Talk:Subvertising/Archives/2012

Freenet link

Is the freenet link essential? I am concerned about the use of links to a leading edge technology that is neither widelt adopted nor supported. I propose to delete this link, which feels like covert advertising for freenet (even if that is not its intent). —Theo (Talk) 23:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

My argument is this. If you will find a www version of it, i'll delete it myself if you want. It's just that i don't think that online version exists, thus i say give the reader all the info they want, they'll decide whether or not to actually use it and go through the trouble of attempting to access the link. It's like a book, nobody says you must buy it, but if you are interested in the topic, you just might. Beta m (talk)

Although I have some sympathy with your argument, I do not think that it is enough "like a book". The book is a well-established stable technology. To use this technology one can buy a book or borrow a copy. There are extensive inter-library loan networks that enable most people to obtain a copy of most books even where those books are out of print. Using these access technologies involves nothing fundamentally unfamiliar to the user. Freenet, on the other hand, is not a widely accessable, well-established technology. I understand that a person may install the appropriate software but such software is not standard; it is not widely used and it is not yet stabilised. If we accept freenet as a verifiable source, then we open the encyclopedia up to a whole range of other sources that are also available if one installs some (open or proprietary) utility that is not yet a de facto standard. My problem is that I can see no low-profile way to include freenet links as things stand: The explanation is sufficiently intrusive to act as an advertisement for a system that is not yet widely used (indeed, were it as widely used as PDF, say, such explanation would be unneeded). This needs to be discussed more widely as a policy proposal before its implementation. In the meantime, I suggest that you move the link to this talk page so that it is still available for those who wish to explore. —Theo (Talk) 10:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Exxtreme Droughts.jpg

Image:Exxtreme Droughts.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

this is subvertising

http://www.mixthemessage.com/epages/Store3_Shop2472.sf a example of the evolution of subvertising, not seen on another site, nor less relevant than the other links contained within this section —Preceding unsigned comment added by I'mvominit (talk • contribs) 15:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)