User talk:Andymickey

Deborah Kerr
We are attempting to get GA Status for Deborah Kerr. Just look at the Talk Page. Can you get verifiable references for all the data you've added ? We cannot get GA Status withous verifiable references.

Tovojolo 22:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Deborah Kerr Talk Page
If you look at the Talk Page, you will see I have moved your data to the Talk Page.

Please also read the GA Assessor's comments on why Deborah Kerr failed GA status and what has to be done to achieve it. Having unreferenced data in the article will ruin any further chance. Please read WP:OR and WP:NPOV on why we cannot have unreferenced data in the article.

I note you base a lot of the data on your own research, unfortunately that counts as Original Research on Wikipedia as per WP:OR and cannot be included. However, those parts of your data for which you do find verifiable references, please put those parts back in the article.

I, too, am a great fan of Deborah Kerr and I believe the greatest honour we can do her on Wikipedia is to take her article first to GA Status and then to FA Status.

I hope you understand why we need verifiable references.

Tovojolo 22:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message
Hi,

Wikipedia aims to be a factual encyclopedia that can emulate the Encyclopaedia Brittanica or Microsoft Encarta – that is the reason for the insistence on verifiable references. However, your anecdotal data is available for anyone to read on the Deborah Kerr Talk Page and I am sure people will appreciate it there.

Tovojolo 08:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Deborah Kerr and Cannes Film Festival
You added the detail that Deborah Kerr received a Cannes Film Festival Tribute. In what year ? We need the year.

Thanks,

Tovojolo (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Deborah Kerr GA Status
I just wanted to tell you that I have achieved my aim of getting Deborah Kerr to GA Status. One day I'll get it up to FA Status.



Tovojolo (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Deborah Kerr
Hi,

Thanks for your message.

In regards the introduction, that is actually governed by WP:Lead and WP:Notability. Wikipedia states that we must start off with the awards that a person actually won.

Now that we know in which year Deborah Kerr was honored by Cannes, we can add it to the article, without the year, we had to take it off.

As you can see, everything on Wikipedia is covered by rules.

As you are on "strike", I hope you will stay on Wikipedia and write, or contribute to, an article that interests you.

You are getting familiar with Wikipedia's rules so I am sure you'll find something here.

Tovojolo (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

How deletion discussions are closed
As you noted, I'm an administrator; however, since I have participated in the discussion here, I don't consider myself eligible to close the discussion, because administrators must avoid the appearance of bias (at least, that's how I see it). Another adninistrator will read the arguments at the end of the 7-day period. It is important to note that this is not a vote, and your suggestion of a 30% minority opinion is not one that will sway the closing admin. Deletion discussions are assessed entirely with respect to existing policy. Thus, if 99 participants in a deletion discussion want to keep an article and one individual does not, but that one individual produces a clear-cut reference to a specific policy (such as, for example, WP:NFF: if a film is not in production and doesn't meet the general notability guideline, there cannot be an article), then the article is deleted. It's all about policy and nothing to do with numbers. You will often see the locution "!vote", which I gather is a computer programming way of writing a statement meaning "not a vote". Anyway, the administrator will assess the arguments as to how they meet Wikipedia policy. If the administrator feels (a) that further discussion of the topic would be beneficial, or (b) that there is no clear-cut decision available, s/he will re-list the topic for another 7 days' worth of discussion, which is what happened here. I very much doubt that another 7 days' discussion will be offered; I expect the closing admin will make a decision. If you disagree with that decision because you feel that the closing admin has erred with respect to policy -- not, I hasten to add, just because you don't like the decision, but with respect to a specific policy -- you have the opportunity to take the matter to WP:Deletion review where it will be discussed by an extremely experienced group of Wikipedians, most of whom will probably be administrators. That decision will also be based entirely on policy and will likely be final. I hope this is the information you're looking for. If you have further questions about Wikipedia policy, feel free to respond here, since I've listed this page on my watchlist; you can also leave me a note on my own talk page by clicking on the word "talk" after my signature. Accounting4Taste: talk 16:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You also asked "'I'm a little confused about the difference between the two sections in this discussion. By this I mean this section (where we have been asked to post) says "Relisted," but if it hadn't been listed how would we have continued to find Brett Clouser?" The closing admin would have deleted the page about Brett Clouser and replaced it with a page called a "redirect" -- when you type "Brett Clouser" into the search field, you would be taken to the Survivor: Samoa page.  Earlier in the deletion discussion, that's what I was specifically recommending.  If there was no redirect page, then queries about Brett Clouser would have returned no answer (other than a note that there had been a page but it had been deleted, and that you should think twice before recreating it).  Redirects are the usual way of solving problems of individual notability.  For instance, in the case of a musical group where the group is notable but a specific album is not, the title of the album will redirect to the page about the group.  Also, authors' pseudonyms redirect to their real name; if you type Carter Dickson into the search field, you'll end up at John Dickson Carr.  I hope this answers your question; if not, leave me a note.  Accounting4Taste: talk 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Accounting4Taste, Regarding the Brett Clouser deletion stuff and my queries, I'm rather daunted by the various links to this and that in order to deal with how Wikipedia works. I'm sure it has prevented more active participation (other than editing a discussion, which is easy) and yet it's still mind boggling to consider how decisions are actually made.

Who runs Wikipedia? Someone must be in charge. Is there a hierarchy all the way down to the administrators, only one of whom apparently might make a decision about deleting a page? I'm also intrigued that there is so much discussion on the "notability" of people or subjects when, as I mentioned on the Clouser page, notability is such a subjective connotation.

The very fact that people are talking about someone, whether it be a lot or just somewhat would seem to be enough to say, "Hey, who cares, what's the big deal?" Unless, as I earlier asked, is there some finite server space consideration, e.g. you can't let everything go by or else more pertinent subjects would have to be left out? I understand fully that pornographic concerns and moronic postings have to be monitored. However, if there's something or someone that has touched many, many people, who's to say they don't belong? Look at the Balloon father. Big story now, but in a couple of years will many people be talking about it or thinking of the guy?

So, there are lots of people who make big splashes and then are never heard from again. From a historical perspective -- almost like an almanac -- if someone wants to look someone up why shouldn't Wikipedia provide the answer that's desired? How much does a person have to do to get listed? I have a lot of network TV credits, but I'm not an award winner. Could a successful challenge be done about me? And are the challenges fair? By this I mean, e.g. just as scripts are submitted for awards and are judged by random groups of, let's say, 3 people, whereas other scripts for the same award are judged by 3 different people with different tastes, the results could be skewed and unfair. That's why I and others mentioned that there must be loads of people left alone on Wikipedia with far less interest than Brett. I would imagine that he (and some of the other contestants) had loads of people checking him out on the Internet, whether Google, Yahoo, IMDB or, yes, Wikipedia.

If you'd like to continue the general dialogue, please understand that I just get irritated by some of the people who purport to be so high-minded when, some of them, I'm sure, have little or no standing in any particular field, yet because of their actions prevent the vast majority of Wikipedia users from fulfilling their interests. Happy New Year! Andymickey (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to discuss this further with you, although you may be unhappy to learn that at this point in the discussion, all I really bring to it is more experience with the ins and outs of Wikipedia and a knowledge of its nooks and crannies. I have no absolute answers for you.
 * To take your questions in order: administrators are responsible to bureaucrats and their administrative powers can be removed if it's felt they have misused them; bureaucrats also give administrators their powers. I don't think bureaucrats are responsible to anyone except the board of directors of the Wikipedia Foundation, but to my knowledge the question has never arisen.  Administrators like me are trusted to be able to hold any individual page up to a set of standards and say "Yes, this meets the standards" or "No, this doesn't meet the standards" -- when an article is tagged for speedy deletion.  Those criteria are fairly clear-cut and they're hard to mistake.  So, sometimes there is only a single person deciding the fate of an article, but if you look at the ones whose fate is decided in that way, I think you would usually agree that it's clear-cut.  The org chart of Wikipedia is very, very flat. Editors, admins, bureaucrats -- and Jimbo Wales, our founder and the Court of Last Resort (that's kind of a joke, but he is the founder and has put a lot of money into this, so he gets some respect).
 * And, yes, you're correct to note that notability is not an absolute standard -- that's why there is so much discussion about it. Some notability standards are easy to measure and others are very vague.  The thing is that these standards have been hammered out over more than five years of constant discussion, and part of the testing for becoming an administrator is an ability to bring those standards into play.  "What would you do if the article said X, Y and Z?"  They are not perfect -- they're not even close to being perfect, as everyone would agree -- and they are in constant flux.  In fact, every deletion discussion has the capacity to change the standards, which is why people take them so seriously and why we don't change the standards lightly at all.  It takes the agreement of a LOT of people to change the standards.  Most deletion discussions are about whether something does or doesn't meet a standard, but it is very rare that the standard gets changed.
 * Your suggestion that Wikipedia should include nearly everything that anyone might be interested in -- I disagree philosophically with that for two reasons. One is pretty much laid out at WP:EVERYTHING, and I apologize for pointing you to a policy page, but the argument has come up so often that we wrote down the set of responses to make things easier for us.
 * The second reason is something that is my own personal philosophy, so this may not agree with other material you find elsewhere. My feeling is that Wikipedia has a lot of trouble with credibility.  I've heard people say that you can't trust anything that you find on Wikipedia.  Well, of course, you have to take it with a grain of salt -- that's why we insist on references.  But there seems to be a general feeling that Wikpedia is filled with pages of stuff that are not very serious, and that it doesn't cover serious topics as well.  I think that is a problem, because it means that people won't come to us for answers about science, mathematics, etc.  There's a joke that Wikipedia has more articles about Pokemon than anything else -- the trouble is, some people don't think that's a joke.  So I feel we need to focus our efforts on things that people think are more serious -- I think many other people agree with me.  That's why we are insistent that things have to be notable, because if we have more articles on things that are NOT notable than are notable, people will be less likely to take us seriously.  So, yeah, we do get pissy about notability; there are a number of different reasons, but for me it's quite a bit to do with being taken seriously as an encyclopedia.  I will add that if someone wants information about a non-notable topic, it is very easy to get it -- they use a search engine and come up with thousands of references.  Those references are not prepared to the same standards as Wikipedia articles and probably don't need to be. For instance, no one will check Brett Clouser's birthdate to be sure they have it right, but we'll try to do that if he's considered notable.  But if you are interested in information about where he placed in his season, and stuff like that, it can be had very easily using Google.  Non-notable topics don't really need Wikipedia.
 * I'm a little concerned about your suggestion that people who have little or no standing in any particular field are somehow frustrating the activities of those with better credentials (and pardon me if I have misinterpreted you). I think that's a serious problem and one that has led to a lot of people trying to set up other wikis where only credentialled scholars can contribute, and which takes resources away from Wikipedia.  What I'd like to suggest is that many of the people you are running up against here have a specific credential that's very important -- they've spent a lot of time and effort learning about Wikipedia's standards.  My credentials are all in the legal field, for instance, but I have a lot of knowledge about crime fiction and have amassed an awful lot about Wikipedia's standards.  Certainly my legal credentials mean very little here; I know there are other people whom I consider colleagues who don't even have an undergraduate degree.  But I'd like to suggest that the knowledge they are bringing is the equivalent of graduate degrees.  I don't think it's possible to get a graduate degree in crime fiction, but that doesn't stop me from contributing usefully on those topics.  Your professional credits may have nothing to do with what brings you here, and most of us think that's just fine.  The important thing is that we've learned the rules and are playing within them.
 * I'm running short of time, and have gone on rather long here -- I wanted to also mention our "What about X?" policy. Essentially, the argument "if Wikipedia has an article on X, it should therefore have an article on Y" is not considered useful, for the reason linked here.  But I will leave this discussion in your court for the moment; if I have misinterpreted any of your comments or questions, I apologize in advance, and feel free to steer me towards topics you find more of interest.  Best wishes for the new year.  Accounting4Taste: talk 02:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your questions about the organizational chart of Wikipedia may be answered by looking at Arbitration; arbitration and what is known as ArbCom are the ways where sticky situations are resolved by a group of extremely knowledgeable users. Think of it as the Supreme Court of Wikipedia.  Accounting4Taste: talk 02:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Accounting4Taste, and I need some help, fast!

I notice that the Brett Clouser article has been deleted, and this is not about that. I have tried to create a new article about a German TV star and was in the process of doing so when I saw that in "previewing" stuff it did not show my references under "References," though it did specifically enumerate each as footnotes in the article (which tells me I must have done something right). As I have referenced other articles successfully with the indicators and the [] wraparounds for URLS, I was surprised to see that it continued to tell me in preview that I had references that didn't have the ref tag. It said: "Cite error: There are ref tags on this page, but the references will not show without a <references/ tag." (I left out the again, as it keeps leaving out the text I want you to see.)

So, I decided to do a test using the "talk" page and it worked as I had done, but then when I switched back to the article page the article was gone. Fortunately, I had saved it (with all the configurations) in MS Word, and then I pasted it back. But every time I previewed it, there was that problem with the references.

So, I thought, maybe (as in the case with the "test it" situation, you had to "save it" to see the references. I did so, and they still were not there, but I didn't want the article to go "live," so I deleted it.  Except that the article is not deleted, only the text.  By this I mean there is nothing there, but the title.  And it says that only administrators can delete it.

The article is: Andreas Stenschke. I want to put it in when it is ready (and it almost is), but perhaps you can get rid of it for now and advise me about this "reference problem." I also want to put some photos in and don't see how to do that. I wanted to put one in the infobox (I was using the Deborah Kerr edit box as a guide), but every time I did so and previewed it, the ((infobox)) showed up as text. Plus, I don't know how to get a picture and other text into it.

What's frustrating is that all the other stuff I did, the italics, the bolding, the links, all worked in preview. So, I don't know what the reference problem is (Plus, the Deborah Kerr edit page had the edit configuration different. It surrounded the text with  stuff like this, ref>"</ref. (I purposely left out the first and some up and down lines surrounding text, because I noticed in preview that when you look at it there would only be the numbered footnote and I wanted you to see what had been put in the Deborah Kerr editing area.  (Just for clarification there was no "error no title" in the DK editing area, but that came up when I removed the up and down lines -- which curiously I can't find on my keyboard -- in the past and other instances, I just copy and paste such lines from editing areas)  BTW, I removed the same from my Andreas Stenschke example just below).

Whereas a sample ref for me would be: Stenschke left the series and recorded a hit record, "Just When I Needed You Most."ref>The recording and photo of Album </ref

Anyway, hope this isn't awfully confusing, and I won't do any more until I hear from you. I don't know who will be noticing that I have placed an article on with no text (don't want to get in trouble).

Thanks for getting back soon.

Best,Andymickey (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Writing articles
There are many ways. I myself write off-line, but I know some wikipedia (WP) operators and can imagine how the text would look like when compiled. A handy alternative is to create your own sub-pages, such as User:Andymickey/Sandbox and practice there. Regarding the article I deleted, if something looks odd, it can easily get fixed, no need to deleted and the recreate article for that. So I put a deleted version into User:Andymickey/Sandbox. There, you forgot an operator which would list references. Adding would place two columns. References are not separated by commas in the text, but are lumped together. Bare urls are not advised - I would add a title to ref. 11. Only proper names are capitalized, thus it is usually "Support for artists rights", not "Support For Artists Rights".

The trouble with infoboxes is that they are all coded differently, and thus placing an image there is easier to copy from another article (together with the whole infobox). I can help there when I know which box you want for your article. You also need to add proper categories, which can be copied from the bottom of a closely related article. Materialscientist (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Materialscientist
It's just past 4 in the morning here and I worked and worked to get it done. Had a bitch of a problem with photos, but finally figured it out. It wouldn't work just uploading the particular file. Even when I copied the formula verbatim, it still wouldn't work, so I experimented and kept reloading it and apparently there's another element in the saving process that I now know what to look for. I have put in a number of references, both URLs and visual photos of articles. Obviously, there is not a reference for every bit of trivia, and I hope that's all right. As to the latest stuff, he is still directing the series and I will be able to get a reference for that on IMDB when it airs. Fortunately there was a newspaper article for the feature film he is shooting so I guess that's okay. BTW, how do you get to and/or create a sandbox? The only way I was able to do so with what you (thankfully) saved was to click on the link in your message. Couldn't find sandbox anywhere else. And there was no way to move the sandbox I created, so I just copied and pasted the details into the new article space. Anyway, let's keep the dialogue going.Andymickey (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Am Flabbergasted
I am amazed that just moments after I published this, I am accused of writing an "advertisement." Who are these administrators and what do they expect? There are many articles citing achievements of people, and that's exactly what I did about Andreas Stenschke. They are facts, documented by published articles and/or websites that are mostly institutional, not personal. Can you help me figure out how to fight this system, or else I will wash my hands of this. I couldn't believe what they did with an article someone else did about the very popular contestants on Survivor. But at least there was some justification in that most of them disappear after a period of time. In this case, we are dealing with someone with substantive and longstanding credits, albeit in Germany. I don't know what to do.Andymickey (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I tagged the article because it's written with a heavily promotional tone—for instance, "English language film star," which, well, he's just not. But that was a maintenance template, not a deletion template, so why on earth did you add a hangon tag to the db-g11 template itself?  That causes a hangon message to appear in every article, everywhere on Wikipedia, that is tagged for db-g11.  Please use templates, but don't alter them until you've familiarized yourself with Help:Template, thanks.    Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 13:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back Glenfarclas, but understand I am a little gunshy after having participated in some discussions about articles (which I didn't post) that were deleted for questionable cause (please reread my earlier post, because I added to it while you were responding).  However, to your point, it was a startling "template," which included the various "deletion" possibilities, so I clicked on them to find out what they were and was advised (by the wording) to do what I did.  I will now remove it, and to make you happy I will remove the "English" part of the title.  The reason I put "English" in front of it was because it was a new phase for Stenschke's career and will, no doubt, make him more "notable" in the English-speaking world as the film (when released) gets distributed in America, the UK, Australia, etc.  If there's anything else you wish to tell me, please do so.  I appreciate it.  It's my first time, but I must say I was rather startled.Andymickey (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, Glenfarclas, in case you didn't see what I wrote on the Article's discussion page (and written before you wrote to me, so forgive the pointed language):

"Tell me how this is an advertisement, whereas pages for stars, e.g. Leonardo DiCaprio, Deborah Kerr, Meryl Streep, Robert De Niro etc. go on and on with acclaim, etc. etc and are not accused as such.

Am I supposed to look up dirt and/or put forth unknown negative stuff, or is this comment simply because you have never heard of this subject? And that's why I put in the info as I did, so that you would understand the "notability" of the subject.

This is an important TV/film professional in Germany, who participated in groundbreaking television stories, in particular how gay people are portrayed in the Media. In the process he has also worked on two long-run series as a regular and undertaken to go to film school simultaneously (no mean task).

Do the photos bother you? They were meant to illustrate stuff for which I had no Internet links, as some are expired or no longer available, but nonetheless substantiate the facts and points made.

To arbitrarily delete something for questionable cause and/or prejudice is a disturbing consequence. While I understand, from other discussions, that so-called two wrongs don't make a right, i.e. there are many subjects apparently undiscovered not at all worthy that remain on Wikipedia. However, even if you believe this one is worthy but too "gushy," it would have to be explained why other articles are entitled to highlight their subjects achievements. So, who's the final judge? That's what makes this process maddening." END OF COMMENT ON ARTICLE DISCUSSION PAGE.

Okay, so I have now replaced the one thing you mentioned, but I noticed, that, although you removed my hangon before I could, the qualifier about deletion still remains, so would you please tell me what's next? Thanks.Andymickey (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * First, there's no "qualifier about deletion," so don't worry about that. It's strictly a maintenance template.  The sentence about speedy deletion is a notice to editors that if the article is in fact blatant advertising they should have used db-g11 instead of advertising.


 * Second, I wasn't looking at Leonardo DiCaprio or Meryl Streep, I was looking at this article, and those articles have had thousands of people look at them, while this one was brand new.Yeah, part of the problem is definitely all the magazine pages, which make the article overall look like something out of Us Weekly. I really have no interest at all in this guy, I was just hoping the tag would spur you, or someone else who was interested in doing so, to give the article a more encyclopedic tone and appearance.  As to tone, the article features a variety of unsourced claims, probably hypotheses, about how Mr Stenschke felt or what he thought, like he was "antsy to leave" and his his CD "didn't sell as well as he'd hoped," as well as marketing-type speak like "to pursue other possibilities" and "widening opportunities in Britain and America."  The claim that he is a "heartthrob" is unsourced.


 * Sorry, but I thought (and still think) the article needs improvement to be neutral and encyclopedic. I hope this explains why I tagged it as I did.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 14:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but as a professional writer, I do believe that the "maintenance" template should indicate just that, and when you put in the deletion stuff and the links to very worrisome prospects, well, you can understand why a newbie such as myself would be concerned.


 * Regarding the "heartthrob" status, how is it unsourced? The very things you're talking about, the magazine pages, are there to specifically show they are sourced.  You have a TV magazine cover with his picture (sorry if it looks like US Weekly, but it was put there because there is no current Internet link, but a fact is a fact).  Same with the Stuttgarter Zeitung article, which clearly calls Stenschke a Teenieschwarm (which I translate as teen heartthrob -- you can check Alta Vista if you don't believe me).  It means from Teen Heartthrob to Director (because the newspaper article talks about the fact that Stenschke was attending the film school nearby).


 * Essentially, I put the pictures in not so much as to make it look like a tabloid, but to back up the facts. Another one was the CD Jacket, to substantiate he in fact recorded a record.  The fourth was a TV Magazine article to back-up the reunion with his former "sister" from Verbotene Liebe.  The other references, whether to linked organizational websites verify the work.  Regarding his "mindset" it was in the articles, which unfortunately don't read well when you blow them up.  If you are specifically only worried about why he left the show and merely want a black and white mentioning of the fact that he did leave the show at such and such a date and if that's the deal-breaker, I'll be happy to make those changes.  Also, a German actor making an English language film for the first time certainly would be a major career change, no?   I mean, as in the case of Deborah Kerr doing From Here to Eternity, all references indicate that her career changed from just doing lady-like roles to earthy performances.  Anyway, it's a subjective call as to what is "encyclopedic" and what is feature journalism.  Please tell me how we can resolve this.  As long as that template remains above the article, it is tainted.  It's after six in the morning in LA, and at some point I suppose I should get to bed.  Thanks.Andymickey (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Andy, sorry, but it totally slipped my mind to check back here after the other day. I was just looking over the article and was coming to your talk page to tell you that it both looks and reads much better, good work.  I think the other issues you mentioned above seem to have resolved themselves.  I'd like to see sources for the "Biography" section, but other than that this looks much nicer!    Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 09:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Glenfarclas. I tried to accommodate all who made suggestions and do believe I fulfilled the major objections.  The "Biography" stuff is mostly mentioned in one or more of the many articles that I referenced later on.  I can certainly repeat them, but I thought it would be redundant and preferred that the footnote references appear when I went point by point expanding upon the biography in the various sections.
 * The stuff about winning junior film prizes and how he was discovered is in the Stuttgarter article and some of the other articles referenced. I'm not sure I can specifically find a photo of him quite easily working as a teen-age model that can be linked to a website, which is apparently the only "legal" mechanism Wikipedia will accept, as we have already gone through the copyright issues with the magazine covers, etc.  URL links to the websites that show the pictures that I've now deleted from the page and which have been deleted from the Wiki archive are a demonstrative mechanism to provide the heartthrob and recording artist proof (should people click on them).  I would think, in any case, that the stuff in his early life that may or may not be singly documented other than in those articles is not so extraordinary that it would raise hackles with a demand that they be removed, as they add flavor to Stenschke's life.  Considering his clearly documented achievements as an actor, film student and current director it would not really be a stretch, e.g. to believe that, as a clearly good looking person, he could have had modeling work as a boy.  And the film awards were for youth film contests.  It's not as if the article said he won the Silver Bear or the Oscar, and his early achievements were a credible and natural progression to his real life experiences today as a director.  But, as stated, they are referred to generally or specifically in the referenced articles.  Anyway, I trust that the article can stay as it is for the moment and as things develop I will add things, both textually and with more references.  Thanks for your comments.Andymickey (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Andreas_Stuttgart_Article_5.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Andreas_Stuttgart_Article_5.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media 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 taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images 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 our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Bravo_Cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bravo_Cover.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media 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 taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images 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 our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Ulli_kisses_Tom_in_Verbotene_Liebe.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ulli_kisses_Tom_in_Verbotene_Liebe.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media 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 taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images 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 our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Andreas_Just_When_I_Needed_You_Most.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Andreas_Just_When_I_Needed_You_Most.gif. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media 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 taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images 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 our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:TV_Article_About_Doing_Posch.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:TV_Article_About_Doing_Posch.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media 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 taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images 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 our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Andreas_main_shot.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Andreas_main_shot.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Melesse (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To your points, Melesse, I'll take the easiest one first. The main shot of Andreas Stenschke is an actor's headshot and is personally owned by Andreas Stenschke, and I have permission to use it.  This is not a copyright issue, as the photo was not published anywhere except on his website and is used in his theatrical career.  Plus, I went to the description page, and cannot figure out how to put in this information, other than to delete the (di-no license|month=January|day=6|year=2010) reference and essentially say what I have just said above.  Is that what you require?  Will that be enough?
 * Regarding the other photos, I went to the photo sites and inserted (hopefully) language that will be accepted. The other alternative, perhaps, is to somehow reference the Wiki URLs that would show these articles when clicked on in the footnote.  Or is that not acceptable either?  Is the problem simply that you can't even have these things anywhere (even hidden in an archive) on Wikipedia, even though they were available on line at one time?  I'm truly confounded by the rules inasmuch as Wikipedia does not charge advertising dollars, and if there is no problem for photo use (especially publicity material like the Verbotene Liebe shot of Ulli and Tom) on my articles for regular news sites, such as The Huffington Post, (which does sell ad space) for which I write, I don't understand all this.
 * Another question, as it has been unanswered by Glenfarclas, the administrator who placed the advertisement comment on the article, if there is no way to keep the photos (which are validators of content, as opposed to the "promotional" comment made), is it acceptable to simply put a reference to the article in footnote (perhaps without even the Wiki photo link as I suggested above). My fear is that with only the title of the article and/or description, I will be subject to not having proven certain statements, such as the fact that Stenschke clearly was a heartthrob.  I mean, with all respect, it's one thing to say that the page looks like a tabloid, but then to say things that are factually incorrect -- i.e. that my comment about being a heartthrob is unsourced, when it is clearly indicated by the very photos that the administrator doesn't like, well, that's somewhat contradictory.  Please advise re the above statement, and also as to when the unpleasant template might be removed.  Thanks much.Andymickey (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Voting For Stewards
In short, wikipedia banners have long been criticized and my way around is ignoring, hiding or disabling them as much as possible :-) Materialscientist (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So, just out of curiosity, who does get to be and/or vote for such things?Andymickey (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The eligibility is here; I guess you don't pass because of "600 edits before 01 November 2009" which rule I couldn't even imagine if I hadn't looked there. (well, on the other hand, opening the vote to everyone could create a mess) Materialscientist (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Andreas alone.jpg
Hi, I nominated the image for deletion because it lacks a license. Regards Hekerui (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me Hekerui, but the picture of Andreas Stenschke on his English and German Wiki page is indeed properly put forth and went through the correct process when I put the article together last year. The permission to use the photo was sent to the Wiki authorities by Andreas Stenschke himself and has been properly certified for use on the English and German Stenschke pages, so I don't know by what authority you are attempting to remove the photo.Andymickey (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Audrey Hepburn to MarnetteD, who undid my legitimate change
It has been a long time since I contributed a thought, and I'm confused as to why MarnetteD undid my revision on Audrey Hepburn, wherein I objected to her being classified as a British actress, as she was not in any way a British actress, in spite of the fact that it was mentioned in the History that she might have had a British passport. She was neither born in Britain nor had her career based there, having lived in Switzerland and other places, and so to term her in the opening sentence as a British actress, as if she were Julie Christie or Maggie Smith, to name a few or Helen Mirren to name someone current, is misleading. It mentioned that there was a consensus on the "talk" pages, but I can find no pages of "talk" for Audrey Hepburn or anyone else when I click on "talk" when I am logged in, even when I am on someone else's page. Can someone enlighten me as to how to contribute to the talk of a particular page (not just my own) and to get this message to MarnetteD or on the Audrey Hepburn talk page itself?

I am not going to go back and forth with people who clearly will just remove everything I do, even when what they do is patently incorrect. It's a waste of time, but I'd like to add my thoughts to those who might see what I'm talking about and get the appropriate responses. Many thanks.

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
--UTRSBot (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)