User talk:CulverHist

Hi CulverHist, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! Hikingboii (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Please don't just delete my question.

Are you here to improve Wikipedia, or are you just here to promote the chrisbungostudios.com website? I think you should probably read WP:PROMO and WP:REFSPAM.

Please answer, or I will be raising an incident at WP:ANI. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I replied on your "talk" page - this is the first time I've ever had anything written to me on a "talk" page. I run a filming locations website. As I come across filming locations that are not a part of the Wikipedia record, I add them and I CITE the source, just like everything else posted on Wikipedia. I have no idea which Wikipedia article you have a beef with, but is it Come On Eileen? There is an error there. Holyoak Road was NOT a filming location. And there is no mention of Lamlash Street. I'm not going to bother trying to update it again as it will just further irritate you. In fact, I'm considering not sharing any of my future filming location discoveries on Wikipedia at all, even though YOU are the only person to complain / threaten me. So, consider yourself having achieved your objective. Congratulations. CulverHist (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Please be civil and assume good faith. There was no reply on my talk page, I didn't "threaten" you in the slightest, and my enquiry was genuine. I'm not sure what the rule is about single-purpose accounts whose sole contribution is citing their own website – I think it's probably frowned upon – but regardless of that I fear your website, being self-generated, will not be considered a reliable source anyway, and I'm afraid your editing pattern is borderline promotion. I'll seek advice. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Why don't you take a look at the website? All the filming locations are backed up by PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE using photos that I PERSONALLY TOOK. Here's an example for Come On Eileen:

https://chrisbungostudios.com/filming-locations-blog/f/february-2026---featured-filming-location-photos

Anyway.. you've succeeded in stirring up trouble for me as I now have multiple messages from people who are in an admin capacity at Wikipedia who have taken your claims at face value, without even examining the evidence that documents my additions to Wikipedia. Congratulations, you've done very well and I will no longer add the results of my research to Wikipedia. CulverHist (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to follow up regarding the additions citing the Chris Bungo Studios website. Please note the reverts weren’t personal; they’re based on Wikipedia sourcing policy. The site appears to be self-published and commercially operated, which means it doesn’t meet the standards at WP:RS and WP:SPS for verifying historical claims (such as filming locations). In addition, using the same commercial website repeatedly as citations can fall afoul of WP:EL and WP:SPAM, since Wikipedia isn’t intended to be used to promote or drive traffic to paid or privately controlled resources. If you’re connected to the site in any way, it would also raise WP:COI concerns, which require disclosure and generally discourage direct editing. One other practical note: Wikipedia external links are marked “nofollow,” so they don’t provide SEO benefit or search-ranking value. Because of that, adding links here isn’t an effective way to promote a website even if that were the intent. If there are reliable, independent sources (newspapers, books, archival publications, academic works, etc.) confirming the filming locations, those would absolutely be appropriate to cite. Happy to help work toward something that fits policy. Lexlex (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I'm aware the links don't add any "link juice" to my website as it relates to authority score improvements, but that wasn't the point of sharing my research. It seemed pretty straightforward to me: If you have information to add to an article and you can prove that the information is factual, you can add it to the article AND you have to cite the source of the information. Since information about filming locations on obscure movies that 99.9% of the world doesn't even know exist(ed) is so niche, the chances of newspapers, books, academic works, etc finding my research and then republishing it so that it would meet the Wikipedia rules seems remote. I'll just stop sharing my research with Wikipedia going forward. Again, thank you for taking the time to reply. I do appreciate it. CulverHist (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I completely understand your reasoning. It's a natural way to think about it, and I've been there myself. But the key distinction is that Wikipedia doesn't operate on "provable by editor." It operates on "already published by an independent source." Even if you've done careful, well-documented work, it can't appear on Wikipedia unless it's first been published independently. In short: Wikipedia documents what has already been published; it doesn't debut original research.

You're absolutely right that for niche silent-era filming locations, independent coverage can be rare, which makes this frustrating. (Personally, I'd love to see the photos too.) But without prior publication, the material can't be included here.

So why not publish them? Culver City still has active community outlets like the Culver City News, Culver City Observer, and Culver City Crossroads, which often run local history features. A weekly "Then & Now" series on silent-era filming locations with comparison photos seems like exactly the kind of material local editors would appreciate. If your work were published there, it would become citable under Wikipedia's sourcing standards, making it straightforward to incorporate here. These outlets are often more accessible than people realize — a phone call could lead to a year's worth of published work. Lexlex (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Lexlex. You made the point more eloquently than I could. CulverHist, my involvement was nothing personal, and I did look at your website, but I was merely pointing out Wikipedia's citation guidelines. Dave.Dunford (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your continued interest in my dilemma. I've been a guest speaker (twice) at the Culver City Historical Society - there's a link to last year's presentation on the home page of my site if you want to scan through it. Your explanation about "already published by an independent source" was very illuminating and your suggestion about getting published in a local newspaper is appreciated. I think you've gone above and beyond in explaining the issue Lexlex, and I do very much appreciate your time and interest. CulverHist (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Get Out and Get Under. 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. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did at Come On Eileen, 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. Theroadislong (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 01:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so very much Star Mississippi. Somehow I went from a Warning, to Please stop to Blocked indefinitely without even posting anything, all in one day. Why didn't you just save yourself the trouble and skip the first two steps, since it's clear that you haven't even been following the productive discussion I've had with Lexlex here. CulverHist (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)