User talk:Hawreck

Welcome!

Hello, Hawreck, 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 ask your question there. Again, welcome! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External link

Why would my edit to Edvard Munch be wrong? All I did was add a link to a website with info and artwork of Munch. This edit was deleted or removed by the user "Can't sleep, clown will eat me". Sorry I'm not to familiar with these Wiki-codes yet :) But my edit looked OK, and I hope someone can answer this question.

External links are for directly important links, such as official websites; they should not duplicate information in the article, and ultimately all encyclopedic information at external links should be merged into the article. See also Wikipedia:External links. —Centrx→talk • 00:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So a webpage with many artworks of an artist can not be linked to? I would think that it was of great interest and importance, for many to be able to see the paintings of an artist described in an article here(?), especially his early works and the less known works, and I can't find a natural way of merging it into the article because we are talking about many images, and it wouldn't be natural to paste in several galleries in an article here. It would ruin the whole thing, but this info (artwork) is very much of encyclopedic value, if you ask me, cause we're talking about a very important painter and none of the other external links provide the same material:) But I don't want to make this into an argument, life is too short. I just do not understand the argument for deleting this link and I'm still looking for an answer... ;)

I'm still in the dark here :-) (Hawreck 18:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Which link does it concern? Xiner (talk, email) 19:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added this link: http://home.no/edvard-munch/eng/ to the article regarding Edvard Munch, and it was removed in no time. I got no other explanation than the one above here. Any ida? My arguments for why it should be added are above so I won't repeat them :-) (Hawreck 19:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The only user talk page I usually watch is my own, so sorry for the delay (keeping conversations on one page has its advantanges though).

Anyway, your link does not seem to attribute the source for its images. For the complete policy, please see this page. Xiner (talk, email) 15:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, didn't want to move this conversation as I figured it would be wierd :) Well, first of all, if we look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Scream.jpg, and The Madonna etc, we see that several of these old pictures are in so-called public domain in The USA. And this being the American version of Wikipedia I would think that this link could be added as well. I noticed that the link-page which is on the Norwegian version of this Edvard Munch website, isn't in the English version, and this page cites books and websites as the sources of both images and text. Now, I can see that one may hesitate to link to a website like this, but if one were to deny every similar website (in other subjects/articles) to be linked to when the content is of such importance as it is here, Wikipedia wouldn't be much to look at :-) You can find - probably thousands - of links of the same kind in all kinds of subjects and articles on Wikipedia. But as I said, I don't want to start an argument about this, I just think it's interesting to look into a case like this. What can and what can't be linked to... It's no big deal for me personally, but Wikipedia should set a standard and stick to it 100 percent. I just feel that the public should be able to see some other artworks of Edvard Munch than just The Scream and The Madonna... Especially when the artist has been dead for over 60 years (in regarding of copyright in several countries). Oh, well... Time for a cup of coffee :-) (Hawreck 17:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]