Leadly

Promotional edits

Please do not promote your website at Wikipedia. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not promoting anything... It's a collection of historical Austin images that tens of thousands of people have enjoyed. Your wiki-ego trip is only hurting wikipedia users who won't find and enjoy the historical resource. So kudos on that result! --Leadly (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not trying to be a meanie and I am not on a wiki-ego trip. I am just asking you not to add links to those sites per WP:ELNO. Users can find plenty of historical images at commons.wikimedia.org, Library of Congress, and many, many other sites. Thank you for your understanding. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact, I do not understand how consciously obstructing wikipedia users from more easily locating a relevant non-commercial resource consisting of more than one thousand images (with annotations) dating back more than a century is beneficial to the wikipedia experience. It seems singularly beneficial only to the "editor(s)" wishing to manufacture drama for their own benefit/amusement. --Leadly (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Really, there is no need to say that I wish to manufacture drama for my own benefit or amusement. I do not like drama. And, you may be right. They are nice images. I have posted here to see what another admin thinks. Again, please do not be upset. I am only trying to do what is best. And please understand that so, so, so many people try to get exposure for their websites by placing links at the bottom of Wikipedia articles. Am I correct in guessing that you are related to those two sites? Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, both sites were created by me, and house items from several peoples private collections. The sites in question both predate Wikipedia, and will remain on the internet even if they aren't linked to from wikipedia. The only groups benefiting from Wikipedia linking to these sites are Wikipedia itself and it's users. I haven't maintained any analytics to track visitors to these sites for several years... so my ego is not in play here. They were put online simply to share images that are interesting and educational. How sharing a "private collection" with the public is somehow contrary to wikipedia's interests completely escapes me. I sincerely doubt that a vote/discussion with YOUR peer editors will end well for my cause (the outsider)... However, in the end, it won't really be my loss. It will be some kid writing a paper about Austin that might miss out on seeing some old pictures of Austin that capture his/her imagination. --Leadly (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Drama? There is no drama. This is a dull, garden-variety, unexceptional issue -- one of so many we handle. We are just trying to sort this out.

Huon and I do not stick together. If he thinks I am wrong, he will say so, and I will be fine with that. You are not an outsider. You are a Wikipedian, just like us. However, if anything, you could be considered unqualified to argue for the inclusion of the links because of your conflict of interest. But, your interest is not making money. Your site is fine, and you put a lot of work into it for others to enjoy. I admire and respect that.

This is really not worth all these keystrokes. Why not post at the article talk page and see what the community wants? All three of us can stay silent and see what they say. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You guys/gals do as you see fit. This has already turned into another "no good deed goes unpunished" from my perspective. Links... no links... no matter. Good luck. --Leadly (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks. We'll sort it out this end. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to agree with Anna Frodesiak that those external links should not be added to the Wikipedia articles. The reason isn't a conspiracy of the peer editors against outsiders, but rather that experienced editors base their opinions on Wikipedia's guidelines - Anna Frodesiak mentioned WP:ELNO both above and at my talk page. There's nothing wrong with sharing a private collection with the public, of course - Wikipedia, however, is the wrong venue to share such a collection. By the way, for some of the more recent postcards there might be copyright issues - those published after 1928 are not guaranteed to be in the public domain. Huon (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Surprise, Surprise... :| --Leadly (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. We are just trying to do what is right. If you have an issue with guidelines and policies, there are avenues for that. Also, we did not remove the links. Another editor did. Our views on your site are no more important than those of others. I encourage you to post at both article talk pages asking the community what they think. The community is composed of ordinary people from all over the world. No global conspiracy, just people like you and me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, Huon. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am completely disillusioned with the underlying process at the fiefdom otherwise known as Wikipedia. Your arguments against are weak and reaching... at best (i.e. copyright, watermarked images, etc). Pat yourselves on your backs... I am done here. Best wishes. --Leadly (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Fiefdom? Considering that the community at large, composed of equals, would all give their views and decide, I think this fifedom is remarkably Marxian. There is no fife, but rather an entire community of millions who decides on things. That sounds pretty fair. You can make this about Huon and me versus you if you want. But, it is not. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Whatever helps you sleep at night... I've moved on. Might I suggest you do the same. Continued best wishes. --Leadly (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Splendid. Happy new year. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)