Icerve

Recent edits

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added 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) 04:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Another issue to look at is the conflict of interest in promoting your content. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 05:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I understand the conflict of interest angle and I appreciate that Wikipedia should remain neutral. You could argue that linking to my own site is a form of self promotion. I can only say that my intention is to link to content that enlightens readers about the subject of a particular article.

Having read the conflict of Interest guidelines one sentence sticks out for me: "The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles. However, an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community to identify any subtle bias"

I think a possible solution would be to declare who I am (and what I do) on my user page and then have editors or admins decide what is suitable for deletion in a particular article. Does this sound reasonable? Again, I must stress I don't intend to spam Wikipedia and I would respect any decision that felt that there was a conflict of interest in any links I have posted.

Any more feedback would be appreciated. —Icerve - 06:42, 7 May 2007 (GMT)

I think it would be best to present an external link on the talk page of the article that you think would benefit from it. You should explain objectively why the content at the link would help the article, how it meets attributable standards, and how it is unique if there are other sources that report the same information. For example, a link about the box office success for Spider-Man 3 would not be acceptable because there are much higher-tier websites that carry this information as well. Since you are responsible for these pages, links to them would have to be a case-by-case basis, if they are in line with Wikipedia's standards for attribution and encyclopedic content. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 06:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, that seems fair enough. But as far as some articles "meeting attributable standards" some of my (now deleted) links were to actual audio interviews with actors and directors. In the case of the article about The Bourne Ultimatum, they were actually exclusive photos from a location shoot. I respect the fact that there is a process by which this should be checked out and verified but just because they weren't from a large news organisation doesn't (in my opinion) necessarily mean they don't meet Wikipedia's standards. Were some of them deleted just because they were from the same domain? Or did they need more detail and context on their description?

I have to agree. It's a conflict of interest when you are the interviewer and are trying to promote your own site. The good thing is that you can upload your personal pictures (if they are relevant to a topic) as free images, which Wiki always likes. A behind-the-scenes image, that isn't a promotional image from the studio, is always nice, if it is in reference to the text it is next.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)