User talk:Schi11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Schi11, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Schi11! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk).

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Heinrich Maier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ostmark. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Revolutions of 1989 into Cold War. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Schi11! Your additions to Art have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


Welcome![edit]

Hello, Schi11, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, a bunch of your recent edits to the page Europe did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! 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 need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.  Mathglot (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced edits[edit]

I've removed your edits to Fall of the Berlin Wall, Trieste, Marxism–Leninism, Schneeberg (Alps), and Pan-European Picnic, all of which suffered from additions you made without citations. As this seems to be a pattern of yours, likely many more articles you edited need attention as well. Wikipedia takes WP:Verifiability seriously. Please do not make any more additions to articles without adding citations to reliable sources. Continued failure to observe Wikipedia policies may be seen as disruptive. Please make sure you understand Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and how to implement it, before editing. If you don't understand it, or you have other questions, please feel free to ask me or any editor here on your Talk page, or ask for help using the {{Help me}} template as explained above. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Schi11, thanks for your response at my Talk page. Responding to a few of your points, first, the good news:

I have always tried to act according to the sources.

Great! Now, all you have to do, is take those sources you're using, and cite them in the article. Help:Footnotes will give you a head start on this.

I have not cited any sources because the article itself almost never cites footnotes

I understand your feelings. That may be true, and that needs to be fixed, also, by citing existing unsourced content, or removing it. Unfortunately, the fact that there are other problems with the article doesn't mean we can ignore policy and do the same thing. That just makes the article even worse.

I didn't do it at Schneeberg because I had the info from the German wiki and was there myself once.

This is a common among new editors, you *know* it's true, because you were there. Unfortunately, the rest of the world can't tell that, plus, if some other editor wanted to verify what you were saying is true, how would they do that? What you must do instead, is find a published, solid, source that confirms your experience and WP:CITE that source, instead of your own experience. When you write something from your own experience, this is called WP:Original research at Wikipedia, and is strictly forbidden. Other editors will remove it on sight.

At Paneuropean Picnic I checked the sources myself and actually only sorted the horrible previous article so that it was legible.

Checking the sources first is exactly the right approach, and you are halfway there. Now, just complete the other half, and create citations from those sources, and add them with your content. In cases where you are just improving wording, and not actually adding new assertions of fact, you don't need a sort. Just be careful about how you reword, because sometimes that can state something new that wasn't stated before; that would need a source. If there is anything you wrote before that was a simple reword for legibility and I reverted it by mistake, you can just put it back. Be sure to make a comment in the edit summary about that.

I know a large part of the sources on the opening of the Wall because I had to write a paper on them.

Once again, great! It sounds like you are doing the hard part, which is finding the sources, and writing material based on them. Now, just go the last little bit, and cite those sources. I know about the opening of the Wall, too, because I was there (there was only one word on everybody's lips: "wahnsinnig"), but if I add to that article, nothing I saw or heard can be added to the article; it all has to have footnotes to published sources.

In any case, I didn't want to do anything wrong - it's a shame that the work at Paneuropa Picnick with sorting was in vain.

Don't worry, you're new here, and it's clear you are trying to do the right thing. And don't worry about the material you added at Pan-European Picnic, it's not gone, it's still there, preserved in the history of the article. Just add footnotes to the sources you already know, and you can just put it back again. The following templates may make it easier for you to create properly formatted sources, check them out: {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}.
And if you have any more questions or comments about this, it's easiest to keep the conversation all in one place, so you can just edit this section and reply below. Please see WP:THREAD for Talk page conventions about indentation and replies, and don't forget to WP:SIGN all your messages with WP:4TILDES, like this: ~~~~. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I can see you have fixed some of them, adding sources here at Schneeberg (Alps) for example. For the time being, this passes the bar, but be aware of a couple of things going forward:
  • There are "sources", and "reliable sources". Anything commercial or promotional, is less likely to be as reliable, as an independent source like a published book, journal article, or independent website with no commercial interest. Where possible, try to get an independent source; perhaps the chamber of commerce of the town would be a source like that.
  • Citations in foreign languages may be acceptable, but English sources are preferred, where available. Also, the second one (outdooractive) is relentlessly commercial and besides that also doesn't verify the sentence you added, so that one can be removed. In this case, there are plenty of English sources available; try this search, for example. So, please use one of those instead—best would be one that isn't commercial, if possible.
I haven't checked your other fixes to Trieste and to Europe, but I trust that you will have another look at WP:Reliable sources and make sure your citations are reliable, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY sources, preferably in English, and that they back up the additions you are making. And, if you're using web sites, then please do check out {{cite web}}, and use it, if possible. Thanks, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Europe[edit]

Hi. What are you trying to say, in this edit at Europe:

This sounds odd in English, as if God had it high on his priority list, when making the Mediterranean coastline. What is it you are trying to say, here? Also, you cite Wetter- und Meereskunde der Adria, but for something as general as the geography of Europe, there will be hundreds of reliable sources in English, which makes a German source second best, according to WP:NONENG.

Also, please try the citation templates. Here are two models, which you can copy, fill in, and paste into an article:

  • <ref>{{cite web |last1=Lastname |first1=Firstname |title=web page title |url= |date=web page date |website= |publisher= |accessdate={{subst:date}} }}</ref>
  • <ref>{{cite book |last1=Last |first1=First |last2=Author2-last |first2=Author2-first |title=Title of book |date=publ. date |url= |page= |location=Pub. City |publisher= |isbn= |access-date={{subst:date}} }}</ref>

Replace the italicized parts, add the other param values after the equal signs where you can (publisher of a web site can be hard to find; you can check the "Contact Us" page if you want, otherwise leave it blank). Leave the "access-date" value as is if you checked the source today, otherwise replace it with the day you checked the source (any valid MOS:DATEFORMAT is fine). There are tons more parameters available if you need them; see {{cite book}} and {{cite web}}. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


Thank you so much for the help. I try to implement it step by step. I am sure there will be a few more mistakes - but I will try. I will look for better sources at "Europe" and then I will investigate the Paneuropean picnic. Schi11, 08:18, 31.12.2020

Please end all your comments here with 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~. Also, please learn about indentation in Talk page replies, here: WP:THREAD. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I am learning..........--Schi11 (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you are, and good job, this time! Face-wink.svg Mathglot (talk) 07:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Karl von Habsburg and possible COI[edit]

I noticed that the name Karl von Habsburg keeps popping up in a lot of the articles you are editing. So I wanted to ask if you know Karl von Habsburg, are related to him or his family, or have any working or personal connection with him either at Blue Shield, in politics or any other connection? Wikipedia does not prohibit people from writing about themself, or about family, friends, or coworkers, but it strongly discourages it, and has certain guidelines in place to govern this kind of writing. Below this message, I will include a "template ", which has a standard message about conflict of interest, and what to do about it. If you have no connection whatever to Karl von Habsburg, please just respond below it, and say so, and that will be the end of it. Thanks. Stay tuned for the standard message:

Information icon Hello, Schi11. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
  • avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
  • propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
  • disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
  • avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
  • do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 07:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I started with an article about coffee, then I came to tourism, then through cultural tourism I found the protection of cultural property interesting and then I came to Habsburg. I thought culture was important - and that's how I discovered Blue Shield - but there isn't that much. That's how I discovered the fall of the Berlin Wall and now I'm with Europe.--Schi11 (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
With regard to Habsburg, I noticed that he is no longer President of Blue Shield and that this is noted in some articles. And I added something from the Habsburg article to Habsburg-Lothringen because it fits there too! --Schi11 (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
It's a shame about the things with coffee, because there are so many sources about it that I have all from Torberg to Musil, from Illy to Brazil - I could add everything. And somehow at Wikipedia you get the feeling that every change is bad.Schi11 (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
If you think about it, the strict Wiki guidelines are understandable, but at the beginning you struggle with the technology and the possibilities alone. It's also kind of strange that there are so many articles without footnotes and then you somehow destroy the overall picture with your own footnotes.Schi11 (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I understand your frustration, and it can seem that way in the beginning, but no, not every change is bad, and you've made many sourced additions and all of those still remain. A lot of the unsourced ones seem to be the earlier ones, which makes sense for a new user. The one thing I didn't understand from what you said, was, about "somehow destroy the overall picture with your own footnotes". Not sure what you mean there, but I can assure you that adding footnotes is not only a good thing, but is one of the core principles of Wikipedia; otherwise, the encyclopedia wouldn't be an encyclopedia—it would just be a chaotic mashup of notes, musings, comments, stories, crazy theories, good theories, and creative ramblings on any topic at all. If that's what people want, they can go to Facebook. The WP:Verifiability policy stands in the way of that, and requires us all to be accountable for what we write. I would hope you would come to see this as a good thing, that gives your writings value for others, because they can have confidence that the content you add is legitimate, and backed up by published sources.
As far as the rules, yes, there are a lot of them, but very few are really important, and sourcing is one of those. (Hint: WP:DUEWEIGHT is just around the corner, if you want to know what's next.) If you want a "top-down" view of all the policies and guidelines at Wikpedia, check out the Five Pillars; that's kind of the top of the pyramid for basic policy here, and everything else derives from that, one way or another. You're doing fine, and improving as you go; don't worry, this is normal; your editing is getting better, and soon, all these rules will seem second nature to you. Mathglot (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Regarding your changes to Coffee, no need to just give up on it—all that material is still in the history; why don't you just put your changes back in again, and since, as you said, "there are so many sources about it", just add citations to them, and then all your content will be fine. Do you know how to find your removed content? Mathglot (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for all the help! Especially at the beginning (I think) I was over-motivated - and thank God there are those like you who slow them down. The guidelines are perfectly clear the more you do on Wikipedia. And the whole project is just great because it gives everyone around the world relatively good knowledge. I will also try to critically improve Coffee and Paneuropean Picnic with footnotes - I've already seen how it works!! Thank you - and happy new year and good luck and health!! Schi11 (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

How to notify a user when you message them here[edit]

Happy New Year to you too! One more thing: if you write on *my* Talk page, I will automatically know about it, because Wikipedia notifies me via an alert that somebody wrote on my Talk page. But, if you reply to me here (or on any other Talk page), I will not receive a notification, so I might never see or read your message, or even know that you wrote something to me.

If you want another user to know that you have responded to them, please use one of these templates: {{reply}}, or {{ping}}. For example, you could write:

{{reply|Mathglot}} Thanks for the help. And, blah blah blah...

There is another way: you can place the user's name in brackets, like this: [[User:Mathglot]] and then the Mediawiki software will notify the user with an alert. Good luck, and don't hesitate to contact me (with a "ping" or "reply" Face-wink.svg) if you have any questions. Mathglot (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Page numbers and verifiability[edit]

When you add a reference, as you did for example in this edit at Europe, please add a page number with your source reference. The point of the WP:Verifiability policy, is that another editor could go to the source, and look up the part which verifies the content you added. Adding the source is great, so keep it up, but please add a page number with it, or it's almost impossible for anybody else to go to the source and verify that it supports the added content. If you use the citation templates mentioned in the #Europe section above, they have a |page= parameter where you can add the page number(s). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cristallo (mountain), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prag.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Golden age of alpinism[edit]

Hi Schi, Thanks for your addition to this and other Alpine pages. May I ask a favour; this page is for ascents of "major peaks"; not sure if Coglians at 2,780m qualifies as major. And could you write the article first rather than adding multiple redlinks? Regards, Ericoides (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Schi, Thanks for your reasoning. I appreciate it's the highest in the group, but in the greater scheme of things maybe doesn't deserve to be up there with the Eiger, Matterhorn etc. Ericoides (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Maritime Silk Road[edit]

Please don't insert into a large range of articles what is essentially the same block of text like you recently did. The information belongs in the Maritime Silk Road article, and if the topic is relevant to an individual city, a single sentence linking to that article, placed within the relevant context, will suffice. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

ANI discussion notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Link PyroFloe (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)