I see you are adding links to the NZ On Screen website. Presumably you are aware of the discussion at Wikipedia:NZWNB#NZ On Screen as a source. The consensus at that discussion (although based on only two comments) is that such links are useful. It's appreciated that someone from NZ On Screen made contact with us to explain about the site.
As you add links, your edits will be scrutinised by other editors, especially recent changes patrollers, who will not be aware of the discussion at the New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board. They are likely to respond negatively to the pattern of an account adding links to a single website from many different articles, because this edit pattern often does indicate spam. To reduce the likelihood of such misidentification of your edits, please consider adding a message such as
to your edit summary.
Thanks for your contributions so far.- gadfium 19:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Please join a discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links#NZ on Screen to determine a new consensus on whether links to NZ On Screen are appropriate. Your input would be useful.- gadfium 06:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Although we've already had this discussion, you continued behaviour is borderlining on WP:SPAM. Even if the links are valid in themselves, when a particular editor does nothing but spam them his intents become clear. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Please stop this behaviour. The links are welcome, but try to help out the articles as well. If this behaviour continues, I'll bring this up for another discussion at WT:WPSPAM. Them From Space 16:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I brought up a discussion about your edits at the new External Links Noticeboard here. I'm not sure how much attention it will recieve, but I still have major issues with your linking of the site and I would like a larger body of editors to judge whether what your doing is apporpriate or not. Them From Space 23:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
FYI: Your link in recent edit summaries (
example) is broken. It looks as if you mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_24#NZ_on_Screen
.
Johnuniq (
talk)
04:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder that you must always include information about rich media software and file sizes when you provide links to NZonScreen.com and similar webpages. The English Wikipedia gets users from all over the world, many of whom have older computers and very slow connections. This rule exists out of kindness for these users, who very frequently choose to avoid video pages. The official guidance is available at WP:EL#Rich media, but normally you only need to type (using this link as an example) "Requires Flash video software (55.7 MB)." at the end of the description line.
Please make an effort to provide complete descriptions the links you have already added, and to not forget this requirement in the future. Thanks, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The link you are using in your edit notes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:External_links#NZ_on_Screen&oldid=272191185) no longer seems to work. I think the link you want is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_24#NZ_on_Screen but I'm not 100% sure, not having seen it working earlier. Stuartyeates ( talk) 07:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Danielle Cormack, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. - sesu PRIME 04:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The discussion has not finished and there is no consensus to do so. If it takes an objection on each to get you to stop then I will object. Please also see the findings I've posted at the discussion. Them From Space 05:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
You have the support of the editors of those pages that such links are indeed relevant, and you have been following the rules as far as you can, and accommodating of the requests of other users. Your focus has always been on whether the content is encyclopedic, and I commend you for that. I don't have any advice about what to do right now. I'd wait it out a few days. Mostlyharmless ( talk) 06:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see the latest messages at the External links/Noticeboard. UncleDouggie ( talk) 05:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you insert advertising or a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. -- Hu12 ( talk) 14:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked you indefinitely for block evasion (your previous account, NZ On Screen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently indefinitely blocked) and spamming. Having reviewed your unblock requests then and your wikilawyering now about links to your site, it is clear to me that you simply do not understand why your promotional activities are a problem. This is well summed up here: Review and proposed ban of spam-only account Filmtvfan. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion and those who try to use it as such are not welcome. Guy ( Help!) 17:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
When I first started as user nzonscreen yes, I did not follow the rules nor make myself sufficiently aware of the requirements for posting on wikipedia. I realised that promoting the site was not acceptable, and following attempts at discussions, was blocked. Subsequently I created a new user, FilmTVFan - in order to try again without prejudice - when this user added links AND editorial content, by following proper process and requesting permission, it was allowed.
Consequently I added relevant links to NZ On Screen. In many cases I also added content to the entries. The NZ On Screen links lead to examples of people's screen works, to full length or excerpted documentaries which are not available anywhere else, to interviews with people which we create, and to backgrounds and biographies written by 'experts' for NZ On Screen. It is my opinion, and to my understanding also the opinion of other editors, that these were valuable and accepted contributions to Wikipedia.
When the recent debate started I understood a discussion was required and was working with editors to agree on a process whereby references to NZ On Screen could be considered. I agreed to post suggested links on the talk pages and await consensus or debate - as was proposed. Then all my edits were reverted by user Hu12. I asked how to reinstate them, user UncleDouggie said to put back any that were not contentious, to open discussion for contentious ones, and to use the talk pages for anything new. I started to follow this suggestion, and reinstated links that had not been contentious. I was subsequently blocked.
NZ On Screen is a valuable, respected and reputable source of information about New Zealand film, television, music and the people who work in the screen industry. It is a government funded, non-commercial project. There is nothing to be gained commercially for the project in these links - it is purely sharing of information that is relevant to the pages in Wikipedia, and which has been sourced and created purely for NZ On Screen. I can see that users who come to the site from Wikipedia spend time on the site watching videos that relate to the pages they were referenced from. I see that IMDB is somehow a recognised link from Wikipedia and yet it offers considerably less added value than NZ On Screen - particularly for the local (NZ) content we describe.
I do not personally know any of the people who have contributed to this discussion, they are not my 'friends'. As I see it editors who are from NZ or Australia, who know the content and can see the value in this reference, are the ones who are supporting this cause.
I am certainly willing to work out a way to add value to Wikipedia, and to reference appropriate material on the site. I am not stupid, or malicious, or a spammer. You have now identified me by name, role and twitter account in this public forum. I would like to request that the discussion continues. FilmTVFan ( talk) 21:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I see that someone has also blocked this user 'Capricorn58' under the assumption it is also FilmTVFan and/or NZ On Screen. I have no idea who this user is - I just found them because they edited the NZ On Screen entry and I checked to see who they were. If you check you will see they've been a member since 2007 - way before NZ On Screen even existed.
I am sure they will not appreciate you having blocked them. I have noted above that there have been 2 accounts I am responsible for - and I can assure you that is all there has ever been from me. Filmtvfan ( talk) 05:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for all the work you have done on Wikipedia. It is unfortunate that some people were unable to appreciate the value of it. People who primarily add external links to Wikipedia range from spammers plugging commercial links with no relevance to the articles they place them on, through to people who place relevant links which are of insufficient value to the article (such as links to photos), through to people such as yourself who provide exactly the sort of links we need. Unfortunately our policies on Single-purpose accounts and linkspam do not adequately discriminate between these cases. Because NZ on Screen is a valuable resource, I would expect that it will be added into articles at a slow rate by very many editors over time. It will certainly be my first place to search for information to reference articles on New Zealand actors and programs in future when I am attempting to reference an article.
You probably feel bitter about your experience here, and there's nothing I can do to put it right. I can only suggest that you find some other way to make the world a better place.- gadfium 18:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware this situation was not resolved, no final decision or consensus reached. Yet it appears to have been archived and this discussion has also disappeared or been moved. What happens now? Filmtvfan ( talk) 22:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your support and your suggestions. However I have had it with Wikipedia, I have found the whole experience disheartening and frustrating and quite frankly I have better things to do with my time.
It is a shame, I have added context to a number of articles, and would have continued to do so - and to go by whatever rules were put in place. But I have no desire to go through that again, of doing what I was given to believe was the right process only to have someone undo everything in one sweep.
I hope that the wider community continues to find value in the NZ On Screen links, it seems a wide variety of people are adding them into various articles and obviously they see benefit in the association.
Keep up the good work :) Filmtvfan ( talk) 21:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
A person from New Zealand Department of Conservation has asked permission to fix broken links to their website. Given this mess, I am asking for wider feedback before we allow or deny this request. The request is at User:Conservation ranger. Please comment at User talk:Conservation ranger.
I'm posting here because people with an interest in this case will probably have an opinion on that one.- gadfium 23:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I see you are adding links to the NZ On Screen website. Presumably you are aware of the discussion at Wikipedia:NZWNB#NZ On Screen as a source. The consensus at that discussion (although based on only two comments) is that such links are useful. It's appreciated that someone from NZ On Screen made contact with us to explain about the site.
As you add links, your edits will be scrutinised by other editors, especially recent changes patrollers, who will not be aware of the discussion at the New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board. They are likely to respond negatively to the pattern of an account adding links to a single website from many different articles, because this edit pattern often does indicate spam. To reduce the likelihood of such misidentification of your edits, please consider adding a message such as
to your edit summary.
Thanks for your contributions so far.- gadfium 19:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Please join a discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links#NZ on Screen to determine a new consensus on whether links to NZ On Screen are appropriate. Your input would be useful.- gadfium 06:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Although we've already had this discussion, you continued behaviour is borderlining on WP:SPAM. Even if the links are valid in themselves, when a particular editor does nothing but spam them his intents become clear. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Please stop this behaviour. The links are welcome, but try to help out the articles as well. If this behaviour continues, I'll bring this up for another discussion at WT:WPSPAM. Them From Space 16:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I brought up a discussion about your edits at the new External Links Noticeboard here. I'm not sure how much attention it will recieve, but I still have major issues with your linking of the site and I would like a larger body of editors to judge whether what your doing is apporpriate or not. Them From Space 23:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
FYI: Your link in recent edit summaries (
example) is broken. It looks as if you mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_24#NZ_on_Screen
.
Johnuniq (
talk)
04:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder that you must always include information about rich media software and file sizes when you provide links to NZonScreen.com and similar webpages. The English Wikipedia gets users from all over the world, many of whom have older computers and very slow connections. This rule exists out of kindness for these users, who very frequently choose to avoid video pages. The official guidance is available at WP:EL#Rich media, but normally you only need to type (using this link as an example) "Requires Flash video software (55.7 MB)." at the end of the description line.
Please make an effort to provide complete descriptions the links you have already added, and to not forget this requirement in the future. Thanks, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The link you are using in your edit notes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:External_links#NZ_on_Screen&oldid=272191185) no longer seems to work. I think the link you want is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_24#NZ_on_Screen but I'm not 100% sure, not having seen it working earlier. Stuartyeates ( talk) 07:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Danielle Cormack, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. - sesu PRIME 04:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The discussion has not finished and there is no consensus to do so. If it takes an objection on each to get you to stop then I will object. Please also see the findings I've posted at the discussion. Them From Space 05:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
You have the support of the editors of those pages that such links are indeed relevant, and you have been following the rules as far as you can, and accommodating of the requests of other users. Your focus has always been on whether the content is encyclopedic, and I commend you for that. I don't have any advice about what to do right now. I'd wait it out a few days. Mostlyharmless ( talk) 06:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see the latest messages at the External links/Noticeboard. UncleDouggie ( talk) 05:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you insert advertising or a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. -- Hu12 ( talk) 14:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked you indefinitely for block evasion (your previous account, NZ On Screen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently indefinitely blocked) and spamming. Having reviewed your unblock requests then and your wikilawyering now about links to your site, it is clear to me that you simply do not understand why your promotional activities are a problem. This is well summed up here: Review and proposed ban of spam-only account Filmtvfan. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion and those who try to use it as such are not welcome. Guy ( Help!) 17:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
When I first started as user nzonscreen yes, I did not follow the rules nor make myself sufficiently aware of the requirements for posting on wikipedia. I realised that promoting the site was not acceptable, and following attempts at discussions, was blocked. Subsequently I created a new user, FilmTVFan - in order to try again without prejudice - when this user added links AND editorial content, by following proper process and requesting permission, it was allowed.
Consequently I added relevant links to NZ On Screen. In many cases I also added content to the entries. The NZ On Screen links lead to examples of people's screen works, to full length or excerpted documentaries which are not available anywhere else, to interviews with people which we create, and to backgrounds and biographies written by 'experts' for NZ On Screen. It is my opinion, and to my understanding also the opinion of other editors, that these were valuable and accepted contributions to Wikipedia.
When the recent debate started I understood a discussion was required and was working with editors to agree on a process whereby references to NZ On Screen could be considered. I agreed to post suggested links on the talk pages and await consensus or debate - as was proposed. Then all my edits were reverted by user Hu12. I asked how to reinstate them, user UncleDouggie said to put back any that were not contentious, to open discussion for contentious ones, and to use the talk pages for anything new. I started to follow this suggestion, and reinstated links that had not been contentious. I was subsequently blocked.
NZ On Screen is a valuable, respected and reputable source of information about New Zealand film, television, music and the people who work in the screen industry. It is a government funded, non-commercial project. There is nothing to be gained commercially for the project in these links - it is purely sharing of information that is relevant to the pages in Wikipedia, and which has been sourced and created purely for NZ On Screen. I can see that users who come to the site from Wikipedia spend time on the site watching videos that relate to the pages they were referenced from. I see that IMDB is somehow a recognised link from Wikipedia and yet it offers considerably less added value than NZ On Screen - particularly for the local (NZ) content we describe.
I do not personally know any of the people who have contributed to this discussion, they are not my 'friends'. As I see it editors who are from NZ or Australia, who know the content and can see the value in this reference, are the ones who are supporting this cause.
I am certainly willing to work out a way to add value to Wikipedia, and to reference appropriate material on the site. I am not stupid, or malicious, or a spammer. You have now identified me by name, role and twitter account in this public forum. I would like to request that the discussion continues. FilmTVFan ( talk) 21:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I see that someone has also blocked this user 'Capricorn58' under the assumption it is also FilmTVFan and/or NZ On Screen. I have no idea who this user is - I just found them because they edited the NZ On Screen entry and I checked to see who they were. If you check you will see they've been a member since 2007 - way before NZ On Screen even existed.
I am sure they will not appreciate you having blocked them. I have noted above that there have been 2 accounts I am responsible for - and I can assure you that is all there has ever been from me. Filmtvfan ( talk) 05:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for all the work you have done on Wikipedia. It is unfortunate that some people were unable to appreciate the value of it. People who primarily add external links to Wikipedia range from spammers plugging commercial links with no relevance to the articles they place them on, through to people who place relevant links which are of insufficient value to the article (such as links to photos), through to people such as yourself who provide exactly the sort of links we need. Unfortunately our policies on Single-purpose accounts and linkspam do not adequately discriminate between these cases. Because NZ on Screen is a valuable resource, I would expect that it will be added into articles at a slow rate by very many editors over time. It will certainly be my first place to search for information to reference articles on New Zealand actors and programs in future when I am attempting to reference an article.
You probably feel bitter about your experience here, and there's nothing I can do to put it right. I can only suggest that you find some other way to make the world a better place.- gadfium 18:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware this situation was not resolved, no final decision or consensus reached. Yet it appears to have been archived and this discussion has also disappeared or been moved. What happens now? Filmtvfan ( talk) 22:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your support and your suggestions. However I have had it with Wikipedia, I have found the whole experience disheartening and frustrating and quite frankly I have better things to do with my time.
It is a shame, I have added context to a number of articles, and would have continued to do so - and to go by whatever rules were put in place. But I have no desire to go through that again, of doing what I was given to believe was the right process only to have someone undo everything in one sweep.
I hope that the wider community continues to find value in the NZ On Screen links, it seems a wide variety of people are adding them into various articles and obviously they see benefit in the association.
Keep up the good work :) Filmtvfan ( talk) 21:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
A person from New Zealand Department of Conservation has asked permission to fix broken links to their website. Given this mess, I am asking for wider feedback before we allow or deny this request. The request is at User:Conservation ranger. Please comment at User talk:Conservation ranger.
I'm posting here because people with an interest in this case will probably have an opinion on that one.- gadfium 23:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)