ExhibitionOnScreen

May 2024

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. [1] MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. [2] MrOllie (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Apologies I didn't see this, I will stop from now on ExhibitionOnScreen (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently posting spam links into articles, which you have continued to do after you had twice been informed that doing so wasn't acceptable, and you had acknowledged those messages and explicitly stated that you would not continue. If promotional links to your website continue to appear, it may be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist, which will mean that the MediaWiki software will not allow any link to the site to be added to any page on Wikipedia. However, I hope you won't choose to make that necessary.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  JBW (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

ExhibitionOnScreen (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason= I'm not sure if my other message actually got through as I can see anything, so I'm submitting this again. I'd like to know specifically which further edit you have classified as link spamming. I ask this because one of them, John Singer Sargent, was accepted as an acceptable link, due to it containing information about the film - reviews, further synopsis, art galleries, photos, and reviews. I ask you, if I cannot post to the original and most credible source for an edit, what source shall I put? Will no source suffice? Some later edits I planned to do, have very little digital footprint and so citing them will be a challenge if I cannot use the original creators site.}} ExhibitionOnScreen (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

You agreed to stop and then you continued to advertise, including adding the same site again, twice: [3] [4]. This isn't about the level of sourcing, this is about you abusing Wikipedia to self-promote. - MrOllie (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

But one of them was accepted... I was using it as the most credible source and the admin who allowed those edits determined it was a valid source for the information not advertisement, which I'd argue its not as it's not directing them to purchase anything or actually advertising anything other than the information about the film I've tried to add to the artists list of other films.

Also the edits have been entirely rejected not altered like some others, why is that? These are films like other films on the artists page and yet they are being refused and censored because I added a credible source, which once again, was accepted as a valid source of information. ExhibitionOnScreen (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)