User talk:MarvSiegs

November 2007[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Wikipedia:Verifiability, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of MiamiBD.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on MiamiBD.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per speedy deletion criterion G2.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Phgao 07:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:MiamiBD.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:MiamiBD.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot 08:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MiamiBD.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:MiamiBD.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Hole in the Head linkspam[edit]

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising in articles. For more information on this, see

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Robert K S (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could paste the Wikipedia linkspam guidelines here for you to read, but you'd be better off just going there and reading them yourself. WP:LINKSPAM. Whether a site generates revenue or not is irrelevant. External links are for citation references only. Except when they are used expressly to cite information in a scholarly fashion, tribute sites and fan sites are specifically prohibited on Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a collection of links on the web. Especially objectionable is devoting an entire section heading to the tribute site and including the name of the site proprietor (yours?) in the article. Talk about red flags. PS, don't forget to sign your messages to talk pages by typing four tiles (~~~~). Robert K S (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} I am in no way shape or form advertising a company or a product as a result of adding the information of a web-site that is a tribute to the motion picure "A Hole in the Head". This web-site generates no revenue and is an important part of the films history.(MarvSiegs (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Can you cite a verifiable source that attests to—and explains how—your web site being a part of the film's history? Has it been featured in a book about movie history, a magazine article for a major publication, a newspaper article? If the answer is no, your web site is not notable. Ask yourself if the web site is a defining feature of the film or if it is just an incidental epiphenomenon—would the film exist if they web site didn't? There are legitimate reasons for including useful external links on Wikipedia, but the case has not been made for your site, and the blatent way in which it was included, with a whole article section about it, screams self-promotion. Don't take my word for it; I'm sure others will be able to chime in with their thoughts as well. Also, if you come to understand the objection against the linkspam, don't take it personally. You're not the first to think his web site belongs here but just didn't understand the guidelines. Keep contributing! Hope this helps, Robert K S (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can cite a verifiable source....If you look at IMDB, the internet Movie Data Base. They have linked the site as it is important to the films HISTORY....And you say it screams SELF PROMOTION...Did you suggest a rewrite on how it would appear not to be self promoting? How can others chime in when you have removed it from the page? I would like to hear others input either as it was originally displayed or as a re-write. (MarvSiegs (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I looked at the article talk page, and I didn't see any discussion of the web site. If it's clear that other users aren't on board with the change you want to make, you should, instead of changing the page, just go to the talk page to try to persuade others that this web site is an important link. Don't try to cite IMDB- like Wikipedia, it's user-created, so a link from IMDB is essentially useless as a verifier of importance. And remember that Wikipedia isn't a web directory; the only reason any article needs a link is if that link provides useful, verifiable information that confirms or adds to the facts in the article. We don't normally need links to fan or tribute sites because they don't tend to include that kind of information, but if this one is unusual, with fully verified information that isn't available elsewhere, then you can seek consensus on the talk page. If other users disagree with you, then the link doesn't get added; we work together on Wikipedia, and none of us get our way all the time. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FisherQueen,

IMDB had to authorize it's listing. Therefore it has some importance. It was not a "USER" added feature to include the site. For the record, it is not my site! I am a fan of it and believe that it has relevance to the films history. And yes, I agree Wikipedia is not a web directory but is their a reason that Disney's web-site is NOT considered advertising when they are a worldwide conglomerate? How about if I am allowed to add the site to the references section and thats it? (MarvSiegs (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

IMDb's listing of the site doesn't make the site notable or germane to the article; if such were the case, Wikipedia would duplicate IMDb's link content. A guideline at WP:LINKSPAM says "The References section is for references. A reference directs the reader to a work that the writer(s) referred to while writing the article. The References section of a Wikipedia article isn't just a list of related works; it is specifically the list of works used as sources. Therefore, it can never be correct to add a link or reference to References sections if nobody editing the text of the article has actually referred to it." The guidelines also ask link-includers to examine their motivations. What is your desire? Do you want to include a link? Or do you want to improve the article with relevant text, written in an encyclopedic tone, and utilize the link as a cited source? The site you're trying to link to appears to just be a bunch of pictures of movie memorabilia. There doesn't seem to be anything relevant to the production or critical or public reception of the film worthy of citing--just a bunch of old marketing. If the site had interviews with the cast and crew telling stories relating to their work on the movie, material that could be drawn upon to add meaningful information to the Wikipedia article, then the story might be different. As it stands, it's going to be a hard sell showing that this tribute site, authored decades after the film and with no particular sheen of scholarly authority, provides anything substantive that would qualify it as a resource. Robert K S (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems almost as if you're not starting with the set of goals that a Wikipedia editor needs to begin with. Your first question should be, "How can I make this article better and more informative?" If there's a useful piece of information missing, then you add it and cite the best available source of the information. You seem to be starting instead from the question, "How can I get this link into Wikipedia?" That's just the wrong place to begin, and that's why you're finding it so frustrating to edit here. There are lots of places that have a purpose of sharing cool links- Wikipedia just isn't one of them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I originally set out with the goal of increasing the awarness of the film as a result of mentioning a tribute site and it was abruptly deleted and treated as spam.

Instead this is what I get: . There doesn't seem to be anything relevant to the production or critical or public reception of the film worthy of citing--just a bunch of old marketing.

If the site was looked at it clearly indicates a page dedicated to the location of where the film was filmed in Miami and points out areas of landmarks and architects. It also identifies the film with the Broadway Play of the same name and about it's author.

As for the old marketing, what attracted me to this site has been its display of items from around the world that I would not have known about had it not been for the site.

Yet Robert posts this:

with no particular sheen of scholarly authority, provides anything substantive that would qualify it as a resource.

What is that supposed to mean? I found it very resourceful as did one of the stars of the film that is quoted on the front page of the web-site.

No one seemed to address my earlier mention about Disney links?? Yet the site for A Hole in the Head generates no revenue, it is clearly odvious it is for the sake of increasing awareness of its place in film history.

(MarvSiegs (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia works by consensus. If you are certain that this link is of value to the article, you should be able to persuade other editors of that. The place for that discussion is on the talk page of the article in question, not on your own talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disney??? (MarvSiegs (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia works by consensus. If there's a Disney link that you think is not useful in an article, go to the talk page for that article and seek agreement from other editors. If other editors agree with you, then it'll be removed. The place for that discussion is on the talk page of the article in question. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever..... (MarvSiegs (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Th esta.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Th esta.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Th estagrave.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Th estagrave.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Esta.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Esta.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 20:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]