User talk:DrSchaub

Welcome

Welcome...

Hello, DrSchaub, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Linguisticgeek

Again, welcome! LinguisticGeek 11:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Seligman and red links

The reason I linked merchant-banking is because I felt that it would help if a reader could get an explanation of what that is. Per WP:REDLINK, red links aren't always a bad thing. They point out the potential need for an article. Since you kept removing the link, I've gone and improved it. It now points to Merchant bank. Please leave that there so that people may better understand what Seligman did for a living. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 11:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Seligman: copyright and sources

Hi there. I have a couple of questions about the copyright status and source of this content - could you answer the following? Your one inline citation references this website, which bears a copyright notice. In your citation, you use the wording: "Adapted from The Banker from Baiersdorf. All rights reserved. Copyright © Peter King Smith BSc 2009-2010 The Netherlands. The Zimapanners is the history of a 19th century Cornish count house which includes biographies of its owners, occupants and all those who had a legal interest in it. Ongoing project." So:

Are you the author of www.zimapanners.com? (the wording "ongoing project" makes me think so). If so, you're citing and linking your own self-published original research in support of your Wikipedia article. This is a problem: see WP:NOR andWP:EL#ADV. The zimapanners website could be a supporting source, but the article needs independent published sources to support the content, or the material will be at risk of deletion. This is not a criticism of the zimapanners website, which I found fascinating, or the quality of its writing or research, which appears to be detailed and professional, but Wikipedia does not rely on original research to support content - we are a tertiary source and must use only material that has already been published in reliable sources (by the Wikipedia definition of such).

Could you just confirm that the form of words you have used above does not mean that Peter King Smith is asserting copyright over the Wikipedia article Isaac Seligman (i.e., that the rights to the adaptation of "The Banker from Baiersdorf" are being reserved)? As it stands, the sentence could be interpreted as such. As I'm sure you're aware, no contributor can copyright Wikipedia article text, and copyrighted text cannot be added to the encyclopaedia, because all our content is released freely under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and the GFDL. Once I'm sure the content itself is not intended to be copyrighted, I'll reword the citation accordingly and try to help look for some more online sources.

Hope this makes sense, and that you understand this is not an attack on your work; just an attempt to ensure the article complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so it is not in danger of deletion. Many thanks for your contribution. Ka renjc 15:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from author of 'Isaac Seligman' (mini) biography 12 Nov 2010 (no idea whether this is the way to reply but here goes): Hi Karen, I am new to this game and have not read the rules thoroughly. I am indeed the author of the website and this particular wiki-biography. My research findings and sources are all comprehensively acknowledged in the Acknowledgement and Reference sections of my website, so that's where you can find all the independent sources listed. I assumed this should be sufficient. I was in fact asserting copyright on the material found on my website, not on the biographical summary I have supplied Wikipedia. What I have attempted to do in the reference section is to indicate with the copyright symbol that the original biography I wrote which can be found on the website www.zimapanners.com is my copyright. Hope this resolves the issue.

2. Many thanks for the compliments regarding the website. We lone researchers can always use a tap on our shoulders once in a while.

Let me know what you think and whether I am now compliant.

Hi DrStraub; yes, this is the right place and way to reply :). Congrats again on a very interesting site at www.zimapanners.com. Yes, I see your sources on your site, but because they are endnotes rather than inline citations we can't link individual assertions in the Isaac Seligman article to their actual published sources, which would be the ideal situation, hence my scrabbling around for additional published sources to support the article (in theory an article with only self-published sources risks deletion, and I believe the subject to be notable, so I want the article to stay). Like other unofficial, self-published sites, www.zimapanners.com doesn't count as a standalone reliable source in itself, unfortunately - see WP:RS - so we need to source the statements within Isaac Seligman, which I've started to try to do with the links to British History Online and Leopold's NYT obituary. Any others you could add would be great. Thanks for clarifying the copyright symbol point - if you're not asserting copyright here that's fine, but copyright symbols shouldn't be used in Wikipedia articles anyway, full stop. Take a look at refs in other articles and you'll see the format that's generally used, even for works that are still new enought to be under copyright. I've returned the reference to a more standard format, omitting postnominal honours (not normally used in references) and the copyright statement, which is unnecessary since the zimapanners website itself bears a copyright notice. It could also be argued by some nitpickers that, if you insist on the extended format that includes your copyright notice, you are in some way trying to promote or draw undue attention to yourself and your website through adding these references. I am not suggesting this is your intention, but adding links to your own site is pretty strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. If these references stay, they should be as standard and unobtrusive as possible, in order to negate any suggestion of promotion.

The other thing the article could really use is a picture. Are any of the ones on your website suitable and out of copyright? If so, consider uploading one at Wikimedia Commons - if you are interested in doing so and need any help, let me know. Kind regards, Ka renjc 13:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12-11-2010 16:00 NL time Hi Karen, sorry no photos. The ones on the website can be consulted if necessary. In any case, they are pretty poor-quality ones and the only ones I have managed to find. I, alone, have been granted permission to use them on my website, so I am afraid that I am prevented from supplying one to Wiki. I am OK about the changes that you have made so far. This is a learning curve for me. Much use was made of The Times (Archive) from 1875-1929, but these references are only verifiable for persons who open a subscription with The Times (Archive). As I say, these can all be found on my website. It would be too much work to start linking all my sources to every statement in Wikipedia as Wiki's Reference section contains a link to the original biography anyway, so in my opinion, that really ought to be sufficient, together with your additional sourcing of statements. I am quite happy to leave it there. By the way, I plan to add your positive comments about my website to its 'Feedback' section. Each Feedback comment has to be linked to a name (surname preferable but not essential) and, if possible a location, and occupation. Would you be so kind as to supply further details of yourself so I can make a standard entry? Thanks. Only comments about the site are posted, not our Wikipedia-related discussion. Thanks for all your help.

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George May, 1st Baron May, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Voysey. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding information on photo source

Can anybody assist me with how to get the Parliamentary Archive source displayed in the correct 'source' field? I have noted the remark about 'disambiguation' and I will take a look at it, thanks. DrSchaub (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Florence Annie Conybeare (November 29)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Florence Annie Conybeare and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Florence Annie Conybeare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Borough of Lambeth. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Florence Annie Conybeare (December 5)

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

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Florence Annie Conybeare instead.

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Florence Annie Conybeare and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! DrSchaub, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:VAD recruitment poster WW I.PNG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:VAD recruitment poster WW I.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, DrSchaub. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lothian Demain Nicholson

The article Lothian Demain Nicholson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of any notability, just a few passing mentions.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lothian Demain Nicholson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lothian Demain Nicholson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lothian Demain Nicholson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]