User talk:Thepipesarecalling

Non-notability
I tend to prefer external links to websites to a strict minimum, to official things and famous film-related websites that list the film with it's own contributive article. If there is anything to contribute, cite it in the article. Alientraveller 18:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'd like to explain why your links are not appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. First of all, you have said that you are the author of the link, so this constitutes a conflict of interest.  Additionally, your link is also considered spam not just because of the conflict of interest, but if you are WLNB who was the handle that added the link to The Prestige, similar links from that site have been added to Richard Dawkins and The God Delusion.  The latter constitutes a serious conflict of interest; please see what it means to cite yourself.  Alientraveller made the appropriate choice in removing your link.  Thus, if you take another look at WP:EL, the link you've provided matches #3 and #11.  It would also be advisable to read WP:EL.  Generally, Wikipedia editors should be laissez-faire when it comes to their real-world interaction with certain subjects.  For example, if I added a film review, it should not be from my hometown for the sake of supporting it, but instead a film review that would be more prominent on a national scale.  (Though if you live in New York, I imagine the New York Times would be acceptable.  You get my meaning.)  Hope you understand why the link is not appropriate here. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would also advise reading WP:NOT. Happy editing! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your interest. However, I want to assure you that I am not WLNB nor have I added any external links to Wikipedia. I believe I have already stated this. (Edit: perhaps it isn't necessary to add, but of course I was aware that WLNB was going to/had added a link.)Thepipesarecalling 14:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Along with being completely upfront about my authorship, a fact that should speak to my honesty and good faith. So, despite what you may or may not have intended, I think it's quite premature and offensive of you to imply that I may be WLNB. If I was the covert spammer you infer, I would have handled things very differently. I simply considered the Prestige link to stand on its own merits as a worthwhile contribution - it seems I should never have bothered. I hope you understand, and will be less hasty to jump to conclusions next time. Actually, perhaps you could go and read the "conflicts of interest" section yourself as you appear to be hasty with your conclusions in this department as well.Thepipesarecalling 13:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Thepipesarecalling 13:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if my assumption was offensive. Your correspondence with Alientraveller after his removal of your link (placed by another user) struck me as rather swift, so I wasn't sure if there was a connection between the two of you. In addition, I'm not trying to accuse anyone of being a spammer in the strongest sense of the word. Believe me, there's been folks who have peddled their personal film sites across dozens of film articles on Wikipedia. However, I'm not certain about where I've misread Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest; you mentioned to Alientraveller several reasons why you thought the article should be included. Again, like with the spam policy, this is not meant to be a strong accusation. You have not heavily breached the conflict of interest policy. If you are still interested in sharing your webpage, it would be best to present it on the article's talk page for open analysis by the article's editors. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Erik, but to be honest, I'm still a bit bemused by all this.


 * By objecting to the removal of a web page I authored (information I volunteered from the outset), I appreciate I'm essentially citing myself, but the material was relevant as per the guidelines and I have absolutely no "close connection" to the subject (i.e The Prestige film) -- I don't profit by its rise or fall, in any way, so my neutrality is assured. It may sound terribly conceited of me, but I basically thought if I'd written a quality, relevant contribution than Wikipedia would be pleased to retain it. Still, I do take your points about your experiences with others (and of course, you are right in observing a conflict of interest when it comes to me "mentioning several reasons" why I thought my article should be included -- however, again, I pointed this out myself at the very beginning when saying "I might be a tad biased as I happen to be the author of the review/link". I realise such an admittance doesnt negate a bias existing, but still...)


 * Anyway, we digress...


 * If you think my webpage (which has zero third party paid advertising on it) is worthy of analysis I'd be glad for you to present it -- as for me, I think it best if I leave things to the experts. All the best mate.Thepipesarecalling 14:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Erik, whilst I still consider that your response on behalf/in defense of your fellow editor was more than a little energetic, I do, given the history, largely agree with your advice that my webpage would now be best suited to a talk page review -- so, instead of throwing in the towel, I may proceed in this direction as The Prestige "themes" section seems incomplete (although who am I to judge).Thepipesarecalling 19:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. We'll see what others have to say. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To be sure, the talk page exercise is certainly not intended as a challenge to your editing abilities -- for what it's worth I'm actually pretty impressed by your speed and commitment etc. I hope you think my page has something to offer the themes area.Thepipesarecalling 19:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)