This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage offood anddrink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please reviewWP:Trivia andWP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the{{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects,select here.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofTurkey andrelated topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
Please feel free to substitute a link that complies with ourguidelines, or offer a more compelling reason why a picture of a can on a commercial check out page better illustrates the the topic of the article than a picture of, you know, the topic of the article.Kurutalk23:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the guideline is fine. "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services" seems to be a significant problem here, or "any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article", unless you feel the image of a can with the words "Biber salçası" is more descriptive than anactual picture of Biber salçası. Perhaps you could be troubled to explain your position?Kurutalk00:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see, you're trying to make aWP:POINT, and using sheer hyperaggressiveness to push through your deletion. This is a product that is available in Turkey and the link provides our users with a real-life image of what such a product looks like, as well as other information about it that adds to the information contained in the article's text. Edit warring to prove aWP:POINT, blanking a link showing what this item looks like in real life, just isn't helpful to our readers. They must be paramount in everything we do, maintaining common sense at all times rather than privileging misreadings of our guidelines and editing in a hyperaggressive manner, and impugning long-time, productive contributors.Badagnani (talk)01:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you feel that my one edit to the article is edit warring, or that it was "hyperagressive". I don't recall "blanking" a link; I simply replaced it with one that seemed more in line with what you were trying to do. I'm presuming you're really looking for something that shows what biber salçası looks like. Could I trouble you to compare the image in your link to the image in the link I added earlier? Which do you feel accurately shows the topic of the article? What "other information" did your link add? The price? I'd love to understand your position, but perhaps you could dispense with the rhetoric.Kurutalk02:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has become disruptive. I have stated several times that the photo adds information for our readers that is significant, in showing how this item would appear to most people going out and looking for it in a store. I'm not sure how many ways I can rephrase that. If you go toPrunus mume, you'd see several similar images of products made from this East Asian fruit. Either you feel my view has some weight as one of the most productive and sincere contributors to our project, or you'd rather make aWP:POINT and throw your weight around in a hyperaggressive manner. I don't believe any discussion on my part is going to have any effect on your already-made-up mind. Kindly restore the link.Badagnani (talk)03:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, you would feel that any link to an image of the can or any uploaded version of the same would serve the same purpose as the link to the vendor's site?Kurutalk03:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An image of a can of this product, as we have atPrunus mume, would obviously be a good thing. However, this is a rare product and there don't appear to be any free images available to us to upload yet. Hence the need for the link. Wasn't that obvious without having to make me respond to provide justification for the link yet again? Common sense should be a guiding force in everything we do.Badagnani (talk)05:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even understand why you are calling this a rare product. It's available all over. I bought some a few months ago here locally in the middle of Tennessee, which is nowhere near Turkey. Next time I pick up some I'll get a photo. Either way we cannot have a link to a commercial site selling the product, per common sense andWP:EL rules.DreamGuy (talk)16:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does this mean? Is this aWP:TROLLing comment? I am one of the most productive and sincire contributors to this project. Are you implying that I don't understand our project's policies? That is outrageous!Badagnani (talk)05:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon your actions and your comments, it's clear at least that you don't understandWP:EL. I don't question your sincerity, but sincerity alone does not justify the kinds of edits you were making, they still need to follow our rules.DreamGuy (talk)15:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See[2]. There is now no image in the article, nor linked in the article's text. The removing editor (who failed to utilize "Discussion," in a quite un-Wikipedian manner, probably in order to make aWP:POINT) believes, quite wrongly, that an article devoid of images is the best for our users. Please restore this link. Thank you very much for this consideration.Badagnani (talk)05:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I ask respectfully that you restore the blanked link. Leaving our users with no link to see what this item looks like does not assist them in having an encyclopedic treatment of this item. Your edit summary was very presumptuous and a serious misreading of our policies and guidelines. Please leave off making yourWP:POINT and restore the link.Badagnani (talk)05:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot make sense of your last sentence. This article should have an image of the paste itself, as well as a container (can, jar) thereof. The link giving several images and valuable background information, which you blanked, should also be restored, as I've asked twice already. Thank you in advance for that, and for finally improving this article rather than insisting on depleting it.Badagnani (talk)05:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link failedWP:EL rules quite drastically, as several editors have pointed out to you in multiple locations. Continuing to insist that we link to that site is a waste of time, as it's never going to happen.DreamGuy (talk)15:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That photo is most likely going to be removed. Nearly 100 photos I uploaded a couple of years ago under the same license were all removed because a Wikipedian could conceivably take a free photo of such a food item.Badagnani (talk)05:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as far as I remember from looking up fair use (had to for club I was co-founding), as long as it A) doesn't lower the commercial value of the product and B)Is Low quality, it is acceptable, but I could be wrong, as I'm no lawyer, and wikipedia policies are different. Also, Education has a special tenant in fair use, and I would think Wikipedia falls under education, at least in the purpose the image is being used underηoian‡orever ηew ‡rontiers05:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have time, see if you can find a image on one of the websites here (Creative Commons Search)
I've already done that. We'd need a Wikipedian in Turkey to help but there's usually not much attention paid to photo requests. I wish my photos under this same license hadn't been removed, but they were. Wikipedia is not solely for educational purposes; photos used here must be "free" so that they may be reused for any purpose, including educational but also including commercial use (so, for example, a restaurant could put a free photo they find on Wikipedia on their menu).Badagnani (talk)05:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If editors do not insist on blanking, in a hyperaggressive manner but instead discuss in a thoughtful manner, no rhetoric would be needed--we would be working together in a collegial, collaborative manner as we are supposed to do.Badagnani (talk)19:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
