User talk:Mag2k

Welcome
Hello  and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you've chosen to join us. This is a great project with lots of dedicated people, which might seem intimidating at times, but don't let anything discourage you. Be bold!, explore, and contribute. If you want to learn more, Bootcamp teaches you the basics quickly, Tutorial is more in-depth, and Topical index is exhaustive. The following links might also come in handy: Glossary FAQ Help Manual of Style Five Pillars of Wikipedia Float around for awhile until you find something that tickles your fancy. One easy way to do this is to hit the random page button in the navigation bar to the left. There are also many great committees and groups that focus on particular jobs. My personal favorite stomping grounds are Translation into English and Cleanup for sloppy articles. Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation has several other wiki projects that you might enjoy. There are a few crucial points to keep in mind when editing. Be civil with users, strive to maintain a neutral point of view, verify your information, and show good etiquette like signing your comments with four tildes like this: ~ If you have any more questions, always feel free to ask me anything on my talk page or ask the true experts at Help desk. Again, welcome! -- Draeco 07:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Castles in the Ukraine
Neither Khotyn nor Ostroh are castle but fortresses. Besides, the articles are about towns and not their fortifications. I'm afraid I have to post your cat for deletion. --Ghirla | talk 17:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia definition of castle is: "A castle (from the Latin castellum, diminutive of castra, a military camp, in turn the plural of castrum or watchpost), is a fort, a camp and the logical development of a fortified enclosure. The term is most often applied to a small self-contained fortress." I agree that the distinction is quite difficult and not insist that my categorization is the right one.Mag2k 17:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Is the Moscow Kremlin a castle or not? --Ghirla | talk 17:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion - yes, it is. And many similar structures are commonly called castles (Buda, Dublin or Prague, to mention some). But as I said, I have no objections for category deletion. Mag2k 17:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Recital anna german.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Recital anna german.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 20:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary
Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 16% for major edits and 17% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 147 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 17:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Persondata on Friedrich von Gärtner
Hi Mag2k,

Why did you remove the Persondata from the article about Friedrich von Gärtner?--CarabinieriTTaallkk 21:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it was done by mistake. Mag2k 22:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion rules for lists
Sorry, for lists there are no "inclusion rules" apart from WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Note that WP:NPOV cannot be superseded by "consensus", while non-negotiable (see the NPOV policy page).

Also note WP:ASR, a "list" page can be extracted from wikipedia (...GFDL) without any other page being attached, so a list page should work stand-alone also. Further, wikipedia's "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" implies that there is no certainty about what will be in the Leonardo article tomorrow. Sorry, any page (even if that page is only the "K-O" part of a list) should be useable stand-alone.

Anyway, particular "rules" governing individual lists can not be inscribed in main (i.e. "article") namespace. If rules apply for lists, they need to be stated and agreed upon in wikipedia: namespace. Apart from the policies and guidelines I cited above, I see no such "particular" rules for this list agreed upon in project namespace. Please indicate me if you know of such "particular" ruleset, agreed upon in project namespace. --Francis Schonken 11:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Citing from WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. In particular, Wikipedia is not a system of law. Disagreements should be resolved through  consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.  Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines (see Wikilawyering).  Our dispute resolution process exists to  mediate and  arbitrate disputes between users, not to enforce judicial remedies."Mag2k 12:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The rationale behind the inclusion rules:
 * Claims regarding someone's sexuality are more likely to be verified in the main article, by people that maintain the article, or are interested in the subject.
 * Not every external source is reliable. And the main article is a place where false or unbased claims are more likely to be debunked.
 * Even if the main article is changed, full history of page edits is stored by Wikipedia.
 * Main articles often contain sections that present different points of view on the issue, including sources supporting claims of both sides.
 * Definition of the sexuality of historical persons is almost always disputable. We are not going to make list entry a bibliography list of all articles supporting and opposing the thesis of Leonardo's homosexuality.Mag2k 12:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it was you who said that I should stick to a rule, and not remove redundant rulecruft from article namespace. QED...

Please also note the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes, which is "inactive" since it was moved there from Village Pump some seven months ago. No problem to take that discussion up again: please proceed if you think you have anything new to add. Note however that the points you mention above were largely contradicted by evidence. Also note that I cited WP:RS above, which sets wikipedia's standards regarding reliability of sources. I have no intention to subvert that guideline by your loose remarks.

If a list can't be written according to the non-negotiable NPOV policy it should not be in wikipedia. Summarizing the main arguments (and their counterparts) regarding a doubtful inclusion in a list is an application of that policy. --Francis Schonken 13:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What NPOV policy has to do with existance of issues disputable by historians? Wikipedia is full of articles where the controversy is presented. Articles, but not lists. The text that you removed from the main page of the list presented explicitly the controversy and the differences in interpretation of sexuality centuries ago and now. I also gave examples why the particular rules are not redundant and have no contradiction with Wikipedia policy. Mag2k 13:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Lists are in "article" or "main" namespace, no specific NPOV rules have been defined & agreed upon for lists, so NPOV applies to them *exactly* the same way as for articles.

"I also gave examples why the particular rules are not redundant and have no contradiction with Wikipedia policy." - where did you do that? Might help if I knew...

Note that another slice of previous discussion can be found (for example) at Wikipedia talk:Lists in Wikipedia. I mention this with the same invitation, please proceed if you have any new points to add to that or any other related discussion. --Francis Schonken 14:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ask again: where the NPOV policy has been violated in the particular case? Another question: If you consider inclusion of Leonardo doubtful and not supported by reliable sources, why don't you simply remove him from the list? After a short check in the history diffs it looks like you added Leonardo to the list of "confirmed" homosexual people, while at the same time describing the entry as "doubtful". What is the point in such inclusion, other than to provoke another flame dispute around reference policy? Mag2k 14:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well there is Neutral point of view:"[...] sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner."Note that this is not the same as exclusively using the weasel word "disputed", without indicating at least some *main* components of that dispute. According to the NPOV policy: let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page - this would not be accomplished when only using the word "disputed", while in that case the competing approaches do not *exist* on the page (but only when clicking links to other pages).

I think I complied to: as well as to: Also since you seem to ask, I added Leonardo as a result of this suggestion being posted on the talk page yesterday evening
 * "Describing [...] according to reputability of the sources": I mean, as far as "reputability" of the source is concerned I don't see sources outdoing the most "official" contemporary reports (incarceration, but no conviction) and, in later times, the founder of psycho-analysis, Sigmund Freud, describing Leonardo's "repressed homosexuality" in detail (which is, while you ask, a source "confirming" Leonardo's homosexuality, and a source completely conforming to WP:RS standards).
 * "giving precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner": the external link gave, as far as I could see, a balanced account of the opposing approaches mentioned above (if you know sources that are more suitable in that sense, please proceed)

Sorry, for me "reference guidance" is clear, and can be applied without controversy. I didn't start a dispute on it. --Francis Schonken 15:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you consider a section from an old trivia book written by thrillers writer and sports historian as a reliable source, good for you. I just want point your attention to the fact, that the provided link contains no reference to historical or scientific sources. Why Freud's book is "his silliest"? Just because the authors think so? Was Freud the only researcher that thought that Leonardo is homosexual? Definitely not. Is it a good reason for his inclusion in the list? I am not sure. Mag2k 19:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Added reference to Freud book in list (as, indeed the linked webpage did not provide a proper reference for the book they were citing);
 * Yeah, in school I was taught that Totem und Tabu would have been his silliest... tastes apparently differ.
 * But as said, let that not stop you from finding a better reference if you have one. I chose the web page reference primarily on the balance characteristic, as it was not taking an extreme stance, provided, on a single page, an overview of the topics that are usually mentioned in that context, and further left it up to the reader to form his/her interpretation (as Wikipedia tries to do). --Francis Schonken 21:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Weiden rathaus.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Weiden rathaus.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Anna German
I wonder if you have just left an anonymous message on my user page? If not my apologies. If it was you then please get in touch. Regards. Kleinzach 19:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was my message. I've just forgotten to sign it. Mag2k 19:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Then kindly sign it now. I have a policy of deleting anonymous messages.


 * Regarding Anna German. Your article is excellent. I am sorry if I miscategorized it. My intention was to take her out of a higher level category. There is no reason why she shouldn't be in more than one category is that is appropriate - or for you to set up a new category if a suitable one doesn't exist. But simply leaving her as a Russian singer is anomalous and will not encourage people to read the article. Regards. - Kleinzach 08:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I moved several articles back to "Russian singers", as they were not appropriately classified. The existing categories are not properly describing those singers, so it would be better to leave them in the upper level, unless we want to open many subcategories like Russian rap singers, Russian ballad singers, Russian rock singers etc. As for rock category, it could be worth opening. We can classify singers from 1920s-30s as "pop singers", but it is unlikely anybody would look for them in such category. Andrei Mironov appeared in many musicals (in theater and cinema), but he harldy matches description of "pop singer". Why Russian singers is anomalous classification? I looked how American and French singers were classified. There is no strict genre classification. Only American male singers and American female singers. Why not apply same policy, at least for singers whose genre description would be too narrow or too loose? Also, there are lots of singers appearing under sibling Russian musicians category. So, Russian singers should appear under Russian musicians, or they should be moved to singers and its subcategories (when possible). Mag2k 10:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick apology
A recent revert I posted assumes bad faith in one of your edits. It seemed obvious that the edit was more from a POV perspective, but whether that was so or not, I shouldn't have assumed bad faith. Hence, my complete apologies for it, before you notice and complain to me :) FT2 (Talk) 19:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. I am not going to enter edit war, but I still think that links to Gay rights and Homosexuality laws of the world in the article on zoosexuality are highly irrelevant in the context of the article.Mag2k 18:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Romanovsky and Phillips, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. RJASE1 Talk  21:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that a long lasting musical career in a rather unique musical niche, 10 albums, Outmusic award are good enough reasons to keep the page alive.Mag2k 07:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Anna german.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Anna german.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Thoughtyoudbetallertn.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Thoughtyoudbetallertn.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Thoughtyoudbetallertn.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Thoughtyoudbetallertn.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. - AWeenieMan (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Maria am gestade portal.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Maria am gestade portal.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 06:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Maria am gestade sculptures.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Maria am gestade sculptures.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 06:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Erich Brauer


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Erich Brauer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Please attribute or claim media you uploaded or restored: File:Map naumburg saale in germany.png
You uploaded or restored, File:Map naumburg saale in germany.png, but for various reasons did not add an information block, or indicate your (user) name on the file description page. Media uploaded to Wikipedia needs information on the SPECIFIC authorship and source of files, to ensure that it complies with copyright laws in various jurisdictions.

If it's entirely your own work: please include own in the relevant source field, amend the information added by a third party, ensuring that your user name (or name you want used for attribution) is clear in the author field, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant (if such a license is not already used). You should also add an |author= parameter to the license tag, to assist reviews and image patrollers.

If it's not entirely your own work, or the media is based on the work of others:

Please update the source and authorship fields, so that they accurately reflect the source and authors of the original work(s), as well as the derivative you created. You should also not use a "self" license unless the work is entirely you own. Media that is incorrectly claimed as self or own, will eventually be listed at Files for Discussion or deleted, unless it's full status is entirely clear to other contributors, reviewers and image patrollers. You should also read Requesting copyright permission which details how to confirm any permissions you obtained for works by others that are still in copyright.

Whilst this notification, relates to a single media upload, it would also be appreciated if you could ensure that appropriate attribution exists for other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log].

If media is not claimed, and there's no other obvious source or authorship information, the file may have to be removed for copyright reasons.

It's okay to remove or strike messages like this once the concerns have been addressed. :). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Map naumburg saale in germany.png
Thank you for uploading File:Map naumburg saale in germany.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

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) 01:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

File source problem with File:St Nicholas Church.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:St Nicholas Church.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)