User talk:Aurelstein

Image Tagging Image:Kinneging1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kinneging1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 00:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the content. Aurelstein (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from William Hague. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Road Wizard (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Aurelstein! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 295 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Andreas Kinneging - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Men

You might find some useful references here: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Archives.showArchive&art_type=28 Barnabypage (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you might have noticed that the link is to a blog. We don't consider references from such to be reliable., unless they are from production staff within AMC or the show itself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may well fall within the "some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control" proviso of WP:RS. Media Post is certainly a reliable news organisation, whose remit includes covering television programming, and I presume (although I admit I haven't checked) that this particular bit is written by one or more of its staff journalists. Barnabypage (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnaby, are you stating that you can verify that MediaPost qualifies as a RS, and that the various reviewers are professional journalists? I've never heard of some of these names, and they don't have relevant Google results offering bios and background and whatnot. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of their bios can be found on LinkedIn if you belong. The editor-in-chief, Joe Mandese, is described there as being a former media editor of Advertising Age and reporter at Adweek. The publication's masthead is here http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.masthead - and here is a history of it http://www.mediapost.com/mediakit/index.cfm?ip=mediapost_story. The only problem that I can see is that the purported author of the Mad Men blog, "Dorothy Parker", appears to be a pseudonym. However, the publication as a whole is reliable, so I think that for the kind of exercise in dating that is being proposed it should be fine: it's not as if we're dealing with a hugely controversial and sensitive topic here. Barnabypage (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, my personal page isn't really the right place for this discussion. Aurelstein (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't actually noticed I was talking to someone other than you! I'll copy it to the List of Mad Men episodes talk page. Barnabypage (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civility counts here

I've n noticed your behavior becoming a lot more aggressive, and you might want to consider toning it down a bit, or at the very least becoming a lot more civil. i realize that I've been a little dismissive of you, based on you lack of a firm grasp of our polices, and I've apologized for that. You need to lighten up, because quite frankly, you are acting like a jerk, and I am growing short on patience; the good faith of your fellow editors is something you don't want to lose. So, stop already. I know you haven't made a lot of edits and we aren't supposed to snap at the younglings, but your grace period is about to expire and you need to stop treating every discussion like a cage match. Let's avoid having to talk about this again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment here is completely inappropriate. I have not been uncivil. You, not I, rub a lot of people the wrong way. It's also not your place to call me names ("jerk"), tell me when my "grace period is about to expire", and similar threats. Honestly, your behavior, not mine, is what you can lead you in trouble here. Incidentally, personally I don't think 'edit counts' are all that relevant, but I have in fact contributed to many other language version of Wikipedia, so no need to worry about my level of experience. As for the discussion, it will go on for as long as it has to. Provided that it be conducted with the appropriate level of civility, of course.

Aurelstein (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]