Talk:Salça

message: Please undo . It's important that at least one image of the actual product, as it is available in Turkey, be available to our users. Thank you. Badagnani (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to substitute a link that complies with our guidelines, 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. Kuru talk 23:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

text: 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 an actual picture of Biber salçası.  Perhaps you could be troubled to explain your position? Kuru talk 00:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: 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. Kuru talk 02:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: 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? Kuru talk 03:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Ignorance of Fair Use is deadly. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: 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 and WP:EL rules. DreamGuy (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Based upon your actions and your comments, it's clear at least that you don't understand WP: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)
thread_title:  Picture of actual can removed, without discussion 

message: See . 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 a WP: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)
replies: text: I did not do it for a point. The external link is not a image. Stop attacking editors who don't agree with you. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm uploading a image as I speak. Need to sort through the licenses. Stop the guise with "image" for the EL. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: The link failed WP: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)
thread_title: More blanking

message: 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)
replies: text: I do know there is another template for Low-Quality Image to identify subject in question. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 under  ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: If you have time, see if you can find a image on one of the websites here (Creative Commons Search)
.
ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: Is this a joke? The references were all removed, in a hyperaggressive, WP:POINTy manner, not less than 24 hours ago. Have people forgotten this already? Badagnani (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review WP:RS for what counts as sources by Wikipedia standards. DreamGuy (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like it if you would with the hyperbole's. Wikipedia is not a battleground. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unreferenced" tag