Travelpunki

February 2010

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection 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 guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.--John (talk) 06:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because 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. --John (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Spam warning

Hello John and Wikipedians,

my only intention of putting links was to share my knowledge. I am convinced that three dimensional views of buildings and sites are useful for understanding the complete architectural structure. Since I think it important for people interested in encyclopedic articles about certain buildings and sites, I posted the links.

I am still new in Wikipedia trying to understand all the features and rules, and I am overly happy if I can contribute something, even if it is only a link to a source which I consider important.

Once I noticed your spam warning, I read more carefully through many of the endless informational Wikipedia pages concerning external links. Since I cannot see clearly, why these links are considered spamming, I would appreciate to get more details on what causes this impression.

Thank you in advance for your help with which I am able to grow within the Wiki-community.

Travelpunki (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is easier if you tell me why you considered these resources important to the articles on which you placed them. What would they add to our coverage? --John (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello John,

in my opinion, no description is as good as the original building. One can try to imagine it according to the description, but the image we build in our minds will generally depend on the individual imagination and might result far from reality. In order to get a proper visual impression of a building or site, a picture is needed mirroring it as it is. Unfortunately, pictures (in general photos) hardly ever show the whole truth. I haven't yet seen a building or a site being photographed from all sides - also the back, which I consider an essential information for an encyclopedia. There might (guessing) well be such photos in the web, but they are not covered by Wikipedia yet. Threedimensional demonstrations in comparision to photos are cleansed from the individual perspective of the photographer. They are also not prone to any misinformation caused by light, darkness, contortions, fog, trees, lanterns, people...

Furthermore, Buildings and sites are, as the whole real world, threedimensional. For that, it seems close to me to demonstrate a building or site with the help of a threedimensional image.

As far as I understand, Wikipedia's policy is against promoting the use of any products, which in this case are external programs needed to view 3D-images on other websites, for example Google Earth or Bing Maps. Sight3D is the only website that does not require any installation of additional software, thus seems to me appropriate for Wikipedia users.

Travelpunki (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)