User talk:EndTheDrugWar

Do you care to explain why you added a link to Robert David Steele? You can answer on talk:Robert David Steele. I will revert if you do not answer. Ancheta Wis (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Joe Arpaio. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you insert advertising or a spam link, as you did to James P. Gray, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is a prominent cast member in the film, such as Tommy Chong, that fact can be mentioned (as it is in the Chong article -- the film is on his list of appearances). But adding an external link to the film to each cast member's article is just spamming, pure and simple. So no, don't re-add the links. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, then discuss that in the text of the Arpaio article, and link to the Wikipedia article on the film, not to the film's external site. That's the part that's spamming. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I don't see why you wouldn't be able to edit the text of James P. Gray. I just did, and it's not marked as protected. So no, don't add to the "external links" sections of articles. You can view my change to the Gray article for an idea of how to approach this. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I got it now, my mistake. Thanks again! EndTheDrugWar (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-advertising?[edit]

Adding links like this looks suspiciously like advertising a film, not contributing to the Wikipedia project. The film is not notable, as far as I can see, and this kind of behavior can get a new contributor banned pretty quickly. My opinions of the War on (some) Drugs aside, we are pretty harsh on spammy behavior here, due to some folks' bad habits. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really; marginal, at best. We're not talking Academy Awards here, we're talking small stuff. Congrats on the deal with Showtime; but that's a lot less airtime than they give weekly to their dirty-sex documentary series, whatever that's called. Like I said, I'm not hostile to the subject matter (even though I only use Mountain Dew myself); but we've got a perennial problem on Wikipedia with folks seeking to promote their projects without regard to our standards. You've got to take that into account when attempting to add information which you judge to be important, to any article here. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand where you're coming from. I figured it wouldn't be a problem since it's a factual documentary and the people whose entries I edited all volunteered to appear in it. I know it looks like spam, but is it? EndTheDrugWar (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, see, we are equal-opportunity here. Any kind of point-of-view pushing is lumped in with advertisements, etc. as "spam," whether you're advocating a soft drink, a religion, a movie, an ideology, a porn site, or whatever. Michael Moore or Roger Moore or St. Thomas More, webcam girl or outsourcing corporation, nobody gets a free pass. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Very interesting, good to know! Is having a page for the film considered spam or is it only posting links on other entries that is? EndTheDrugWar (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

check out[edit]

Check out our policy on neutral point of view. I had to heavily edit the American Drug War: The Last White Hope article to get it to comply with that policy. Orangemike pointed out to you our spam policies; the NPOV policy is the root of those policies and may be more applicable to your situation. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up and the edit. I'll read up on my wiki-etiquette! I deleted the first sentence with the "four minor awards" because the awards are listed lower on the page; the "minor awards" part seemed a little biased against the Festivals themselves. Artivist and Evil City are pretty well known. Is that cool? EndTheDrugWar (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a bit more puffery; but the citations are a mess. Read WP:CITE to see what needs to be done to make proper citations, with article title, author, etc. I did remove citations that were to non-reliable sources: Amazon.com, the production company's own website, etc.; and asked for more reliable sources for verifiability. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To cite a book, use this style inside the "ref" and "/ref" tags, but add the page number, which the sample doesn't mention. Never link to a commercial site such as A****n or other predatory corporations destroying the wellbeing of hardworking independent booksellers and homogenizing Western culture in the interest of the corporate hieresiarchs and the cultural oligarchy's dominant paridigm ............ . (Sorry, I work in the trade.) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- :) Gotcha!

Orphaned non-free image (File:American Drug War - The Last White Hope.jpg)[edit]

You've uploaded File:American Drug War - The Last White Hope.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]