User talk:Edfhinton

Warnings
 Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings. Older warnings may have been deleted, but are still visible in the [ page history]. [Admin: block | [ unblock] / Info: contribs | interiot's tool | [ page moves] | [ block log] | [ block list]]

June 2007
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. --h2g2bob (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Your note to me about the link to Annie Get Your Gun at ThatTheatreSite and others
Feel free to put them all back. I do not want to get into a dispute with you, although there may be others who will take exception. I have already stated my case, and it is my policy and personality not to get into disputes with anyone, especially when it doesn't matter to me. I was just doing what I thought was "right", and you certainly have a well-reasoned rationale. (It helps to sign your posts, use 4 tildes).JeanColumbia 15:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:External links
user talk:h2g2bob/Archive 2. I removed the links because they add very little which is not already in the article. The most obvious example of this is this page for Twelfth Night, or What You Will, which provides no information not already in the article. Most other pages provide little more than is on the page.

A second reason is that the site was only set up last tuesday - it is hardly a long-standing site. By contrast, IMDB is 17 years old, is consistently among the 50 most visited websites (per Alexa) and goes into significant depth for most films.

Finally, the site was registered by Edward Hinton, which is very similar to your username. You should not add links to your own website: it is a conflict of interest and is considered spam. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responses - and further explanaiton of links
First, I want to thank those who expressed their concerns with links I added. Admittedly, I am fairly new to Wikipedia, so I am still learning. I continue to be interested in any further concerns, but I would ask that people simply not delete links that you may not realize the purpose and value of without checking into it further. While I understand folks thought they were "doing the right thing", it was impolite at best (though I understand the danger that rampant bad links would pose to Wikipedia.)

As further explanation and clarification, yes these links are to a site I created. I created the site as a service to the theatre community because frankly the web lacks a good place to start when I want to audition for or work on a show. That's the nature of the web, of course, but I want to know when audiions are. I want to find out what worked for other groups and what didn't. I certainly want to know character ages, etc to know potential characters I could play, etc. And of course get to other resources as well. I couldn't find a site that did all that for a substantial # of shows, so I created one. And quite a number of other people have told me they think it's really useful to them. Granted, it isn't "complete" since it will always be growing and never could be considered done any more than Wikipedia can. And others in theatre I have interacted with agree a resource is needed. With over 5000 small theatres and many members of each in the US alone, there is a significant community of people I am providing a resource to.

So, while there is a technical conflict of interest, per the guidelines it is supposed to be ok to post if the interest of wikipedia coincides with the external interest. In this case, they do. I provide a much needed useful resource in my own free time (I certainly don't have a company or make a living on it.)  The one gray area I see is in the decision of when there is enough content to conclude that interests coincide or not for a specific show. My initial criteria was based on presence of links to reviews at a minimum, and then character descriptions and auditions as additional criteria. I can see that perhaps it would be best to ensure that either character descriptions are complete (clearly material beyond what Wikipedia or ANY other site on the web provides) or else require that there be active auditions posted so it delivers value in that area that wikipedia also cannot serve. I will no longer post links to shows that do not meet these additional criteria at time of posting. Of course, auditions do expire after they occur, but experience in theatre is that if one group does a show, others do too, so auditions will reoccur for a show.

As said above, I continue to be willing to consider adjustments to my criteria so I clearly am adding value.

Regarding Twelfth Night, h2b2bob is factually incorrect on several counts. First, regarding available info, there IS added value, as anyone looking at the left side of the page will see. There is a listing of upcoming auditions - not something on Wikipedia, and also several reviews of different productions posted. Anyone who is actually involved in theatre should be able to recognize the value of both - one to potential interested auditioners, and the other to those producing or in a production of it to see how some productions were reviewed in considering their production and acting choices. Second, the site was not just setup last Tuesday!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The site has been operational for over 6 weeks, and the page on Twelfth Night has been there almost since day 1! Please check your facts before posting information with is incorrect!

Regarding the mention of IMDB being older/more popular, the wikipedia notability guidelines specificaly say popularity is NOT a criterion. Nor is being newer indicated anywhere in wikipedia as a disqualifier. (Though I suppose some would consider it a red flag.) I believe IMDB is useful as a site for more info on some shows (though IBDB is better in some areas for stage stuff, but that's only broadway info). But I have not seen a site with the needed info for non-musicals, and stageagent.com is the one site for musicals with similar content, and that site IS referenced in many wikipedia musicals articles. (And yes, I do feel passionately about this - a site with the info I am focused on is a glaring need in the amateur theatre community in particular.)

thattheatresite
Please review the external link guideline at WP:EL. Aside from the link itself being somewhat suspect, your conflict of interest and mass addition of the link makes it appear as spam or advertising. You should probably argue for inclusion on the article's talk page and should not be adding a link to a site you created yourself. -Chunky Rice 17:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Read all the guidelines - still legitimate
I have read the cited guidelines. Wikipedia does not prohibit posting a link to your own site if it meets the other guidelines and, as cited previously, wikipedia interest coincides with site interest. While there is some advice to add to the talk page instead, it also is stated clearly to use some common sense and judgment on how to follow the guidelines. In particular, in this summer season we are in, auditions season is heating up soon, so timeliness is important to people who may be interested in auditions, or who are preparing for their fall productions and doing research. So it is far more helpful to the theatre community for me to try to ascertain when I add enough value to a particular show page to add a link, rather than waiting until someone else will decide it's worth their personal time. Not to mention it is considered a spam tactic to post to lots of talk pages asking about a site. As my prior post indicated, I am happy to consider whether my criteria for making that judgment call needs further revision. But the way I see it, I need criteria that conclude either to add or not add a given link. Right now I am only adding if I have character descriptions - which NO site on the internet has in large numbers for non-musicals - or if I have upcoming auditions listed in which case timeliness is important. I also am continuing to learn how links should be added. For example, I see it raises a red flag if I add to (or near) the top of a list. So from now on, even when the links already there are frankly of far less value (and I've seen some cases of this), I will not add at the top of the list of links. Too bad I guess, but some of the other links that are less useful I guess will have to stay higher on the list.