User talk:Thorsten Feldmann
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Thorsten Feldmann, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Photo shoot, seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see:
- Policy on neutral point of view
- Guideline on spam
- Guideline on external links
- Guideline on conflict of interest
- FAQ for Organizations
If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can . You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and how to develop articles
- Help pages
- Tutorials
- Article wizard for creating new articles
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.
I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Certes (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Every page on the English Wikipedia with Marc Engelhard you have taken out. Why actually? If I were him, I would be very disappointed. Not everything he has done is commercial, maybe nothing at all. I'm neutral, but I want to be fair. Those are examples of his work. In my eyes, what Wikipedia did was not correct, and it's not nice to work for you in that way. Thorsten Feldmann (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I removed the mentions because they are not relevant to the articles. They seem to be there to promote Marc Engelhard rather than to add information about the topic. For example, it is not appropriate to add details of someone else to Boris Becker just because they made an appearance on the same radio station. Biographical information also requires reliable sources, and the mentions I removed are sourced only to YouTube videos which appear to be produced by the subject himself. Certes (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Obviously we have different priorities and define relevance itself and source citations differently, and I'm certainly not alone in that. You also took out his professional photo with proper attribution, but allowed other photos to stay in even though the description was similar in principle. You can search at least 23 areas with his name on Google and he is the very first entry and he has been active in art and media nationally and internationally in various fields for more than 25 years to my knowledge. That is also relevant from my point of view. I'm glad you responded, but you didn't convince me. Thorsten Feldmann (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, he's certainly the most prominent person with that name, as long as the search is clever enough to avoid Marc Engelhardt. I would normally suggest establishing notability via the articles for creation process, but I see Draft:Marc Engelhard has already been deleted. If it was similar to the copies here and here then the problem may have been a lack of coverage in secondary sources: the references cited there all seem to come from Engelhard or his agency. Certes (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Which would be tantamount to insinuation. At least you are committed. Thorsten Feldmann (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, he's certainly the most prominent person with that name, as long as the search is clever enough to avoid Marc Engelhardt. I would normally suggest establishing notability via the articles for creation process, but I see Draft:Marc Engelhard has already been deleted. If it was similar to the copies here and here then the problem may have been a lack of coverage in secondary sources: the references cited there all seem to come from Engelhard or his agency. Certes (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Obviously we have different priorities and define relevance itself and source citations differently, and I'm certainly not alone in that. You also took out his professional photo with proper attribution, but allowed other photos to stay in even though the description was similar in principle. You can search at least 23 areas with his name on Google and he is the very first entry and he has been active in art and media nationally and internationally in various fields for more than 25 years to my knowledge. That is also relevant from my point of view. I'm glad you responded, but you didn't convince me. Thorsten Feldmann (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I removed the mentions because they are not relevant to the articles. They seem to be there to promote Marc Engelhard rather than to add information about the topic. For example, it is not appropriate to add details of someone else to Boris Becker just because they made an appearance on the same radio station. Biographical information also requires reliable sources, and the mentions I removed are sourced only to YouTube videos which appear to be produced by the subject himself. Certes (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, I'm Serge, an Admin here on Wikipedia. Please listen to Certes, he is correct here. I'm sorry if this feel callous or harsh, but many try to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool. It is not one, per WP:PROMOTION and WP:SPAM. Sometimes its a person promoting oneself. Sometimes its the photographer promoting their. Sometimes its just an overzealous fan. But its not appropriate. If it looks like it, it'll probably be turned down
- There's ways to elevate examples over concerns of promotional or inappropriate examples though. The biggest one is to find a third party, reliable source, that makes a claim that its a notable example. See WP:RS as to what a reliable source is generally considered here. (Generally a professional publication, not just a self-published blogger.) The other emphasis is third party source - the claim shouldn't come from the subject or their management or something, but rather another source altogether.
- It also sometimes helps if the subject has their own Wikipedia article - people are more likely to be considered a noteworthy example. But having their own article would require meeting our notability requirements.
- So in short, here's an blatant example that should be understandable to anyone.
- If the goal was to show examples of noteworthy examples of basketball players from the NBA.
- A good example would be Michael Jordan alongside a source from ESPN.com that calls him one of the best of all time.
- A poor example would be someone adding a picture of Jonathan Stentsworth without any source, or a source from www.jstentsworth.com.
- Hopefully this helps. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 21:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Your principles in general were already basically understandable to me before. That was not my point. Thorsten Feldmann (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- I see, I must have misunderstood, as at first glance, it had appeared that you were pushing back against what Certes was explaining to you. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help explain anything else. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- I understood it, but I just see some things differently. Thorsten Feldmann (talk) 07:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- I see, I must have misunderstood, as at first glance, it had appeared that you were pushing back against what Certes was explaining to you. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help explain anything else. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Your principles in general were already basically understandable to me before. That was not my point. Thorsten Feldmann (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)