User talk:Pmuehlen

Hello, Pmuehlen and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are interested in learning more about contributing, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Red Director (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Moving page from sandbox

Hello! There are multiple ways you could go about this. Please see WP:YFA and WP:WIZGO for a very detailed explanation in regard to what you want. Otherwise, you can go to this: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Bernis_von_zur_Muehlen&action=edit&redlink=1

Copy and paste your wikitext into the link and submit. Be aware that this will put your article into the mainspace and feel for editors to look at and administrators to make their own judgments on. I am no expert on the topic of your article but it looks good from just a glance. Happy editing! Red Director (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Bernis von zur Muehlen

Hi, I'm Robertgombos. Pmuehlen, thanks for creating Bernis von zur Muehlen!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Hi there, thanks for creating the article. No need to bold the galleries name mentioned in the Exhibitions section. Also, remove the inline direct external links.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Robertgombos (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bernis von zur Muehlen.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Von zur Muehlen.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Von zur Muehlen.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lucy smiling tummy 1974.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Image of male nude with sculpture.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in re-introducing thumb|Peter with Art Deco sculpture 1978; photo by © Bernis von zur Muehlen|alt= into the article. It is previously published and illustrates the photographer's early work. Pmuehlen (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peter with sculpture 1978.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Peter's Torso 1978.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Peter's Torso 1978.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rita from Narratives of Desire.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rita from Narratives of Desire.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Little Diva Eve.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Little Diva Eve.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Peter with sculpture 1978.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Peter with sculpture 1978.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bernis von zur Muehlen.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bernis von zur Muehlen.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Big Brian in 1975.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Big Brian in 1975.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Little Diva Eve 1995.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Little Diva Eve 1995.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lucy smiling tummy 1974.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lucy smiling tummy 1974.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Prague Cemetery 1990.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Prague Cemetery 1990.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Bernis von zur Muehlen.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bernis von zur Muehlen.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly:I am completely stumped about this issue of non-free use of an image "Bernis von zur Muehlen.jpg." It is an image used to identify Bernis von zur Muehlen, the photographer in an article about her. There are other examples of images being used in an infobx in Wikipedia; so why can I not do the same?The photo was made by a friend of hers to be used in any way desirable. It could be made into a free-use image, for which I have permissions. But then there is some requirement about a Wikipedia "license," and I have no clue what to do regarding that. Previous instructions had been for me to insert language involving "di-replaceable" into the image file. I made an attempt, but I am not sure really how and where to do this, because I obviously failed. I am not even sure if the statement here is in the proper place for me to communicate, or if the following placement of the signature is correct. Pmuehlen (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file was deleted by an administrator named Explicit. I did post a detailed response to you on the file's talk page, but that talk page was deleted shortly after the the file was deleted. You can if you want ask Explicit to undelete the file's talk page so that you can read what I posted, but bascially there were two issues with trying to license the file as non-free content and these are the reason why the file was deleted. The first one had to WP:NFCC#1 and the second one had to do with WP:NFCC#4.

NFCC#1 has to do with replaceable non-free content. Wikipedia pretty much never allows non-free photographs, etc. of still living persons to be uploaded and used like you were trying to use the file. That's because the long-standing consensus is that, except in certain very limited cases, it is believed that it would not be unreasonable to expect someone somewhere to either find or create a freely licensed equivalent image to serve the same encyclopedic purpose of primary identification. This doesn't mean that a free version of the exact image needs to be found or created, only that a free equivalent image can be found of created. You can find out a little bit more about this in WP:FREER or item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI.

NFCC#4 has to do with the publication of non-free content; in other words, all non-free content is required to have been published by the original copyright holder as explained in WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion so that its copyright status can be assessed and verified. The file's description stated that the photo was never published and unfortunately Wikipedia cannot accept such files as non-free content. So, even if the NFCC#1 was not an issue the file was going to be deleted per NFCC#4, and even if NFCC#4 was not an issue the file was going to be deleted per NFCC#1.

Just for reference, files which have been deleted are not gone forever, but rather are only hidden from public view. A deleted file can be "undeleted" at a later date if the issues which led to its deletion are subsequently resolved. You state above that the photo was taken by a friend of von Zur Muelen to be used in any was she wants. That's fine for her, but not Wikipedia; what Wikipedia requires for a photo to released under a free license is that it be made available to anyone in the world to be used in any way that they want. Unless there was some kind of copyright transfer agreement in which von Zur Muelen friend transferred the copyright of the photo to her, the friend who took the photo is considered to still be the copyright holder for Wikipedia purposes which means that Wikipedia needs the friend to email their explicit consent to Wikimedia OTRS to (1) verify they are the original copyright holder and (2) verify their intent to release the file under a free license accepted by Wikipedia. The friend cannot just say to von Zur Muelen "Here's this photo I took of you and you can use it as you like" because there's no way for Wikipedia to verify such a thing. That's why the "explicit consent" has to be in writing and it has to be sent to Wikimedia OTRS so that it can be kept on file for reference in case any issues related to its licensing arise at a later date. The same thing is bascially needed if von Zur Muelen is the copyright holder. She cannot just say to you, "Sure, you can use this on Wikipedia"; she has to be willing to let anyone anywhere in the world use it for any purpose (not just Wikipedia) and she has to email her "explicit consent" to do so to Wikimedia OTRS.

Finally, one last thing about image use is that not every file you see used on Wikipedia is licensed the same way as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE. Files which are released under a free license or which fall within the public domain for one reason or another are not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. There are less restrictions placed on such files than there are placed on non-free content which means they are much easier to use. You haven't mentioned any of these other files you've seen by name, but click on the image a check it's copyright licensing. If the file's page says that the file is located on Wikimedia Commons, then that file has to be either freely licensed or public domain because Commons doesn't accept non-free content. Even if the file is not from Commons, it's still can be freely licensed or public domain because Wikipedia does allow such files to be uploaded locally. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly Thank you for taking the time to explain all this so very well and so promptly. I had, indeed, started to pursue the free license option. The photographer is agreeable. I do understand the need to protect Wikipedia's integrity. Pmuehlen (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just let Explict know this and he will advise you on what you need to do next. Bascially, someone sends in a consent email to OTRS, and the email is processed and reviewed by an OTRS volunteer. If there are no issues, the OTRS volunteer will either (1) restore the file themselves and add a {{OTRS permission}} template to it or (2) inform the deleting admin that the files licensing has been verified by OTRS and request the the file be undeleted. Sometimes the OTRS process takes a bit of time because there are only so many volunteers trying to deal with all of the requests. There is, however, another option that might save time if your 100% sure that the original copyright holder is willing to release the file under a free license per c:COM:L. Ask the copyright holder to upload a high-quality version of the file directly to Commons via c:COM:Upload Wizard. They should try to upload a file which has EXIF data if possible and just release the file under any of the licenses listed in c:COM:CC. Uploading the file directly to Commons will save someone the trouble of moving the deleted one there from Wikipedia if your sure it's going to eventually be undeleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest editing

I'm going to add something about conflict of interest (COI) editing just for reference in case it might apply to you. If you're connected to von Zur Muehlen either personally or professionally, then please take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit COI editing, but it does highly discourage it; so, it's important to understand the kinds of edits that Wikipedia feels are acceptable for a COI editor to make. If none of this applies to you, then the information contained in the above pages might also be a good thing to know for future reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bernis-1993.jpg uploaded to Commons

I see you uploaded File:Bernis-1993.jpg to Wikimedia Commons. I also see that the file has already been tagged for deletion per c:User talk:Pmuehlen#Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Bernis-1993.jpg. When I suggested above that another possible solution would be to upload a photo to Commons, I was assuming that you understood that permission of the original copyright holder was needed for such a file to be kept. The editor who tagged the Commons file believe you derivative work of some other photo. If that's the case, the copyright status of the original source photo needs to be clarified. If the original photo was not taken by you, then scanning it and uploading a new version of it to Commons doesn't void the copyright of the original.

For example, if you walk outside an take a picture of the sunset, then that is certainly 100% your work and you can uploaded to Commons/Wikipedia under any of the free licenses accepted by Commons/Wikipedia. On the other hand, if you find a photo in a book, scan the photo, crop it or alter it in some manner on your computer, you then might be able to claim copyright ownership over your version per WP:DERIVATIVE; however, the copyright of the orginal photo found in the book still needs to be taken into account. So, (1) if the original photo is not under copyright for one reason or another or (2) the original photo is freely licensed under a license accepted by Commons/Wikipedia, then you can (1) upload your version to Commons/Wikipedia under a free license accepted by Commons/Wikipedia of your choosing or (2) upload the your version under a free license accepted by Commons/Wikipedia, but also consistent with the licensing terms of the original image. If, however, the original image is still protected by copyright, you cannot upload your version to Commons without also getting the explicit consent of the copyright holder of the original image. If all of this sounds confusing, that's because it is. Bascially, you can only claim something to be your "own work" if you created every part of it from start to finish. If you're incorporating things created by others into your work, then there's a good chance that you will need their permission as well in order to upload anything to Commons/Wikipedia under a free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Marchjuly. I really appreciate the time and effort you are putting into this matter and want to thank you. Regarding the file File:Bernis-1993.jpg, it is not derivative but my original photograph---an analogue film-based photograph uploaded via scan. There is no other way to upload such a thing except via a scan, as must surely be the case for much ostensibly original work. In providing source information, I thought I had done so properly but clearly had not. I have gone back to attempt to correct the necessary information as requested by indicating that both, original and scan, are mine, but I am not at all sure I have succeeded, because, at least from my perspective, the instruction is vague.

On the second matter of conflict of interest, it is, indeed, the case that the subject of the article is my wife, as indicated on the infobox. On the face of it, this may present a conflict---or rather coincidence---of interest. However, there is absolutely nothing in the article that is not substantiated and documented with source material that can be verified by third parties. The page contains no subjective material either praising or criticizing the photographer. A robot could have written this. I am an economist, having spent all my life doing research, so I am completely aware of the requirements of objectivity and forbearance. Finally, it is clear from the article that Bernis von zur Muehlen's career has been sufficiently illustrious to be of general public interest; and that is why I put up her Wikipedia article. I do hope my reasoning is sufficient. Pmuehlen (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have resoled the issue(s) with the Commons image. So, that's a good thing. As for the COI, unfortunately for Wikipedia's purposes, you're going to considered to have one; therefore, you should probably refrain from directly editing the article and using the article talk page to request help instead per WP:COIADVICE. You can find out more about this in WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement. I'm not posting this because I think you're intentions are not good, but the COI guidelines have been established because the Wikipedia Community feels they are necessary to help ensure the integrity of Wikipedia even from those with the best intentions. You can really lessen the chance of any problems between you and other editors happening if you adhere to the guidelines with respect to anything written about your wife on Wikipedia. I can ask another editor who has much more experience helping COI editors navigate these guidelines to help you as well if you like, or you can ask for help at WP:COIN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly Thank you. I do understand. I would certainly appreciate more help on this; but I also do not want to lose this page. One alternative is for me to ask a museum curator to take on the task of editing this article. If I were to do so, is it possible to transmit to such a person the contents of what is now on that page in order to lessen the burden, which is significant? Also, how much time do I have before the thing goes down?Pmuehlen (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think asking a museum curator or someone else who might be in anyway connected to your wife is necessarily a solution because WP:COI will likely apply to them as well. It would be better for you to ask for help at WP:COIN, WP:BLPN, on the talk page of one of the WikiProject’s listed at the top of Talk:Bernis von zur Muehlen, or maybe even at the Teahouse. Someone who even has an WP:APPARENTCOI and who is also unfamiliar with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines might unintentionally create new problems that need to be fixed. Anyway, the editor I referred to above is Jytdog and if anyone can figure out how to best help you, Jytdog can. Jytdog is WP:BUSY sometimes, but you can post a query at User talk:Jytdog if you like. Finally, articles are deleted for a variety of reasons, but almost never for bad formatting or solely because of less-than-stellar article content or sourcing per WP:PRESERVE, WP:BEFORE, WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST. Usually, articles are deleted because of a lack of Wikipedia notability. See WP:BIO and WP:ARTIST for more on this. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Marchjuly: Thanks. It is a little odd though that not even a museum director could involve him or herself in this. If the criterion is that there has absolutely never been some contact, then I doubt that any WP article about a living artist would qualify, however brilliant the career. Likewise, regarding notability, a reading of von zur Muehlen's resume should convince anyone that she meets the requirements, and if not, that would also affect many of her peers appearing on WK. Finally, who decides notability? I will read the suggested article to learn about this. I will also go the route suggested by Jytdog. The protocol suggests that the reviewing process will be by anonymous individuals who may or may not know much about the subject. So that's a risk I would be taking. I have to repeat, though, there is not a single assertion in the article that is not verifiably backed up by published sources. It's only facts. Pmuehlen (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Marchjuly: I read the piece on notability and criteria thereof. (1) Verifiable evidence: all claims in the article are backed up by verifiable evidence, mostly in the form newspaper and journal articles. (2) Bernis von zur Muehlen can be favorably judged in relation to peers with exiting WP coverage, as surely proven by her heavily annotated and public record. Pmuehlen (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia notability is assessed according to various guidelines established by the Wikipedia community, a list of which can be found at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines. The basic premise is that a subject is deemed Wikipedia enough to support a stand-alone article if it is established that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. Wikipedia article content is supposed to only reflect what these reliable sources are saying about the subject. Articles are not intended to be based upon anyone's personal knowledge of the subject, even though it may be true. It might seem strange to someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia, but Wikipedia's best articles have most likely been written by editors completely unconnected to the subjects they are writing about. They may have an interest or passion in the subjects they write about, but they are able to do so in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

I think you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Law of unintended consequences just for a different perspective on what it means to have a Wikipedia written about you (or in this case your wife). Wikipedia has over 5,000,000 articles and more keep getting adding everyday. Many of these are pretty good, but at the same time many are pretty bad. It's not that they are badly written per se, it's just that they simply don't merit inclusion in Wikipedia per current policies and guidelines. It seems that many people think that either they, someone they know, their company, their organization, etc. should have a Wikipedia article because some of their peers or other similar companies, groups, etc. have articles. These people often have a misconception of what Wikipedia is intended to be and their goals often aren't the same as Wikipedia goals. As I said above, there are lots of articles added each day, but there are also lots deleted each day. Sometimes it might take a quite awhile for these a clunkers to be found, but evenutally they are and then they are deleted. The reviewers might not know anything about your wife, certainly not as much as you or some others may know, but they do typically have a very good grasp of Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines and often have created lots of new articles themselves. These are experienced editors who assess lots of drafts and only really approve those which they feel have a legitimate chance of surviving. The article's they approve might not be perfectly written and may still have problems which need addressing, but these are problems with the reviewer judges to be manageable and fixable that are highly unlikely to lead to the article being instantly tagged for deletion once it's added to the mainspace. The reviewers may decline a draft once, twice, or even more times, but they will (should) provide suggestions on things that need to be approved. A declined draft can be re-submitted as many times as you like as long as you make attempts to address the reviewers concerns and not simply keep resubmitting the same version over and over again.

Finally, I'm guessing the reason why Jytdog suggested moving the article back to the draft space was because he felt that what you started has the potential to become a proper Wikipedia article, but that it only needs some more work. If there was no hope at all for such an article to be created, Jytdog would have tagged it for speedy deletion without thinking twice. Leaving the article in the mainspace was of course an option, but anything in the mainspace is fair game for anyone to edit or even tag/nominate for deletion. As a draft though, you'll have a bit more leeway to work on things yourself (your COI is not as much of a concern for a draft as it is for an article) or try to find others who have experience writing these types of articles to help improve it so that it has a better chance of eventually being accepted as an article. --

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Pmuehlen, I was pinged above. Thanks for disclosing that you have been editing the article about your wife. Editing about family members constitutes a conflict of interest. This is stated plainly in the COI guideline at WP:COISELF.

Wanting to be involved in topics where you have a conflict of interest, is not a bad thing. Doing that in an unmanaged way, is a bad thing, because a) conflicted editors tend to edit promotionally even though they believe they can be unbiased; and b) they tend to behave badly, trying to force in their preferred content.

So here is the deal--

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. Managing conflict of interest well, also protects conflicted editors themselves - please see WP:Wikipedia is in the real world, and Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia for some guidance and stories about people who have brought bad press upon themselves through unmanaged conflict of interest editing.

As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review.

You have already made a small disclosure, here on your talk page. I added the disclosure to the talk page, at Talk:Bernis von zur Muehlen.

To finish the disclosure piece, would you please add the disclosure to your user page (which is User:Pmuehlen - a redlink, because you haven't written anything there yet). Just something simple like: "I am the husband of Bernis von zur Muehlen and have a conflict of interest with regard to the article about her, and related topics" would be fine. If you want to add anything else there that is relevant to what you want to do in Wikipedia feel free to add it, but please don't add anything promotional about your wife or yourself (see WP:USERPAGE for guidance if you like).

Once you disclose on your user page, the disclosure piece of this will be done.

As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI, and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to

(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor tag (already done), putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page; and

(ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section, put the proposed content there, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) please the {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review. In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once. Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example. This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies.

But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where the company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content. If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page.

Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward when you want to work on the article about your wife, or any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss.

Also, we really should move the page about your wife to draft space, so you can have it reviewed before it publishes. This will give space and time to improve it in peace, with risk of it being deleted. Would you be open to that? If so, let me know, and I will move it, and set it up so it is ready for you to work on.

Best regards Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Jytdog: Thank you so much for the suggestions, which I will follow to the letter---I hope. I am preoccupied with other maters at the moment but will return to this shortly. Your input is surely beyond the call of duty. Peter Pmuehlen (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You still working directly on the page, which you should not be doing. Above I offered to move it to "draft space" where you can work on it in peace, and when it is ready, you can submit for peer review prior to publication. Would you please let me know if that is OK with you? Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

to Jytdog. I'm sorry. Yes, would you kindly move it to draft space and let me know when and how I can proceed. I truly appreciate your effort. The changes I made were added references and sources that can be considered objective from any point of view. One question: who are "peers" in WP space. Artists, photographers, curators, museum directors, and the like? Surely these would need to be people who have familiarity with the subject. But perhaps it is unnecessary for me to ask. Pmuehlen (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is now at Draft:Bernis_von_zur_Muehlen, and I have asked for the "redirect" in mainspace to be deleted, so that once it is reviewed it can be easily moved back.

With respect to the "peer review" there are people that the community has entrusted to review new drafts to ensure they are compliant with WP's policies. They are not subject matter experts; they do understand Wikipedia very well.

If you do want help and review from people with passion or expertise in art, I suggest posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women artists and perhaps also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arts. Something simple like: "Hi, I am the husband of artist Bernis von zur Muehlen. I have created a draft page on her at Draft:Bernis von zur Muehlen and would very much appreciate any help in preparing this page for AfC review. If you would be so kind as to have a look, do anything you can to improve it directly or leave me notes on its talk page, I would be grateful. Best regards, (sign)"

Something like that may draw help. If you like. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Using "draft" looks to me like a sensible approach. I was told that I could not engage an independent curator to edit an article because it may present indirect COI, as when such a person ever had anything to do with the artist. I think hat this surely applies to most if not all living-artist WP articles, since only with familiarity could anyone possibly write an article about another person, especially in light of the great personal detail that is often given, such as childhood experiences, etc. So, complete absence of COI, as defined by WP, appears to me more ideal than reality. Nevertheless, your last suggestion is excellent. I will give that a try. Who knows who may be interested? Pmuehlen (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two responses. The first is that nobody can just "write what they know" in WP. WP content is generated by summarizing reliable sources. Not by writing what you know - that is absolutely forbidden here. Please read that over a couple of times and let it sink in. (The reason why this is, and more detail about it, is explained in User:Jytdog/How). It is essential that you understand this.

Second: You can engage anybody you like. Anybody you engage will have a conflict of interest and should disclose that, and should not edit directly in mainspace. Anybody can work directly on the draft, in draft space, including you.

Do those two responses make sense to you? Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I absolutely subscribe to what I understand you are saying. The page on Bernis is a summary of her career in terms of exhibits and publications. So nothing is merely a case of "what I know." Most of the listed exhibits are annotated with some public source material, such as reviews or catalogues, either in major newspapers, like the New York Times and in the Washington Post, or in smaller local papers, or in major art magazines, like Art in America. And cited publication are, well, publications. Essentially, anyone other than me, could have collected this verifiable information and created the article. As to your second point that anyone I might engage would by this vary act create a COI, isn't this is a case of Catch 22? Also, in looking at the pages of a number of living artists, I found the biographical detail---childhood experiences, etc---so detailed and intimate, that it is hard to believe they were created without the editor's personal knowledge. Pmuehlen (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just responding to your remark "since only with familiarity could anyone possibly write an article about another person". I believe your point was that those pages were worked on by someone with a conflict of interest and yes you are probably correct. That is not a good thing.

There is no catch-22. Someone with a COI can contribute to WP. They can work in draft space and they can offer suggestions on the talk page of articles in mainspace for unconflicted editors to implement. The whole point of that is to protect the integrity of WP and unsourced and/or promotional content out of the encyclopedia.Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content use in drafts

Unfortunately, non-free content such as File:Image of male nude with sculpture.jpg and File:Big Brian-1975.jpg cannot be used in the draft namespace per Wikipedia non-free content use criterion #9 and WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts. If your wife took these photos and she still holds the copyright on them, then she can release them under a free license if she wants. However, as I might've mentioned before, most creative professionals are reluctant to do such a thing because it basically gives anyone anywhere in the world advance permission to use their work for pretty much any purpose. If you both decide that this is not something you would like to do, you of course don't have to. Non-free files are, however, required to be used in at least one article per Wikipedia non-free content use criterion #7 and those which aren't are tagged for speedy deletion as "orphans" per F5: Orphaned non-free use images. Deleted files are not gone forever though, but rather only hidden from public view, so it might be possible to have one or both of these files undeleted once the draft has been approved and moved to the mainspace. A bot will probably tag these files for speedy deletion in a few days if they are not added to some article, and a notification of this will be added to your user talk page. You can just ignore this and request undeletion after the draft has been approved.

There is one more thing that you should consider with respect to these images. While it is generally considered acceptable for non-free examples of creative professionals work to be uploaded and used in articles about the person himself/herself, Wikipedia's non-free content use criterion #8 requires that there be a fairly strong contextual connection between non-free content and article content. Simply mentioning a work by name and then adding an image of it to the article, is usually not considered suffiicent to justify non-free use. It's better to have some sourced critical commentary about the work itself or sourced commentary stating that the work is the most representative/well-known example of the creative professional's particular style or technique. The image can be then moved to the section where such content can be found. It can sometimes be pretty hard to justify a single non-free example of this type, but it becomes progressively harder and harder to justify additional examples. There is really no critical commentary specific to either image currently in the draft and the way they were being used is pretty decorative for non-free content use. One of the two could probably be justified as a general example of your wife's depiction of male nudity in art and the possible controversial aspects of it, but it would be really quite hard to justify two such examples absent any sourced critical commentary about each.

Just for reference, the presence or lack thereof of images in the draft is not really something which determines whether a draft is approved. The reviewers will be focusing on the article content, particularly the sources cited in support to see if the relevant guidelines for Wikipedia notability are being met. This means that you can leave to dealing with the images after the draft has been approved and focus on the article content and sourcing if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Upon reflection, I do agree that these non-free illustrations need to be removed, although they have been published in books, and it is unlikely that I will restore them for the reasons you state. On the WP page for Sally Mann, an old friend of ours, there is one image that is used to illustrate a discussion of that image from a published article about the controversial nature of Mann's work. In Bernis' case, these images are not specifically referred to in a discussion. Pmuehlen (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft page Draft:Bernis von zur Muehlen contains a warning that the "Background" section requires further reliable references. The paragraph lists her place of birth, education, and teaching as well as artistic career. I am unsure of what further proof is required. In the pages of other artists, I have not seen documentation or basic biographic information seemingly required in the present instance. I note also that the WP pages of Arthur Tress and Carol Henry contain one or more illustrations of work that are not explicitly discussed in sourced commentary or even referred to, in apparent contravention of WP protocol as I understand it. Pmuehlen (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah this is a downside of moving to draft space that I didn't consider and should have warned you about. But if they are deleted temporarily it is not a big deal; they can be re-uploaded when the page is moved to mainspace! Happily digital things are never destroyed. :) Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume your reference is to image deletions. Not a big deal. However, regarding the WP warning: "This section of a biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful," I was wondering what proof one must bring to a person having been born in a particular year and country, and what independent sources one needs to use for, say, a claim that a person got a BA at the University of Pennsylvania or was a member of Phi Beta Kappa to satisfy WP criteria for credibility? I had added a couple of sources that establish that Bernis von zur Muehlen was indeed a teacher and photographer with interest in particular subjects. Two of them were immediately flagged as unreliable; so I removed them. There seems to be no solution. I must note however, that in about six artist pages on WK that I looked at and that serve as kind of models, most of the biographical information is either unsourced or no better sourced than what I did. Pmuehlen (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are many places where WP is great; there are many where it is terrible. Please do not use terrible parts of WP as models or as an excuse to edit badly.

If there are no reliable sources for something, it cannot be said in WP. (well it can be said and often is said, but should be removed.) It is as simple as that. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The wording used on some of the maintenance templates you find on Wikipedia might seem a bit intimidating, but they are really only intended to let other editors know of a potential problem which they might be able to fix. When a maintenance template is added to an article, the article is automatically adding to a category of pages with the same issue. There are editors who work off these category pages, moving from one article to another trying to resolve the issue. I personally have it the past come across one of these templates or a Template:Citation needed while link hopping from article to article, and have able to find a source for something tagged as needing a citation. So, the templates aren't intended to bring shame to the subject of the article; rather they are a way for Wikipedia editors to communicate with one another.

As for the content you might find in other articles, as I previously stated there are over 5,000,000 Wikpedia articles so trying to compare them is not always helpful as explained in WP:OSE. Wikipedia encourages editors to try and fix mistakes we find by being WP:BOLD; so, if you notice things in other articles which you find problematic, you can try to fix the issue yourself. If you're not sure if you're up to the task; you can add a template to let others know about it. Going around and just randomly WP:TAGBOMBing articles is not helpful and likely going to be seen as disruptive or tendentious, but adding a template is OK to do if you feel there is an issue which needs addressing, Just leave an edit sum explaining why and then possibly follow-up with a article talk page post if you feel what to explain things in more detail. It can be tricky sometimes to discern what is a mistake so to speak, but that's were experience comes in. The more you edit Wikipedia and the greater the variety of articles you edit will allow you to see how different policies and guidelines are applied by others in different situations and you'll soon get a better feel for things.

As for the sources I flagged as unreliable in the draft, Prabook seems to be user-generated content and such things are not considered to be reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. (For reference, Wikipedia doesn't even consider itself to be a reliable source per WP:WPNOTRS). If you look at Prabook's disclaimer page here, it basically states that anyone can edit an one of their entries/articles and they there is no editorial oversight or vetting of content. This doesn't automatically mean what is posted there is incorrect, but it does mean there's no real way to verify that it isn't. Moreover, the entry for your wife doesn't list any sources which might be usable for Wikipedia's purposes, so there's no way to know where any of that information came from. The other source I flagged seems to be someone's personal website or blog. Once again, the information contained therein might be true, but Wikipedia requires verifiability. Personal websites, etc. also are considered user-generated content in most cases, unless the website's author is someone who has been widely recognized as an established expert in the subject matter being discussed. For example, the person might be a well-respected and established professional art critic who contributes regular art reviews to established media sources with a reputation of strong editoral control, but who also happens to write their own blog. This might be OK to use as a reliable source based upon the author's established reputation. Proper attribution may be needed, but it might be OK for something like this to be used per WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:SPS. The tricky thing about this draft is that you're wife is still living (that might sound bad so please don't take it the wrong way). Wikipedia content about living persons is subject to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and this policy is quite restrictive not only to protect Wikipedia, but also to protect the subject being written about. WP:BLPSPS basically advises editors to never use user-generated sources in support of article content, unless the source has been published by the subject of the article. Even in that case, there are lots of restrictions placed on how such sources may be used as explained in WP:BLPSELFPUB. I'm not saying this is the case here, but people generally try to promote themselves or their activities on their personal websites; so, they may fudge things a bit to make themselves seem more appealing, etc. Even though it might be possible to use your wife's personal website to support some of the article content, her website would be a WP:BLPPRIMARY source. Therefore, it would be better to find something secondary and independent to corroborate what your wife is saying/writing about herself and also cite that in support. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, Marchjuly, that I am truly impressed and grateful for the effort you have and are putting into this matter. I had kind of suspected that the personal blog you refer to might be considered unreliable. I had put it up not to show what a great teacher she was but merely as hopefully useful evidence that she once was, indeed, a teacher, as claimed in the bio. I'm not sure what actual proof I can bring to this. Well, there are two, actually. One is the Wiseman film "High School," in which she is the featured English teacher, and the other one is a panel discussion many years later at Emery University that mentions her in the context of that film and a song by Simon and Garfunkel. That Prabook is not reliable comes as a surprise to me, having just noticed it on the web. Good lesson. As you guessed, the information is correct but not documented. It's all information that, however, is being sourced and documented amply in the WP article. So there's no loss. I might mention that in writing journal articles in economics, I have made ample use of Wikipedia, where in many articles I find notations to the effect that citation or further editing is needed. Thank you again.Pmuehlen (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source needs to be WP:PUBLISHED, but that doesn't need necessarily means it needs to be available online. It's possible to cite books and other print media which are not online, but which are accessible (for example, by going to a library or some kind of archives to check) as explained in WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. Being available online makes verification easier, but being offline does not necessarily mean verification is impossible. Moreover, being online doesn't mean it has to be available for free per WP:PAYWALL. Many newspapers and other print publications do provide archived online versions of stuff, but they charge a fee to see it. Again, as long as the source is considered reliable and someone can (even if it means paying a fee) access it, then it probably can be used. The problem is with personal and private collections or stuff with highly restricted or limited access. These things might be factually true, but they would be extremely hard to verify so they probably cannot be used. Visual media like TV programs, movies, etc. can be considered to be a reliable source as well. You can cite these as explained in WP:CS#Film, television, or video recordings.

Finally, one minor thing. I noticed you fixed a misspelling in my last post. You kinda need to be very careful with this type of thing and general you should avoid editing others posts, even for something as seemingly harmless as correcting a typo, unless there is a formatting or other serious policy/guideline violation which needs to be address. You can find out a little more about this in WP:TPO, but bascially talk pages are not held to the same standards as articles. If you notice a typo in an article, go ahead and fix it. (Be a bit careful though because sometimes it might not be a typo per se per WP:ENGVAR or WP:DATEVAR) Proofreading and correcting other editors' talk page posts, however, can quickly add tension to whatever is being discussed and make things worse. Try and think or a talk page as a conversation between you and another person. Some people are perfectly fine when someone corrects something they say, but some people get really angry about it. If you notice a simple spelling error, etc. which doesn't really affect the meaning of what's posted, best to just ignore it. If the spelling error, etc., however, does impact the meaning of the post, then it's fine to point it out and ask for clarification. Wikipedia talk page discussions, especially on the main noticeboards, can sometimes be quite contentious with people typing at lightspeed trying to have their say, which means you get lots of silly typos and other errors; however, sometimes such things are done on purpose so correcting them with the best of intentions might actually change the meaning somehow. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bernis von zur Muehlen has been accepted

Bernis von zur Muehlen, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Qaei ☎ 09:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I will certainly abide by it. Next time, I might simply alert you or anyone else, so they can choose to act or not. It appears the article has been accepted as Start-class, a category that I need to study. Pmuehlen (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the draft has been accepted via AfC which is a good thing. Now that it is an article, please use the talk page to propose ways to improve it instead of directly editing it yourself. If you follow WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement and WP:COIADVICE you should have no problems with others. Another thing you might want to do is formally disclose your COI on your userpage as explained in WP:DISCLOSECOI. This will make it easy for others to know your connection with the article, and provide further proof that you intended to edit in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. You can also create a user page and add some content about yourself and your Wikipedia interests as explained in WP:UPYES.

Finally, it would be a bit of a shame if you decide to keep your editing limited to this one article. You can do that if you like, but there are probably lots of articles you could help improve where you wouldn't have to worry about any COI. Wikipedia has many WikiProjects and maybe there are other areas of interest to you which you can help to try and improve Wikipedia's coverage of. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Marchjuly: From what I understand, any mention of exhibits for which there is no secondary source, by which I understand something like a newspaper article that refers to it (a gallery's own reference on its web presumably does not count, being a primary reference) is not permissible for WP. This means I will need to delete all such mentions, which I certainly will do. I might note that this norm seems mostly honored in its breach. For instance, the WP page for Mona Kuhn lists numerous shows. Those after 2012 are referenced with primary sources (gallery announcements), and those before are unsourced. Likewise, her biographical information is unsourced. If you look at many other such pages by other photographers, you will find the same thing. It's because of this that I am somewhat confused about exactly what WP's sourcing criteria are. I do understand that the purpose of WP is encyclopedic, meaning nothing new goes in, only derivative information coming from reputable sources. But inspection of a number of instances suggests that there is considerable variation in the application of that principle. On the same point, an objection was raised to a reference to a documentary film "Öestersjöar." That source was given because the photographer's image plays a significant role in the film. I would think that this reference is analogous to any book reference containing her work. The reference to Frederick Wiseman's "High School" exists as a secondary source to prove that Bernis von zur Muehlen was an English teacher in Philadelphia. I had hoped that inserting this information would address the criticism that her biographical information was insufficiently sourced. Likewise, reference to the Emery University panel discussion of her and the film, being a secondary source, would help resolve the sourcing issue in her bio. Pmuehlen (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies about artists/creative professionals are not really my forte so to speak, so perhaps you'll might find someone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment who can give you a better answer than me. You might also try looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts. FWIW, I think it's probably OK to include a list of your wife's more notable/important exhibitions in a subsection titled "Notable exhibitions" or "Selected exhibitions", but I don't think it's probably a good idea to try and include any single exhibition she ever had throughout her entire career per WP:NOTRESUME. The ones that might be worth mentioning would probably be those for any major museums or art galleries, etc., particulary those which have Wikipedia articles written about them. You can probably use listings or critics' reviews for sourcing basic facts per WP:LSC, but you should try and avoid any original claims or puffery. Simple mentions probably won't help support a claim of Wikipedia notability (though item four of WP:ARTIST might be met), but they might be OK for verification of certain article content as long as they are considered to be from reliable sources. The same could be probably be done for the "Published work" section where you might have focus on the major things which can be properly supported by citations and leave out the others. I probably posted somewhere before that trying to compare one article to another isn't always a good idea per WP:OTHERCONTENT, but you might want to peruse WP:FA and WP:GA for articles about people similar to your wife. FA and GA articles are high quality articles which undergo a pretty rigourous review process each, so you might find some workable ideas there. As for unsourced content, sometimes you can actually improve an article and bring it more in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines by focusing on what can be reliably sourced and trimming out the rest. Sort of addition through subtraction. I think many people assume that a Wikipedia article should be as detailed as possible with as many citations as possible, but this is not always the case per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:BOMBARD. I'd imagine that many articles passing through AfC are WP:STUBs at first, but are slowly expanded and improved upon over time as more information and reliable sourcing is found. So, maybe it would be best to aim for a solid stub which has the potential to be expanded into a more fully rounded and mature article in the future. I'm not sure whether this is the kind of answer you were hoping to get, and you might get more concrete suggestions from others who have more experience than me I have with this type of biography. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Marchjuly: Thank you. Your reply is actually most useful. I had started thinking along those lines and will certainly take a pass at that approach. When I edit and revise the page, may I do this directly on the draft and then push "publish" to save it, or is there another route. I know that once the page is up again, I need to go through Talk to propose changes. Pmuehlen (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found the answer in https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Help:Userspace_draft. In draft space, "publish" is the same as "save" and only that.Pmuehlen (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Publish changes" button used to be called "Save changes". I don't remember when the change was made, but I believe it was done in the past year or so. There was probably a technical/usability related reason for this with a discussion explaining why, but my guess is that it might've been because some felt "Save changes" could cause or was causing some editors to think they were just saving their work and not actually adding it to Wikipedia. Most of this changes and tweaks to the software and layout to the Wikimedia Foundation websites are Wikipedia Media things were special editors with special skills look for ways to improve the technical side of things. Sometimes when these things happen or are about to happen there's announcement, but most people probably don't even notice or care. Anyway, "Publish changes" just will save any changes you made into the page, and these will show up in the page history unless you just are WP:PURGEing the page. If you want to submit your draft for review, you just click on "Submit your draft for review!" in the AfC template at the top of the page. This will add it to queue of other drafts waiting for review. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to follow up on the COI announcement on my user page, which I assume is User:Pmuehlen on which I click on the top of the article. But I get the following message with additional detail: "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Pmuehlen. If in doubt, please verify that Pmuehlen exists." So it seems it does not exist. Pmuehlen (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes your userpage is User:Pmuehlen. I already explained this above. I wrote: "To finish the disclosure piece, would you please add the disclosure to your user page (which is User:Pmuehlen - a redlink, because you haven't written anything there yet). Just something simple like: "I am the husband of Bernis von zur Muehlen and have a conflict of interest with regard to the article about her, and related topics" would be fine. If you want to add anything else there that is relevant to what you want to do in Wikipedia feel free to add it, but please don't add anything promotional about your wife or yourself (see WP:USERPAGE for guidance if you like)." Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Got it. I'm I bit slow. My user page is now active, it seems. It appears, though, that I may use WP:UPYES to add some content on myself. At least, according to Marchjuly. Would that be on some other user page?Pmuehlen (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page as it stands violates several content policies and should not have been moved to mainspace. I moved it back to draft space and left a note at the talk page at Draft_talk:Bernis_von_zur_Muehlen#Re-draftify. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jytdog:

On again. Off again. I must say, I feel like the article has turned into Schroedinger's cat. Here are my responses/questions:

(1)I assume then since "Almost all of the biographical detail is unsourced," I should remove it. I can do that. Readers may have difficulties though, figuring out about whom the article was written. (2) The reference to the documentary "Östersjöar" exists because one of her images is a significant part of the prize-winning film, as may be verified. Why is that not relevant? (3) The reference to Frederick Wiseman's film "High School" establishes that she was an English teacher, as claimed in the apparently "unsourced" biography. But I can scrap that, especially since her bio will also be gone. (4) The recommended site WP:NOTCV redirected me to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog,_Web_hosting_service,_social_networking_service,_or_memorial_site, where there is no direct reference to CVs. So I didn't know what to do with it. The notation: "Much of the listings of exhibits etc are unsourced or primary sourced," applies to almost all WP pages of artists and photographers that I have seen. So I wonder how their editors escaped your scrutiny. (5) It seems to me that I am asked to get rid of the Exhibitions sections and the biography, essentially the bulk and raison etre of the article. Many of the exhibits were announced/reviewed in major newspapers, suggesting they really took place. As I noted earlier, a robot could have put the list together. I might note, that exhibits are a major feature of an artist's career. If you are asking me to not to mention them, what is left? I have a sense that you really do not want that page to be on WP, no matter what.Pmuehlen (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to help you. I pointed you more than once to User:Jytdog/How which has a section on writing a new article, written for people in your situation. You have obviously not taken the time to read it nor any of the other orientation material about WP policies. Since you are now also questioning my good faith, I am out of here. I did what I could to help you and to maintain the integrity of the project. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misinterpret what I wrote. Of course, you are trying to help. Indeed, you have been most generous. I also understand, in principle, that WP needs high standards to remain objective. In my own professional career, objective sourcing and referencing has been a mainstay my work. I am merely puzzled by what has happened to this particular page that I had been led to believe was OK---subject to some correctible issues---until it wasn't. So you can se my frustration. I am trying to comply, and, having read your User:Jytdog/How, was a bit stumped by what to do now. But I will go back and read it again. So, again, thank you. Pmuehlen (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Pmuehlen (talk)[reply]

User Jytdog: I am not at all questioning your good faith Be assured. You time and energy spent on this are clear evidence to me. So please, accept my apologies. What I was expressing is frustration--not with you but with WP criteria that seem a bit unclear to me, even though I had read your "How" page twice. I had thought we had gotten to an acceptable place with the article with its placement back into the main, only to learn then that it was not acceptable, for a huge number of problems that seem impossible to resolve, at least from my stand-point. Even though I have read your paragraphs on primary vs secondary source, I am still unclear about how this applies to the cases in her page. So I am still asking for your help, if you are willing. Pmuehlen (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Jytdog: I am sincerely trying to meet WP standards in every respect. I am not resisting, merely wondering how I can possibly do this. I am also trying to tie your advice in your "How" article to my specific case but seem to be making little progress. Pmuehlen (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "I have a sense that you really do not want that page to be on WP, no matter what". I am done. It is hard enough to teach new editors how to edit. You are not listening and are now questioning my intentions. I am done. Really. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly sorry to have offended you. That was not my intention at all. I think I am listening but don't know what to do with the advice you give. I really mean that. I am absolutely not questioning your intentions.I don't know how to proceed to meet WP criteria. So I really do need your help, if you would still give it. Pmuehlen (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Big Brian-1975.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Big Brian-1975.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Image of male nude with sculpture.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Image of male nude with sculpture.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bernis von zur Muehlen (October 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bradv was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

I think this subject is probably notable, but this article needs a lot of cleanup before it can be accepted, preferably from someone not connected to the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bernis von zur Muehlen and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Bernis von zur Muehlen, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Brad v 03:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pmuehlen! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Brad v 03:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Bernis von zur Muehlen has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Bernis von zur Muehlen. Thanks! Brad v 01:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Pmuehlen. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Draft:Bernis von zur Muehlen, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI 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, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
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 must 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 WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comment you left on my talk page, the message above is simply a procedural notification - it's a canned message. However, I have spent considerable time on your behalf researching the subject and most regrettably I have to concur with my colleague Bradv at WP:AfC that the subject does not as yet meet with our notability requirements at WP:CREATIVE. I do appreciate that you have spent considerable time putting this draft together and I'm sure that sometime soon you will be able to provide independent, in-depth articles dedicated to her in the established press and art world. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MPS1992: Sorry. I didn't mean to confuse things here. My association with Wikipedia is quite recent; so I never had an opportunity to chime in on Strickland. But I think you actually make my point in that no one in the community of Wikipedia referees or monitors appeared to have noticed her accomplishments. And this suggests a flaw, namely an occasional apparent lack of expertise being brought to the refereeing process. Many, though perhaps not all in Strickland's field of study would have known all along what her notable contributions to physics had been long before Wikipedia. That no one came to correct the situation suggests to me that either (a) participation in Wikipedia is sparse or (b) incentives to chime in on behalf of a stranger or even a colleague are insufficient for volunteering edits, or perhaps a combination of the two. In the case of artist's pages, where I have more experience, I doubt that any page has ever been written about any artist---other than long-dead ones---that did not involve some degree of COI. To create an artist's page with any degree of depth and thoroughness, with the sort of information that you see in practically all artist's pages in Wikipedia, one needs to have fairly intimate familiarity with that individual's career and, I suspect, person. The notion that any truly neutral outsider would be able to or want to muster all the information you typically see in such pages is, I believe, wishful thinking. I doubt that you would find many truly neutral outsiders who would even volunteer for such a time-consuming task. I'm offering this comment in the spirit of a positive criticism and not as a criticism of you and your Wikipedia colleagues, who are voluntarily performing a necessary and probably thankless task. My comment is about the limitations that must be acknowledged. Pmuehlen (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pmuehlen, thank you for offering your viewpoint on this interesting topic. I'm afraid it does not appear to be very accurate. People with an interest in music and musicians do indeed spend huge amounts of time and care to create and improve Wikipedia articles about musicians, without any conflict of interest other than perhaps being a "fan" of the music or the person. And sometimes not even that. You're welcome to go through the talk pages of articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Music biographies and click through to their featured article candidacy pages and assess whether you think that the editors bringing them to Featured Article status seem likely to have a conflict of interest. I believe you will quickly change your view expressed above if you do so. Just taking the first one, Aaliyah, who is not long-dead, it was brought up to Featured status by User:Explicit, who I suggest quite clearly doesn't have a conflict of interest on the topic -- or on any other of the music topics they've spent large amounts of time on.

On an only slightly related note, I'm not familiar with "Wikipedia referees or monitors" even in the relatively loose sense that you appear to be using the term here. MPS1992 (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MPS1992: Thank you for your insights. And sorry for my loose language. I meant to refer to "editors," of course. I will certainly follow your suggestion and look at the pages. Although I love music (classical and jazz), my principal focus was on photographers, where I have seen examples that could not possibly have been put together without some input either by the artist or someone close. From the vantage point of a Wikipedia page and associated talk and commentary, it must be difficult to ascertain the nature and extent of personal relationships, if they are well hidden. However, I am willing to accept that these are exceptions. Pmuehlen (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Von zur Muehlen in 2005.jpg

The file File:Von zur Muehlen in 2005.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]