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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, that's up to you. Just post in an article's talk page if you have a link to add. It shows good intent on your part if you do that. You see, there's still the issue of all your edits being links to your own website. Remember this one: 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. Right now, you haven't actually avoided the appearance of self-promotion. Take a look at David Shankbone's edits. He's a Hollywood photographer and uploads a lot of his own work. But since he also contributes a lot, no one considers it self-promotion.
Also keep in mind, that Wikipedia is not a directory of links. Don't bother with pages that are already adequately sourced. Find some movie articles that are lacking sources and you will find a link to your website is a lot more welcome there. Like I said, just use the talk page first.

Well, I hope that clears it all up for you. As always, if you have questions, don't be afraid to ask.--Atlan (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The May 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated notice by BrownBot 21:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The June 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Nehrams2020 07:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American films

Please please!!! help fill in List of American films. Even if it is just a few details it all helps -any contribution you can make will be more than appreciated!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 17:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The July 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 20:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The August 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 03:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Knight

While your edits were in good faith, the information wasn't encyclopedic. Nobody will ever give a rat's arse about when Batman's costume was unveiled, what's important is what it is. Secondly, Anthony Michael Hall's source for his role was not reliable. No one involved in production has actually said what is his role: Nolan(s), Bale, Caine, Hall, Goyer, nobody. Lastly, linking your own site appears to be a conflict of interest. Many good sites are keeping an eye on this blockbuster film. If you have any further concerns, take it the article's talk page. Alientraveller 21:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you asked:

One, I've opened a thread on the Administrators Noticeboard, here [1], about possibly sock- or meat-puppetry. I was about to notify you of that, so your message is quite coincidental. Two, adding your own site, which has NOT been cited by other news websites, represents a possible conflict of interest. Youv'e described that site as your own blog, and blogs aren't generally accepted as links here, unless maintained by a notable subject of the article. For example, Tim Story and Jon Favreau's MySpace pages are acceptable sources for information about the FF2 and Iron Man films, respectively, but wouldn't be for each other's films, unless they had dinner and discussed future plans, then blogged it. We avoid fan built sites, and we avoid them. YOu've been warned about this before, adn are familiar with this policy by now. Further, your own user page consedes that you publish ORIGINAL content. that's a clear sign it's not everifiable content, and cannot be independently verified, and thus it's not usable. Your credentials certainly would support your inclusion of your published works on chicago's tech sector, if I read your bio info right, but your film stuff's your hobby, and the site is your blog, and that's a fairly stable no-no on Wikipedia. Hoep this makes it all very clear. Good luck here, hope you continue to edit, within policy. ThuranX 06:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to ask about HOW to include your site's info properly, you shouldn't keep doing it the way you've been doing it, but rather wait till you learn the good way to do so. ThuranX 06:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Here is the short list of news Web sites and links to them that have referenced my information as verifiable. Most of these are stories about The Dark Knight.

/Film

411mania.com

Actress Archives (UGO)

Batman-on-Film.com

Batman-Movie-Buzz.com

IGN

UGO

USA Today (Pop Candy)

WBEZ (Chicago Public Radio)

WorstPreviews.com

How can so many major publications including USA Today, the Chicago Sun-Times, CBS 2 Chicago, Cinematical, MTV, Movies.com be wrong? Doesn't this establish HollywoodChicago.com as a legitimate source for news? If not, I believe you are requiring impossible standards. Please advise on the next step here. I only want to abide by policies and feel you are not understanding the true vantage point of where I'm coming from. --AdamFendelman 06:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until I learn the good way to do so? Can you please tell me so I don't have to waste your or my time? --AdamFendelman 06:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just edited your user page to remove you self admitted original content, etc. etc. As for your list of places that cite your articles, most either acknowledge that it's a rumor, or that it's just a good link for content also available elsewhere. this effectively shows you to be spamming your own website, in violation of WP:SPAM and WP:COI. That you consider waiting for a reply and doing things right to be a waste of your time, instead of finding other things to do, like cleanign the house, taking out the trash, or just finding new areas of wikipedia to read up on and help out at suggests you have a particular purpose in getting your own site up in many places fast. When that act of self-promotion is your purpose, other editors again see violations of those policies. please work with Wikipedia. Thank you. ThuranX 06:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI and Spam

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you.

Looking at your contribution history, the overwhelming majority of your edits have been spamming the site hollywoodchicago.com. Please, if you wish to continue participating in Wikipedia, confirm that you will stop doing this. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is referencing an interview with an actor/director on Wikipedia not valuable content? --AdamFendelman 06:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning.
The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia and other sites that use the MediaWiki spam blacklist. - Jehochman ^Talk 07:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we've explained to you that YOU quoting yourself into articles is against policy. As a journalist, you should be aware of the ethical issues with citing yourself in an article. You can't edit an article to say 'Well, I said the movie was good/bad/ or applesauce here, (link), thus, the movie is good, bad, or applesauce, and I am my own citation!' You know this as a journalist. Please stop editing in this manner until an Admin can come and either block you for refusing to stop this, or explain to you more clearly WHY this is a bad thing. If it were a great thing, Limbaugh and Novak wouldn't be the only ones doing it daily. ThuranX 07:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam in Desert Bayou

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Desert Bayou, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Desert Bayou is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Desert Bayou, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 07:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly note

Hi! I'm your friendly neighborhood Wikipedia administrator! I just wanted to affirm that your contributions are consistent with those of a spammer who is only editing in order to promote his own web site, which is of course not going to work. If you're interested in making our articles about movies better, you are welcome to add legitimate information and cite other sources. I'm watching your contributions, and the next time you add a link to Wikipedia to your own web site, for any reason, to any article, I'll block you. Thanks! -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films roll call

Hey fellow Wikipedian! Your username is listed on the WikiProject Films participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:FILM editor, please add your name to the Active Members list. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. We also have several task forces that you may be interested in joining as well.

Also, elections for Project Coordinators are currently in sign-up phase. If you would be interested in running, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. You can see more information on the positions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators. Thanks and happy editing!

An automatic notification by BrownBot 22:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter

The September 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 22:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock notification

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AdamFendelman for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. ThuranX 21:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter

The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMS Questionnaire

As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!