User talk:AdamFendelman

Your recent edits

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page Spider-Man 3 do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, AdamFendelman, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Twintone 17:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Read up on wikipedia's policies: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not.--Twintone 17:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Adam. First of all, welcome to Wikipedia.

About your recent edits: You should read into Wikipedia policy, like Twintone suggested. Also, edits pitching your own website is generally frowned upon on Wikipedia. Read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest for more information on that subject. If you feel your edits aren't just linkspams and should be in the articles you edited, then discuss it in the articles' talk pages. Aside from Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia works by way of reaching concensus, so if the majority of editors agrees with you on these edits, then you can go ahead and make them.

Good luck and have fun on Wikipedia!--Atlan 19:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

A user page is there to showcase your work on Wikipedia, not to advertise what you do outside of Wikipedia. Please see WP:User page. --David Shankbone 19:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Spider-Man 3

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Spider-Man 3. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Thank you. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would suggest reading Attribution, Spam, Conflict of Interest, Notability (web). —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:Films Welcome

Welcome!

File:Transparent film reel and film.png

Hey, welcome to the Films WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

• The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for January has been published. February's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
• Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Film Tasks template to see how you can help.
• Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!
• Want to collaborate on articles? The Cinema Collaboration of the Week picks an article every week to work on together.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 08:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam again

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Atlan (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have asked repeatedly for a specific example of what you consider to be appropriate. Instead, I keep being sent to massive pages of documentation. I read this documentation and try to take its advice and people still come back and say I'm linkspamming.

I fail to see the difference from what I'm doing as compared to the content cited by any other journalist. As a reminder, I am a longtime journalist and have nothing to sell.

So this doesn't keep happening, can you take the last post I made that you flagged as linkspam and specifically show me what would be appropriate?--AdamFendelman 18:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no appropriate way to add links to your own website. You should just not do it. Look at your edit history. If you take out all the linkspams, then there's nothing left. That means all you have contributed to Wikipedia is links to your website all over the place. That's why it's very hard to assume those links are not for your own gain. WP:COI and WP:SPAM are pretty clear on why should just not do it.--Atlan (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That Web site doesn't "gain" me anything. It's a public repository of information. It's a project I do on my own time because people enjoy the content. If you were to look at the content (if you haven't already), perhaps you'd understand.

It's high-quality, highly unique content that most people can't originate. Are you saying journalists aren't allowed to post information to the sites on which they publish? How else can reporters add information on Wikipedia?--AdamFendelman 19:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I know Wikipedia policy is a lot to take in all at once. I've been an editor for 5 years and even I can't say I know everything. Read this:

• You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be careful about excessive citation of your own work, to avoid the appearance of self-promotion. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether your citation is appropriate, and defer to the community's opinion.

Well, I've been on your website and I'd say your links are certainly relevant. Whether your website is considered reliable remains to be seen:

• Self-published sources (online and paper)

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[3]

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources, such as blogs, should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP.

What that basically says, is that if you can show that you are considered a well-known professional, that you can use self-published material. No offense, but I've never heard of your website and since you seem to be the only one adding links to it on Wikipedia, I think I can safely say you and particularly your website are not well-known.
Basically, if you fail even one of the criteria, you shouldn't add a link to self-published work. You are of course free to try to convince editors that you and your website are indeed notable. If there's a consensus on notability, then your link can be added. Right now, there isn't any such consensus. As long as this status quo continues, your links will be considered spam.

I hope that clears it up a little for you. Feel free to ask for more help if you think you need it. I've moved the entire discussion here, so we don't have to go back and forth every time. Just continue the discussion here.--Atlan (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. That brings a lot of clarity. Thank you. Now that I understand what you're looking for, you're right in that HollywoodChicago.com is not a well-known site. That site is much less relevant to the content I'm producing than the person who's producing it.

Feel free to do a search for Adam Fendelman to see what I mean. As you'll see, I've been published all over the place for more than a decade.

As for my film content, I write for large publications including Time Out Chicago and Centerstage Chicago (owned by the Chicago Sun-Times). I have also been written about in the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times. I currently serve as the publisher and editor-in-chief of MidwestBusiness.com, which is the Midwest's largest online business publication.

In addition, I have recently agreed to co-write with well-known journalist Jeffrey Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere. That site is highly regarded and well-trafficked. Starting next week, I will be publishing my content there under my own column banner.

Based on this information and the understanding that I'll be publishing regularly at Hollywood Elsewhere, do you feel more comfortable and can you reach a concensus with other Wikipedia editors that I am indeed a well-known journalist?

--AdamFendelman 05:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)