Alaskamike907

Spartree

For future reference, the correct way to add content to an article is:

1. Instead of writing "see also the article "Clear and Independent" by Film Librarian Doug Herrick in Cinema Canada" and then putting the article as a footnote on that statement, what you want to do is write some actual content supported by that reference, such as actually summarizing facts about the film stated in that article. And then the reference needs to be not just the URL itself, but the complete citation details — author, title, date — so that if the web link ever dies, we still have a usable reference.
2. Never, ever source anything to YouTube. If you want to write about an excerpt from Spartree being available under the title "Coffee Break", you need to cite a newspaper or magazine article, or a book, which states that claim in print, not a YouTube video, because we're never allowed to use user-generated sourcing on here. (The fact that it's painfully easy to find YouTube videos in which people claim easily disproven, false and inaccurate things is the reason why: what we require is sources that have gone through an editorial chain of command and fact-checking, such as real journalism from real media.)
3. By the same token, we have to watch out for copyright, so copypasting extended descriptions from film festival websites is also inappropriate: we describe the film in original words, not copypasta of other people's descriptions. We can quote short excerpts from critical reviews for added context, as long as they're properly attributed to the critic, but we cannot just cut and paste another source's entire description of a film wholesale into our article.

So those were the problems with your content. It's not that additions are fundamentally unwelcome, it's just that we have rules about what kinds of additions are appropriate and what kinds aren't. Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)