User talk:Hans Schlemmer

Welcome!

Hello, Hans Schlemmer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Anders Stone, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted (if it hasn't already).

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Shadowjams (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Anders Stone

A tag has been placed on Anders Stone requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Shadowjams (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Stone

You may be interested that I've added to the discussion on the Anders Stone Talk page. Shadowjams (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. There are no experts on this website, just personalities. As a general rule, people who patrol new articles are going to be skeptical about the kinds of articles that people tend to spam. There's blatant vandalism (easy to spot) and then there's the more subtle self-promotion. People are skeptical of articles on any subject that it's easy to get into. In other words, the easier the profession to "be" the more skepticism. The challenge when adding someone who's a notable part of one of these fields is to make it clear that the person has risen above the otherwise low barrier to entry. Every high school kid who creates a band tries [it seems] to add it to wikipedia. That leads to a cluttered and silly website, so it makes sense to try and have some criteria against that. Similarly for fine-artists, it's easy to buy paint and a brush, and put up a wikipedia page and use that to try to increase market value. The best way to add notable artists is to add the citation that accompanies those artists. Unless you're absurdly connected to the art world, you have to be hearing and knowing about these artists though some unpersonal media. My suggestion is to quote that media. If it's a gallery you know of, provide a full citation to it. If it's a trade publication or magazine, provide that link too. If it's been published by a major media source, it doesn't take much. WP trends towards over-inclusive despite what anyone says. I hope this advice helps. Thanks for your contributions... I hope you'll stay. Shadowjams (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

No need to worry about bugging me. Ultimately a new article's up to you, and if you think the article's notable you should put it up. Nobody's going to be bothered if you don't always get it right, especially if you explain your reasons. As a practical matter, if an article's well developed on its first edit it goes a long way towards giving it credibility (your previous articles I think did this). I would stray away from including your personal experiences or opinions on the quality of the products. It borders on original research and would make people skeptical about the rest of the article too.

For website sources, obviously the website of some notable organization is perfectly alright (BBC, New York Times, even all online sources so long as they're sufficiently notable, say Ars Technica). Again, stay away from things like forums and message boards.

You may know, that new pages are posted to Special:NewPages. Editors monitor these additions and fairly quickly handle them. That's why first glances can be wrong (as you saw with me). Articles that are borderline might get nominated for deletion. If you really want to get a feel for how the WP community as a whole handles these sorts of things (by no means is any one editor "typical"), I would recommend just browsing through some of the discussions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 31 to see what users think is and is not important. Hope it helps. Shadowjams (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind my jumping in. I think it's great that you're interested in creating articles. The number one issue that comes up at WP:AfD is notability; if you can prove that a subject is notable, the rest can be fixed by copyeditors or the Rescue Squad. Therefore, when creating your article try to have three major media sources (newspaper articles, mentions in books, etc.) Good luck, and if you want practice, try joining the Rescue Squad! -moritheil^Talk 08:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

olaf wieghorst

{{helpme}} hi- i wish to add a painting jpg from the artist olaf wieghorst. unfortunately i am still unclear as to what can be legally uploaded to wiki. so many pics are available on line, but their copyright is unclear. how does one usually proceed? thank you in advanced dear seasoned wiki helper, (Hans Schlemmer (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. The answer is likely to be 'no', if the copyright is unclear. We can only use images that have a clear statement to declare that they are free of copyright - for example, a website with a GFDL disclaimer.

This is the reason that so many similar articles are lacking images; if there is not a free version available - or indeed if the copyright status is unclear - then they cannot be used on Wikipedia.

The only exception to this is fair use images, but these have very specific and defined usage (such as a record cover), and would not apply to this instance.

I'm sorry I cannot give more positive news; fr more details on this, see Wikipedia:Copyrights. For more help, you can either;

Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
Use another {{helpme}} on your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question; OR
Talk to us live.

Best wishes, Chzz ► 08:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Andersstone.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Andersstone.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Acather96 (talk) 11:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Anders Stone.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Anders Stone.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Classicwrong.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Classicwrong.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 19:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]