Talk:Eden and After

Link to film?
I added a link to the film under "external links":- This was deleted on the grounds of WP:NOTLINK. However the guidance provided is of the form Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of and it is already clear that this article is not a collection of links. Therefore I will revert the edit. Testbed (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Complete film (in French)


 * Read it again. And WP:ELNO.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I recognise that Lugnuts is a frequent contributor to the W project, whereas I am not. However nowhere on WP:NOTLINK is there any indication that one can't add a link to a page which is not "merely collections of" links etc. So although Lugnuts says - perhaps rather more hurriedly than I would have done in the circumstances - that I should "Read it again", reading it again does not yield a justification for removing the link.


 * Lugnuts also suggests WP:ELNO could be helpful in understanding the removal of the link. WP:ELNO offers 19 different categories one should not link to (e.g. "Any site that misleads the reader"). I have just gone through all 19 and not one refers to adding a YouTube link of a video which adds useful material to the article.


 * It may well be that W does not allow one to add YouTube links. However as this is forbidden by neither WP:NOTLINK nor WP:ELNO I will revert again and wait for comments. Perhaps an editor who does not use an obscenity on their Talk page (see User talk:Lugnuts) might care to chip in.
 * Testbed (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not in the public domain, so there are copyright issues. You'll need to read up and that too. And see this to lower your ignorance. And read WP:BRD. That means you were bold, it was reverted, now discuss it. Not just reinstate your edit and think that's OK. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Your rv is becoming clearer now. You will notice that my objection was to the reason given (WP:NOTLINK) and I made it clear that this was why I reverted: WP:NOTLINK does not provide any guidance. Had you for example offered WP:VIDEOLINK instead - an article which deals with the specific issue - things woud be different.


 * I recognise that the onus is on me to demonstrate that the YouTube material is out of copyright, difficult I admit as in this case I rely on private information (WP:NOR) and the matter is anyway somewhat uncertainAs you seemed invested in the subject of the film I hoped you might have access to the same sources, clearly not.


 * Incidentally I said you were a more experienced editor than I, which is not the same as your view that I am ignorant.
 * Testbed (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)