User talk:Alsandair

Welcome!

Hello, Alsandair, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! HighInBC 01:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia

Um, may I ask what you meant by this edit? JoshuaZ 04:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really in the know around here, but I believe I saw an advertisement on the top of all pages for a short while a little more than a month ago. Since (again, to my knowledge, please correct me if I am in the wrong!) there has been no assurance from the Foundation that more advertisements will not be used in the future, I don't think the Wikipedia article belongs in the "no advertisements" category. I guess you could keep adding and removing the category depending on the current state of the website, but it was my impression (as a very limited contributor) that it's the philosophy of the thing that's important - i.e. an "advertising-free website" should never have any advertisements.

Thanks for taking the time to talk about it, and sorry for all the trouble! Alsandair 04:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you saw that you thought was an advertisement but I can assure you that there has never been an advertisement. Things that might have looked at a glance as advertisements could be someone overly frilly userpage tricks (especially those that involve Java) or a new messages bar at the top of the page. However, Wikipedia has never had advertising. If it did, you would notice a blow-up by many users. JoshuaZ 05:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it definitely was an advertisement, and it was at the top of every page. For some airline company or something I think. Alsandair 05:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's very strange. The only thing I could think of is that someone temporarily hacked the server and we didn't notice or there was some sort of adware on the computer you were using. JoshuaZ 05:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a mystery I guess! I have switched browsers since then, so it could have been adware. I certainly hope it was not a hack on your servers! Thanks again, and sorry for taking your time. Alsandair 05:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone else is explaining it to you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but thanks for checking all the same! Alsandair 05:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is what you remember seeing, it was a notification that Virgin Unite was matching donations to the Wikimedia foundation for a while during the fund-raising drive; it wasn't an ad. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! that's it. But isn't what you call a "notification" really an ad? I mean, the only logical reason Virgin Unite could want their logo imprinted over the entire encyclopedia is for publicity, right? And their matched "donations" are payment for the "notification." This just seems to be a case of dodgy terminology. Call it for what it is! Alsandair 05:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, did we really do that? Virgin Unite is a non-profite charitable organization so it might not come across as advertising in the same way, but wow. That's disturbingly close, especially given Virgin being a member of the Virgin group. What was the foundation thinking? JoshuaZ 05:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A certain Pink Floyd song comes to mind! I guess the Foundation has to support itself somehow, but that's not really what this is about. I'm just sayin' that all this means the Wikipedia article doesn't belong in the "no advertisements" category. Wouldn't you agree? Alsandair 05:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Alsandair, I don't agree; please don't repeat that edit. For the specific background of this matching donation, refer to Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-01-02/News_and_notes. For some of the uproar, see here and here. The phrase "much ado about nothing" comes to mind; a non-profit organization matched donations to another non-profit organization for a period of time. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is, personally I don't think that was that big of a deal. --WikiSlasher 06:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, quite a bit of uproar! In my opinion, the placement of the logo meets the definition of an advertisement, but it certainly is a fine line. I wonder why Virgin Unite couldn't simply have been listed with other benefactors on the relevant page. I think it all comes down to publicity, and that makes it an ad. There was an exchange - Virgin Unite gives Wikipedia money, Wikipedia gives Virgin Unite publicity. Lots of it.

I agree that it's not really a very important matter, but why shoo it under the rug just because of that? Why not remove the category from the Wikipedia article and be done with it? Even in seemingly insignificant matters, we should still strive to tell the truth! Alsandair 06:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that the article on advertising says that sponsorship is a form of advertisment. Alsandair 06:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that strongly about it, start a discussion on Talk:Wikipedia and try to rustle up some consensus for your position that the temporary presence of a logo announcing matching donations from a nonprofit organization several weeks ago means that Wikipedia now accepts advertisements. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to want to trivialize the facts to prove a point. I'm simply going by what I think is a black-and-white definition of an advertisement. The crucial facts are that:

Wikipedia at one point placed Virgin Unite's logo, along with the message that the group was matching donations, at the top of every page
By Wikipedia's own definition of an advertisement, the logo and message should be construed as one.
There has been no declaration by the Foundation that such logos/messages will not be placed on the site in the future.

Reasoning through these facts points to the logical conclusion that Wikipedia is not permanently advertisement-free. It would therefore not belong in the "advertisement-free" category.

I would gladly copy and paste this discussion onto the Wikipedia article talk page, if you think that would be appropriate. I'm afraid it might be construed as an attempt to reignite the debate over the validity of the ad in the first place, but hopefully level-headed discussion would prevail. Alsandair 06:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:WikiDiscussionTab.JPG missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:WikiDiscussionTab.JPG

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 18:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:WikiDiscussionTab.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WikiDiscussionTab.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Incivilityforum.PNG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Incivilityforum.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]