User talk:Filmtvfan

NZ On Screen[edit]

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

Adding link to NZ On Screen per discussion at Wikipedia:NZWNB#NZ On Screen as a source

to your edit summary.

Thanks for your contributions so far.-gadfium 19:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion on links to NZ On Screen[edit]

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)[reply]

I believe the situation is now resolved, and I've restored all those links that I am aware of.

For any further placement of such links, I suggest the edit summary contain "See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:External_links#NZ_on_Screen&oldid=272191185]", and the link text include "(requires Adobe Flash)".-gadfium 03:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NZ on Screen[edit]

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)[reply]

Themfromspace: you agreed in the previous discussion that the links were useful. I don't understand why you are warning this user again. The situation is quite clear: the user has asked permission and got it, to add appropriate links to a valuable resource.-gadfium 19:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking this to the spam noticeboard. When all an editor does is link one website, that isn't contributing constructively. We need further input here. Them From Space 00:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also been editing some of the biography information on Wikipedia, and adding useful extras wherever possible. The NZ On Screen site has been deemed worthy as far as I'm aware and it is certainly not spamming to add links to valuable additional info that is not available through Wikipedia. FWIW I would consider the info on NZ On Screen to be more verified and in depth than IMDB for example - it is created by NZ'ers from within NZ and has relevance to NZ-based content. Filmtvfan (talk)

ELN[edit]

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)[reply]

In a previous discussion where you had voiced objections to these links, you then checked and revised your opinion, and links were reinstated. Has something changed since that time? Or could I refer to you to this conversation to check back. FilmTVFan (talk)

My reading of the guidelines has indeed changed. Let's not discuss this here, as there is an active discussion that I linked to above at the external links noticeboard. You are encouraged to join in. Them From Space 03:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary link[edit]

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)[reply]

Hmmm. You could actually put WT:External links/Archive 24#NZ on Screen in an edit summary. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mass additions of http://.nzonscreen.com . This kind of activity is considered spamming and is forbidden by Wikipedia policies.--Hu12 (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To address the spamming comment - I have followed due process in getting acceptance from Wikipedia editors to add these links. The content on nzonscreen.com adds value to the entries on Wikipedia and predominantly provides information that is not otherwise available.

To address issues with the link reference - I am happy to go back through the edit notes and change the edit summaries, and also to add the Flash notification and filesize to the links. Thanks for highlighting this.

Please note that wherever possible I have also been adding information to biographies and pages on Wikipedia - not just links. FilmTVFan (talk)

I see that Hu12 has reverted my links - can we please discuss? FilmTVFan (talk)

Reminder[edit]

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)[reply]

Link no longer working[edit]

The link you are using in your edit notes (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)[reply]

Thanks for highlighting this - I can revise those edit notes. However I see that user Hu12 has reverted my links. How should I best address this? FilmTVFan (talk)

September 2009[edit]

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. -sesuPRIME 04:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion here relating to the links to NZ On Screen. The site has been accepted as a valid source after much debate. I am reverting changes that were discussed on that page. - FilmTVFan 04:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK sorry just re-read your comment - would it be fair to link to the NZ On Screen site as a reference in this case then? - FilmTVFan 04:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reinserting the links[edit]

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)[reply]

Keep at it[edit]

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)[reply]

Discussion on EL/N[edit]

Please see the latest messages at the External links/Noticeboard. UncleDouggie (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning, continued Spamming and promotion of http://spam.nzonscreen.com[edit]

Blocked[edit]

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)[reply]

I've posted a comment about this block at the admin noticeboard. UncleDouggie (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to others: Do not edit the admin noticeboard page from the link in Guy's post above, it is to an old version of the page. The link in my post directly above is for the current page. UncleDouggie (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - is there any point in me contributing to this discussion further? If so, where should I do it? FilmTVFan (talk) 07:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're blocked, the only place you can comment is here. Personally, I would appreciate a response to these issues. I kind of doubt that a direct appeal to the comments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard will do you much good if no one will listen to the rest of us. However, you are of course free to say anything you like. I wouldn't give up yet as there are many different points of view out there that we probably haven't heard from yet. UncleDouggie (talk) 07:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand why adding links to your own site is bad. You were told why, and what to do, and you continued to reinsert links to your site. We then find that not so very long ago using a different username you were indefinitely blocked for the same thing. I expect you'll be able to get your friends here to help you work out why we think that's a problem. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You have the right to request permanent removal of any personal information you do not want disclosed. This can be done by email, so being blocked isn't an issue. UncleDouggie (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capricorn User[edit]

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.

08:00, 20 September 2009 JzG (talk | contribs) blocked Capricorn58 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts or IPs: User:NZ On Screen / user:Filmtvfan)

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)[reply]

User Hu12 makes the following comment on the admin discussion -

Seems Capricorn58 is an WP:SPA for New Zealand On Air, from his/her first edit and all edits thereafter seem to maintain these related articles. Filmtvfan probably has an idea who this is, if its not her. I would not be opposed to unblocking if the actual account holder request it, however this account seems to be a "throw-away" account.--Hu12 (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I imagine this user is someone from NZ On Air - however that does not mean I have anything to do with them. NZ On Air is a government agency which provides funding to NZ On Screen. We are not the same organisation at all. Filmtvfan (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can support that claim. NZ On Air is a funding body, which allocates grants to NZ television, film, music, and music video producers. It has a very different role. Additionally, there is little overlap in editing, the user did not make any malicious edits, and you gave them no warning. I find your failure to Assume Good Faith very problematic. You have destroyed yet another user. And most people start as SPAs. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

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)[reply]

Thank you for your support. And thank you to the other NZ/Aus editors who have tried to be constructive in this discussion.

Yes, I feel bitter about this experience. I can see now that Wikipedia is a US-centric, rules-based bureaucratic project and although it purports to be multinational there is no consideration given to the different contexts or situations of different cultures and countries. The fact that every NZ or Aus - related editor has supported the inclusion of reference to NZ On Screen, but they are all over-ruled by one-eyed deletionists, does not bode well for the quality of content on Wikipedia.

I have learned that both Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of NZ and nzhistory.net have encountered the same problems. Sad that two other valued and respected sources of NZ reference material are not able to contribute to this 'global' encyclopedia.

I have asked before, but received no answer and continue to wonder, how IMDB is considered a qualified 'link partner' from Wikipedia articles, when its content is of considerably less value than NZ On Screen - for NZ content particularly.

I hope that over time a host of unrelated individuals will post reference to the site in relevant areas. I hope that the content we create will continue to be of value to people who are interested - it has been, as we can see from the patterns of user behaviour to date. It is content that is not available anywhere else, and has huge value to New Zealanders. Let's hope they find it by themselves. Filmtvfan (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The situation with IMDB is that very many unrelated editors, including myself, have added links to their website. There is no "official endorsement" of imdb as a source, although a couple of templates exist to make linking easier/more uniform. If anything, there is mild disapproval of imdb links, because much of their content is user generated and thus not considered reliable.

I am not sure of the history, but I believe there were once many links to amazon.com, again placed by many unrelated editors. There were at some point removed en masse, and replaced with the ISBN magic word, which leads to a page giving many options to find books.-gadfium 07:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK I thought that because IMDB had a short-code for entries that there must be some arrangement in place. That it is a commercial site made up of user-generated content made me also question the relationship between IMDB and wikipedia. Particularly in light of my current 'situation'. Thanks for clarifying Filmtvfan (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never link to the user content page using the IMDB template. In some cases, I have linked directly to the credits page on IMDB when nothing else was available. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Now?[edit]

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)[reply]

You have several options to appeal your block. There is also a guide to the process. UncleDouggie (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus appears to me to be that your edits on Wikipedia aren't wanted, unless you agree not to link to NZ On Screen. As you are aware, I disagree with this. However, unless you are willing to abide by that condition, I doubt you will get very far with an unblock request. Sorry, but I think you have to move on to some other venture.-gadfium 01:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "missing" discussion was automatically moved to an archive after 48 hours of inactivity. I posted the last message in the thread. UncleDouggie (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess that's that then. I very much doubt an attempt to appeal the block would do anything other than waste people's time and lead to more frustration. Thanks for your input to date - I appreciate that you are busy people and you have tried to find a resolution. I think it's a shame, and ultimately it's the users who lose out. Filmtvfan (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason's very simple. We like people who add content, we don't regard links as content, we have a long-standing problem with people coming here to add links to their or their employers' websites. Wikipedia is not a link farm (that job is done by DMOZ). If you want to add content and not links then I am sure you'd be welcome. Actually I don't see any content added under your accounts, only links. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did add quite a lot of content to a number of articles. If all my changes hadn't been reverted you probably could see that. I would say that adding a number of links to different pages within an encyclopedic website that specifically relates to NZ television and film is valuable. At the same time I frequently added content to the articles as well. If you took the time to actually look at what had been added you might see that, rather than making blanket judgements based on black and white rules. The world isn't black and white. But apparently Wikipedia is.Filmtvfan (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. It didn't take very long to find these examples of non-EL additions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way Wikipedia works is that a block appeal has to be initiated by you. Other users can provide links to the process, historical diffs, and in some cases comments on an appeal request. But we can't start the appeal or get into a war with the admin who blocked you. You should request a review by an uninvolved admin following the guideline. UncleDouggie (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you were subjected to these Alice in Wonderland proceedings here and here. The indefinite block you received seemed peremptory and made without due diligence to me. It may be a sign of age, but Wikipedia bureaucracy degenerates into strangling processes at times, with blustering administrators and administrator wannabes displaying little sense of proportion. The environment becomes unsafe for content editors, the very group the bureaucracy should be protecting. We are all volunteers here, and it should be fun. But sometimes, when this sort of thing happens, it is unsafe and an embarrassment. However, good things still happen on Wikipedia, and common sense still frequently prevails. It might be worth contesting the block; a fresh administrator, uninvolved in this area of Wikipedia, may well have a more gentle take. --Geronimo20 (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A similar case?[edit]

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)[reply]