Last modified on 10 December 2010, at 18:04

User talk:Xmraox

Return to "Xmraox" page.
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Xmraox!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

Trunk ArchiveEdit

Hi, Xmraox.

Evidently I missed your note on my talk page for English Wikipedia; my apologies.

As for the issue you raised on my talk page here, as the matter goes back several months, please allow me to retrace my steps and refresh my memory. My preliminary recollection is that it involved not simply conflict of interest but the repeated addition of external links to your own site, a strongly-discouraged practice most Wikipedians regard as linkspamming (please see also en:Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest), the attempt to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for the promotion of the artists your company represents by creating articles about them (such pages are commonly referred to as advertisements masquerading as articles), as well as the use of multiple accounts in the apparent attempt to conceal what it is difficult not to see as an effort to use Wikipedia as an organ of publicity, which it isn't. Rrburke (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


Hi, Rrburke.

Thank you for getting in touch with me. I suppose the first place to start is to clarify why there were multiple accounts. My company hires interns, and one of their roles has been to update the Wikipedia pages of our photographers. The link to our website is not intended as advertising - as I wrote in my previous message, it opens up the artists' archives to the public. Many of our artists did not previously allow their archives to be public, so this is a special thing that is useful for the larger web community. The public, including many students, can learn about our photographers in a way that Google Images cannot provide.

I apologize that some of the interns were misguided in how they chose to post, and initially, the company did not learn about Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. This has tarnished our reputation and created an obstacle to our mission, which is to let the public know that the archives exist. They are free for anyone to look at. This is within the intentions of the Wikipedia mission - to make information widely available and free. Our information is images.

Could you also please consider my point that we function similarly to a gallery? Please let me know your thoughts on this matter.

Thank you again for taking the time to engage with me.

Xmraox (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Xmraox. I noticed your reply on my talk page. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find the time to respond. I'll reply as soon as possible. Rrburke (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)