User talk:Christian Heindl

September 2016
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Thomas Daniel Schlee, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome!


Hello, Christian Heindl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
 * Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Page history
You can undo my removal via the wp:page history (the View history tab at the top of most every page). You need to add a reference when you restore the content. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello Jim. Well the reference to the content is the subject of the article, Thomas Daniel Schlee, who asked me to add this contents. Unfortunately I am not familiar with the English Wiki rules, as I have been contributing only German articles until nowChristian Heindl (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Thomas Daniel Schlee, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Schlee would not be considered a wp:reliable source (RS). Please read on what constitutes RS. Your report on Schlee would be wp:original research, if written by him, wp:primary source. As there is no document, it would not be a wp:verifiable source. I would imagine that the wp:policy is probably similar to the German Wikipedia. Try de:Wikipedia:Belege and de:wp:Keine Theoriefindungor. Find a book, magazine, or website (German is OK) that supports your edit and add that as a reference. Make sure that all the content is properly referenced. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but don't you understand that I am the reference: I am the scientist, who writes here on that composer. What else do you need for reference?????Christian Heindl (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Thomas Daniel Schlee. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
 * As I mentioned above, it needs to be wp:verifiable. If there is no document, it shouldn't be added to Wikipedia. If you wish further clarification, please ask at the wp:teahouse. Please do not restore without wp:citing a wp:reliable source Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that English Wikipedia has definitely different rules than the German one, where it is of course no problem to write original research without further reference. By the way the German Wikipedia article on Thomas Daniel Schlee is the source for the translation into English Wikipedia. Unfortunately I don't understand, how to make this clear to you. So I have to stop my attempts to contribute a good and well researched article to English WikipediaChristian Heindl (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It would appear that Thomas Daniel Schlee does not meet de:Wikipedia:Belege standards then? Albums would be considered RS. An Amazon search turns up many. Jim1138 (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't know, what appears where. I am just the man, who writes with the best of his knowledge and own research. And I suppose that the German administration adds the necessary ref itself, if they realize that the article is correct. My problem is that I really don't understand the technical information given here in the English Wiki (it was surely my first and last attempt to write something there). But, please, go on deleting all my German articles as you ruined all my original work on the English Schlee article. It seems to make you fun, to work for "rules", but not for good articles. For me, it's no fun, to write this stuff - without any fee, of course - and afterwards have to make such discussions, which I never expected after some seven or eight years writing for Wikipedia to everybody's satification and proofed by many colleagues, who were happy on such profound texts. As I said: Do whatever you want, you are the GodChristian Heindl (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC) PS: I think, there exist much more profound sources than AMAZON. But if this is your main source, I understand your approach to the subject.Christian Heindl (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Please do find your profound sources and use them. I would suggest that you get someone else's opinion on the matter. Ask at the wp:teahouse or wp:help desk Jim1138 (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your sudden reply. How can I make it understandable for you that ME and the composer SCHLEE are the profound sources. Theses contents doesn't come from other sources. I think this is quite usual, when writing on (in this case at least in German speaking countries) well known living persons. - I am really a bit desperate, as I have the feeling I am talking to a machine, and not to a human being, for whom it is clear that a biography on somebody has to be written once for the first time, which is what happened here. - It took me many hours to do it, and you easily destroyed another persons hard work with a short "undo". - I don't have the nerves to go on discussing it, as I told you that I am not familiar with the English technical terms here (it's difficult enough to understand them in German, where there NEVER occured any problems in the past). - So thank you again, for your good will, which lead to a bad result. Christian Heindl (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You and Schlee are not wp:reliable sources. Using such information is wp:original research: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.. It needs to be printed in a reasonably acceptable publication. wp:selfpublished i.e. blogs, are not acceptable. Significant information must be wp:verifiable. I would think that de:Wikipedia editors would be more fastidious than en:Wikipedia editors. Surly such sources exist? I have pointed to Amazon simply because it is easily searched. You can use whatever RS you wish. However, the wp:burden of proof is on you: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. If you want to check my claims here, please ask at the wp:help desk or wp:teahouse. I'm signing off now. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Direct, reliable sources needed for Days of the Year pages
You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages now require direct reliable sources for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Almost all new additions without references are now being reverted on-sight.

Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Haha, this is true: I really was not aware that an already for many years consisting Wikipedia article, to which the entry is linked, is not a reliable source. So then forget my attempt to improve the list. Have a nice evening there!