 |
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! You recently added an external link to YouTube in an article. It has been removed because the link pointed to a non-encyclopedic source. Per WP:COPYRIGHT: External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of copyright infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is fine. Please refer to Wikipedia's policy on external links for more information. |
- Sorry JoeSmack - you are simply wrong on this point. Go away, please. Thanks. --AStanhope 02:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- There are circumstances in which a YouTube content can be fine, but they are often narrow. Firstly, if you guys have not released the film under any license, it would still be wrong to include it here under GDFL (i.e. wikipedia). Secondly, I guessed (correctly) that it was a link to a film that you the user had created; most of the time added content to makers of the link (or indeed article) are frowned upon as it is inherently (POV) and can be construed as linkspam (WP:SPAM). Often with even the purest of intentions (which I think you had), there is zero way for me to know if you weren't just trying to use wikipedia as a medium to publicize your film. Lastly, the content itself would have to be encyclopedic; in essence, hold unique content that is vital to the article content. See (WP:EL) for more on what external links are encyclopedic (YouTube, a reason you got the warning template on your talkpage, is on the 'Links to be avoided' section).
- I hope I have answered your questions; if you have anymore, please, drop me a line. JoeSmack Talk 17:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Joe, GFDL is needed only if we want to upload the video to our own servers, not to link to it. We link to cnn.com all the time and none of its contents are GFDL. We can link to copyrighted content as long as we don't link to infringements on purpose. The POV and SPAM concerns are very valid but how they apply is a matter for editorial discussion and consensus on the talk page for the editorial in question. This link has at least some legitimate support over there. 67.117.130.181 12:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mahlen!
editLong time no see! XOXO. --AStanhope 02:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Barrington video
editHi, I saw mention of your video on Barrington Hall and responded on the talk page there. I haven't been following the YouTube linking situation but if you're willing to release your video under the GFDL, you might upload it to Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org) instead of Youtube. That is a Wikimedia project and we love user-contributed video that's relevant to the encycopedia. 67.117.130.181 17:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)