User talk:Kate theobaldy

License tagging for Image:Foyer des artes.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Foyer des artes.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Max goldt2.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Max goldt2.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. High on a tree 03:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Cd koralle.jpg)[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Cd koralle.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. Aspects (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Foyer des artes.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Foyer des artes.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ich bin ein Berliner[edit]

There is no way that this will ever be counted as a reliable source. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's wrong with that, but even less do I see why a source for this simple fact is supposed to be needed. This fact is mentioned in Berliner (pastry), too, and no one has ever doubted it. You can't seriously demand sources for obvious truths. Anyway, I'm going to post some more sources on the article's talk page. --kate theobaldy (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few obvious truths in an encyclopedia outside of the alphabet--the source obviously doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS, and this isn't common knowledge. Besides, Wikipedia isn't a source for Wikipedia. But I look forward to your sources; thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, what is and what isn't an obvious truth or common knowledge is in the eye of the beholder. But I'm sure you would agree that in the article we're talking about here it would seem rather strange to clutter with references phrases like "U.S. president Kennedy" (was he really president?) or "East Germany erected the Berlin Wall" (did it really?). There's certainly some younger people on both sides of the "pond" who don't know either of those facts (try asking an average American high-school student what the Berlin Wall was and who built it exactly!), but they're considered "common knowledge" nonetheless. Likewise, that residents of Berlin refer to the pastry elsewhere known as "Berliner" as "Pfannkuchen" is indeed common knowledge in Germany, just like the fact that they call a bread roll "Schrippe", a sandwich "Stulle", or similar regional differences within the German-speaking area that are all duly covered on Wikipedia.

Besides, there was a small but decisive misunderstanding: I didn't propose using Wikipedia as a "source for Wikipedia" at all. Instead, I simply pointed out the fact that the statement whose truthfulness you're calling into question has been featured prominently, and remained undisputed, in an article that's bound to be on the watchlists of many German users, and is therefore unlikely to have survived for this long if it weren't correct, or commonly held to be correct. (To be sure, I'm not saying that dubious or plain wrong things can't survive for a very long time on Wikipedia, but when they do it's usually on more exotic topics that few people are able or care to verify.) Instead of as a proposed "source," simply consider the article Berliner (pastry) as one more piece of circumstantial evidence that a source isn't really needed here in the first place.

If you still insist that it is, apart from blogs etc., the listed sources (in the general sense, not Wikipedia's) also contain a few from mainstream media and other reliable publications (such as Christian Science Monitor, Berliner Morgenpost, Deutsche Welle (already provided by Hans), Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, Radio Luxembourg, Bremen University, n-tv, de Volkskrant, and a book by a German-born and educated SUNY professor, Andreas W. Daum, on Kennedy's visit to Berlin.) You're free to include any of those in the article itself, although as already said, I would personally advise against it. Cluttering every other sentence with footnotes just detracts attention from them in the places where they're really called for. --kate theobaldy (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Cats are always awesome, and so is your article, Direkte Demokratie für Europa!

Meşteşugarul - U 15:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pegida[edit]

I noticed that you made a change to an article, Pegida, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! JimRenge (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]