Talk:Lenticular lens (version 2)

message: The following comment is from the talk page of User_talk:Archer3 by User:69.118.206.92
Your comment was... (existing ad links is not an excuse to add new ad links.) So why then is it ok to have an external link that's thinly veiled as editorial, but that site in turn only links to a single commercial vendor? Is it any more editorially pure to throw up a small blog or forum with an obvious singlular commercial interest than it is to clearly label a Commercial Links area? What you're up to seems disingenuine best; whether intentional or not. Especially for a more esoteric industry area such as Lenticular, there is value in listing several of the top commercial vendors. Look around; seems acceptable in both "artificial hip" and "dog food" and all manner of places. And clearly listing the links as "Commercial" vs. disingenously listing them as just "External" is the best way to do this. (Which was pretty much the first change I'd made when I first edited this article. Nothing in the Wiki spam Guidelines is violated by clearly labeling one small bottom section as commercial vendors unless you take an overly purist perspective.
It's interesting how looking deeply into the history, some have removed SOME commercial vendors from external links, but not others. Personally, I no longer work for any particular printer or even in this industry so my interest is in just not being jerked around. Perhaps a great future Wiki addition would be - for a fee - for people to have verfied affiliations publicly listed. What's yours?
So, either accept some commercial links without bias over one or the other, or remove any form of what you consider to be spam, which includes 'filler' editorial with little added value.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.206.92 (talk • contribs) 17 August 2006
*I'm not the owner of this article, just a registered user. If you feel those external links are inappropriate ad links, then by all means remove them. I won't object if you remove them. They seemed non-commercial to me, but I didn't look very hard. The ones I removed were blatant sites selling products or services. From the Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, item #4 says: Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming. The links I removed seem to me to be in violation of this. Additionally, in regards to perceived commercial links in other articles, I violations of WP:SPAM in one article does not make it OK to violate it in another article. Also, I have no ties to the lenticular industry and never did. I just came across this article in process of reverting random vandalism. Archer3 04:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial vendors inappropriate 

message: The use of the poster on this page violates Wikipedia:Fair_use_criteria #1(a free lenticular image can be created) and #10(fair use rationale on the image was for use in the Spider-Man 3 article only).  I've removed it. Borisblue 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed spiderman poster

message: I'm wondering if "Lenticular" should change from a Redirect page to a Disambiguation page, mentioning Lenticular cloud, in addition to the current redirect-topic of Lenticular lens.
I'm relatively new as an editor, so I'm not sure how to make such a change, or what the criteria should be for making them, so I'm posting to the talk section instead.  I'd appreciate someone either making this change, or contacting me and educating me on if/how I should make it.
Lindes 21:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambiguation?