User talk:Berthold11~enwiki

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Berthold11. I see that you've already been around a while 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 editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

St. Louis University High School‎
Hi. I just noticed that although you have been on Wikipedia for several years, no-one has taken the time to welcome you. So, I have left you a welcoming message above. Please take the time soon to look at the 5 pillars part of it. From your reply at the above named article's talk page, it is obvious that you are not too familiar with what Wikipedia is and isn't and how editing it works.

Firstly, I want to correct the mistaken impression that you have that anyone can have a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. That does not mean that you can put in it whatever you want. There are approx. 1000 new articles added to the over 4 million articles on Wikipedia every day. Of those 1000, over 600 of them are deleted within a few hours. Encyclopedias, including both print media and Wikipedia, are what is known as "tertiary" sources. That means that we only include material that reliable secondary sources have made note of. That is why the standard for inclusion is called notability. The standards are very high for any article about a living person (see WP:BLP). This includes mention of living people in other articles, such as a listing of notable alumni from a high school. Although there are several specific notability standards for people in different fields, you will find them all summarized at WP:BIO. To be included in a notable alumni list, a person has to be notable per the standards at WP:BIO. They are people who reliable secondary sources are writing about. Notability does not equate with fame or importance. Since most CEO's are not Donald Trump or Bill Gates and prefer to just do their work and stay out of the newspaper, most CEO's are not notable. Whether the companies they run are notable or not has no bearing on the CEO's notability.

As I hope I have made clear in the above paragraph, a professor's CV or resume is of no use in vetting their notability. We do not use primary sources like a resume for anything but the most basic of info (like a birthdate, for instance). Self sourced things like personal websites or resumes are of no use for showing notability.

Lastly, when an editor removes content from an article with an explanation as to why it was done, based in policy, such as I did, you do not just put it back and tell him to defend his changes or leave it alone, as you did. It actually works the other way around, as it should. I took the stuff out and told you why. If you want it back in, you need to make an argument based in policy and backed by reliable source references, as to why it should be included. You have made none. It is on you to defend your assertion that all those names belong. See WP:BURDEN. What will actually be there will be based on a consensus of what you, myself and any other interested editors want. The reason why I am writing you here, rather than on the talk page of the article is because this is about your editing behavior, not about the edits. That is why I want you to read the 5 pillars. One of them is "assume good faith". Your statements at the article's talk page are insinuating that my work was careless and appeared to reflect a battleground mentality. I have made over 17,000 edits on Wikipedia, and over half have been to highschool articles. I watch roughly 1100 different high school articles. There was nothing careless about my actions. I reconsidered my position regarding the entry with the reference to JSTOR, due mainly to the reputation of JSTOR itself, not about the strength of the particular article referenced. Not a single one of the rest had reliable, independent references, and many had none at all. They simply can't be there. If you have a valid argument for inclusion for any of the others, feel free to bring it to the talk page of the article. Be advised that the notable alumni section on the above high school was longer than most high school articles are in total. And also be advised that even with all that verbiage, the article is only rated "start" or the second-lowest on the quality scale. All the words are not making the article better. Gtwfan52 (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

First: de jure, yes. De facto, no. I could provide you with a long list of non-notables who have pages that no one ever gets around to deleting. It's a function of who has the most time to spend on these things. And the supervision is loose, at best. Second, you eliminated persons who are written of by reliable secondary sources. And the de jure--de facto distinction applies here too. Third, reread what you write about notability and fame and see whether it is coherent. It may be that that is what wiki aspires to, writing about those who have achieved fame, but not importance in any other respect. If so, this seems to be a rather damning statement about wiki and its rules-of-the-game. Fourth, you conceded the Warner case and then you eliminated it again. So that is not an instance of carelessness? Most of us don't have the time to spend on things of this sort. So it is irritating if a person, who behaves carelessly, removes a large swath of material with one act--hit the delete button. In some instances links, e.g. to the National Academy of Sciences, change. Constructive, helpful behavior would be to call this dead link to the attention of those who have the time and the interest, recommending that they find the appropriate link. Five, how often does anyone on Wiki actually evaluate, or have the qualifications to evaluate, the strength of individual articles? Six, the school is 200 years old, so it is not unusual that it be longer than most other high school articles. As to its quality, like all wiki articles it is the result of too many cooks and too few qualified, professional editors. Seven, most high school articles should be left blank, by your/wiki standards, because they primarily cite info provided by the high schools themselves. For instance, in this case, you didn't bother to remove the ACT scores info, but all of that is provided by the school itself. I suspect the same applies to the other 1100 high schools that you monitor, both for standardized test scores and for most other school-related info.Berthold11 (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever.I am trying to help you understand how things work; you are insistent that things get done your way. Have it your way. I am not going to waste my time with your red herrings.  when you can make a case bring it to the article talk page. we will see how the article ends up.  Bye. Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Berthold11. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Berthold11~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 22:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)