best way to manage your contributions and knowledge. I do it because it helps me tremendously in terms of refreshing and improving my knowledge, I didn't find a better way than Wikipedia. I highly recommend that you put your work under commons, you will preserve your attributions if you want. Now, if you think about Money, they there is always other ways. Like seminars, support, working for another company, etc. You don't need to release all your pics. Just some enough to help you establish even more as a photographer and of course I enjoy your photographs. I will help you if you want. First open an account on Wikimedia Commons, then talk to me. But first about the different licenses. You see freedom is about the ability to share, it is a moral question, Freedom of access and to know and see, With the GPL for example you will never lose your rights, yes anybody can use your pictures and modified them but is they do they need to cite you as the main source. Imagine this is viral, hundreds of people using your pictures and stating in all those place that this Photo was taken primarily by the Photographer A. Gunther, and thousand of people will have opportunity to see them. In a long run you work will impact more people and more people. These license is the best for all of us. Read Richard Stallman. Well, I need to go.
- I will ask about your site, but you also ask about it to a fourth parties since we have already a third party in here. Well, my best wishes and hope to hear from you soon. Wonderful work! share it with the world!, the more eyeballs the better for your photos. I think. So continue. Shalom.
John Manuel-05:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- About that: I have considered putting some of my work under creative commons for exactly the reasons you are stating. I don't mind if some of my work is being used all over the net. However even without that, I have found my images on real estate websites selling condos, I have found them in brochures and a whole bunch of other places, and this is WITHOUT any of it being released under creative commons. None of these places ever gave any credit and upon request insulted me. Why else would I put watermarks on all of them? I don't like them either.
- I am well aware of the open source movement and Stallman's ideas (yes I am very involved with technology), however its idealistic and doesn't work under all conditions. A programmer needs to make money and unless there is a company willing to pay him or he can make money with support, he/she cannot afford to release all of his work for free. In the end a man needs to put food on the table, doesn't he? It is easy for a hobby photographer to condemn anyone who makes money with photos and call for open licensing and it is also easy for a person (like me) who doesn't earn a living as a programmer to release something for free (have done so before), but I would never condemn a professional programmer for wanting to make a living and neither would I try to do ask a freelance artist who is just trying to built a portfolio and starting out.
- To me it looks like this: You are removing a link to a resource and at the same time ask me to make it all available on Wikipedia. Are you going to remove links to NG next and ask them to put all their content under creative commons and put it here? What will I live on then? Of course I enjoy if more and more people see my work and in an idealistic world without money (former Star Trek fan), it would certainly be an option.
- I will probably take you up on your kind offer and explore some of the possibilities of WikiMedia just to see how all this works (you got me a bit curious). I am sure I can spare enough images and donate them here, after all I have a large library on my hard drives that never saw the light of the day.
- If you deem my work unworthy and the rest of Wikipedia agrees with you, fine. Its a democracy after all. I just don't understand that my work shouldn't be good enough to be worthy a link, but at the same time you ask me to contribute it to WikiMedia.
- I wouldn't mind releasing the 222 Megapixel Image under this license, but I don't see how WikiMedia could handle this (it requires a plugin to display in the browser and on my server I can keep the bots at bay that hit me every day trying to download the entire picture - certainly not to give me credits).
Aghunther, I will respond more ASAP this is some of my comment at the talk page. For briefing in here, yes as I have explained to you, load them to commons with the object and sole purpose to use those pictures on the many pages of the many "InterWikied" projects of Wikimedia. If not the photos will go into an oblivious of zillions of bits saved on distant repository servers out there. Please, Click in the Another version of the same subject same project different language ◙ evenly one more to see how this photos of Commons are properly used, by experienced Wikipedians. Some users are just learning the ropes and are concentrating in rules that they seem to not understand very well. See this in this version Vermeer, Rembrandt, Raphael, Durer, Leonardo, Michaelangelo, in this version, this is the way to share your work with the rest of the world not with a little icon that few people really care for clicking and they so often neglect, people want for the most part instantaneous gratification. Time will tell you, also becareful, is not easy you need to understand very well the licenses of course clicking and selecting with the mouse is easy but to conceptualizing what are you giving away for free it is more, too far more important and in Commons there are various ways of releasing your work, but it also can be deleted without any compassion as you have been seen in here, if it were not properly documented or any other, issue. Other aspect even more, there are a lat of categories, Commons' sysops don't like orphans, believe me and remember your credits, well, also and again can go to the null in oblivion. Of course, it is reading time. Regards. John Manuel 21:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes please respond some more, hopefully with a link to the "Commons". As this is new territory for me, I don't even know where to look for this.--Agunther 22:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
First Steps
edit- Please do not delete my Welcome page or any other page of any other user. Ask first. Most people save the Welcome message as a sign of their upbringing or "birth" to this new world of knowledge. Keep it, and read the five pillars of Wikipedia in your spare time. If you still want to remove it you can from your page or I will do it for you, just let me know.
- Go Here and open an account then let me know and be patient, I did not know that you had had answered my message, but I will check your page more often though. Also I will talk to people with more experience than I, to help you if necessary.
- I did ask however a very knowledgeable user about your "link", I didn't mention who or the real reason, because I know now that you do not understand very well the reality of the licenses [who really does in its completion] and the spirit or ideals [or all very practical in nature, I would write, pragmatical] behind it. You need more time. Well, the case at hand, this veteran user told me that I need to look for another link because that one was a piece of advertising. Sorry, for you and for your photos in that site. Also bear in mind that from Machu Picchu there are hundreds of Photos and Photographers, yours looks very nice but in fact in a "free Market" you need to compete and in an open market also you need to compete for adoption, but the FSF more precisely the GFDL idea facilitates their usage [of your photos in this case] and its deliverables for adoption much more effectively and far more securely. I think is giving you more chances, both to be recognized for whatever you have done and for your work in the world or community interested in the subject in question or exposition. OK. Hear you soon. John Manuel-17:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think it splits the page, especially for users with small screens. I don't mind it, as long as it is kept at the bottom of the page, otherwise not everyone will understand that there is something below that, don't you think?
- I made the account, I will explore this whenever I get a chance to do it. I am a bit busy right now, but I will soon. Maybe you can point me towards a nice tutorial?
- Allright then, would you be o.k. if I remove the adverts from this one page? As I have outlined above, I cannot bear the financial burden of running the site completely without them, but I could do it for this page. I would also like to encourage you to pick a random subject and check how many pages can really afford to run without advertisement. And how come a link to Newspapers is always o.k. when most of them have way more advertisement then my small site? I think you need to look at the glass half full instead of half empty. I am providing free information and pictures I reserve the right to put a small banner on the side of the page that nobody even has to care about. Either way, I will remove it if that makes you happy to get things over with and to proof once and for all that I am not primarily driven by commercial interest but rather support my cost through this. If you completely forbid advertisement online, 99% of large websites without a foundation or company behind them would have to give up. Not everyone has the bankroll to pay for servers out of their own pocket (you are welcome to make a sizable donation and I will remove all adverts once and for all, but I assume that just like everyone else who complains, when it comes to personal finances all of a sudden people become very quiet ;-) ). The whole idea of the internet revolves around links and I just don't get why people make such a big fuzz about this. From my own websites I link to numerous others, regardless if they advertise or not, if I think that my readers would benefit from the link. I don't care if someone makes a cent from a visitor I sent them. This whole obsession about links I observe recently is just against the idea of the net. Again, my offer stands to remove the ads from this one page.
- This is a talk page, it concerns to editors and so they will understand the page as it is, if other servers capture this conversation and disseminate elsewhere then is up to those readers to make sense out of something that is historical in nature. Latter on you will need to archive this page for having a clean new start from time to time. Eventually you will get there.
- nice tutorials Here for you.
- Well, the way I see it, I donate my time, expertise, knowledge, professional experience in several languages to this project. I am doing and giving my part and bones to this and with you as well. Did I advertise for it? nope. Why am I doing this? Well, since the very beginning of my life, my first books were a set of 20 volumes in the form and shape of an encyclopedia. Therefore, I feel at home in here. My purpose is not making money out of this, but help to translate our human effort in a suitable compilation of everything that there is to be known in the most neutral, and verifiable but enjoyable way. But this is me, by no means is the view of the whole community in here, nor I wish that you don't make money out of your little banner or something. It is kind of when Jesus sought these guys selling staff at the temple, then he got really mad out of seen it. have you seen any add or banner around any page of Wikipedia, like those pages in about.com, or answers.com, or Encarta or evenly Britannica? nope. Now, even the supremo founder Jimbo, is trying to make money out of this eventually, I bet he will do it somehow and I see myself helping for that to happen and even more giving ideas in how this could be developed without losing a bit the rigor and observance with the FLOSS. I am not blaming you for wanting to make money or what Jimbo himself has declared in one point. The question, it is how, for example, there are people slaving women at this point in the world, why do they do this? they make money. The example is extreme, but it is nonetheless very and unfortunately real. Look Open it does not mean, no money or competition, means fairness. Free does not mean gratis, it means openness to share and access, in this case information and education. Another thing is to understand the information and apply it in real life. Therefore, in the records, in this case on the financial accounts, we have Red Hat a company that made strangely quite amount of money very quickly and went public, IPO as a result in no time, using Linux a product of this kind of collaboration, FSF or GPL. This last is not and isolate case, there are many. You can still making money but not only through advertising, remember how much money you need to spent in adds or sever time so you can sell one photo, or service. It is not cost effective, you are competing in the wrong market. Look I develop and has put products in places were others could sale nothing. I like competition as well, but that is other ball game. Every one needs to make a living and most people who come here come to build a encyclopedia, and not to make money. Of course you will find edit wars, some very important others very stupid, but somehow you end up with a fair and strong content in those pages. When you feel the joy of documenting a place through your photos and learn that many people are seeing your work and appreciate it, that provides an immense happiness. I would write more but for now, Shalom. PD. I will ask again about your link, do not remove nada, from your commercial pages at this point, (at least that is what I think) just upload some images. Think in what you stated about links and you will find the answer just thereJohn Manuel-12:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)~