User talk:Hager Irene

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Hager Irene, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hallo Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I moved my article now to User:Hager Irene/sandbox/Helmut Kroiss. I was able to add a view catagories, but I dont`t know, if they are sufficient. As far as I'm concerned, they are. Thank you for your help! Hager Irene (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I see you also submitted it for review. If you haven't, you may want to take the time to check WP:BLP, WP:BASIC and WP:NACADEMIC, these are things that will matter to a reviewer. Currently, large sections are without reference (at least it looks like that), including things like birthdate, that is not ideal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo! How could I reference the birthdate? My source is Prof. Kroiss himself. Do I have to reference his academic career beyond the citation of his account at researchgate.net (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Helmut_Kroiss), what I already did? For what else would I need a reference? Thanks for your help! Hager Irene (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, an en-WP biography should be a summary of what reliable sources (WP:RS) independent of the subject has written about him. It's fine (generally) to include for example a bibliography like you have done, but not to write about his works based on his works. "He told me so" is not good enough for anything in a WP:BLP. Things like date of birth (and anything you want to include, really) have to have been published, and if they haven't been we don't include them (if one of his own books mentions his date of birth, that's ok for that particular info). This [1] mentions year and place of birth, and seems reliable enough to me (I don't actually read German).
Also, if WP:Conflict of interest applies to you, please follow the guidance there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also also, you should edit Draft:Helmut Kroiss as the article now, not User:Hager Irene. User:Hager Irene is for (if you like) writing a little about who you are and what you do on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, I cleared my user page now. It was too easy to mix it up with the current draft version of my article :-) I also inserted the reference for the birthdate of Kroiss. Up to my knowledge, there is no conflict of interests and the cited publications are meant to serve to reference the work, he did. Are these references insufficient? What is missing? Thank you for your really great help! Hager Irene (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I learned that this person exists today, but here is my view: Large parts of the article is still without reference, and for the most part, these references should be reliably published sources that are independent of Helmut Kroiss. Almost all references in the article are to his own publications, and per the guidance at WP:BLP, WP:BASIC and WP:NACADEMIC, that is not good enough here. On en-WP, it's not enough to state that he won the 2002: Golden badge of honour, 1st class, you need a good source, like a decent book, journal or newspaper, who noticed that this happened and bothered to write about it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Helmut Kroiss[edit]

Hello, please do not add 'bare URLs' as references. This leaves them subject to linkrot, I.e. the url cannot be found at a later date (is 'dead'). Please see WP:REFB for a guide to correctly adding references. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Eagleash, please help me with a hint, which references you mean. Unfortunately I mostly do have only weblinks to reference the data.
Hi, please do not add citations which consist of just the URL between the ref tags. E.g. something like <ref>https etc. etc.</ref> with no other information within the tags. References should be formatted using a selection of templates (see WP:CITET for a list of those). If you have not already done so please review WP:REFB as noted above.
If you look at the page history (via 'history' by the edit tab) you will see that I have formatted a number of bare URLs earlier. In page history, you can view the changes in each individual edit by clicking on 'prev' at the left of the line. Please also note that punctuation goes before the opening ref tag not at the end of the reference.
For future reference, to attract another editor's attention to comments or posts you make, add {{ping|their username}} to the start of your message. The 'ping', the message and your signature must all be added in one edit or the 'ping' will not work. You sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. This will automatically generate your signature and the timestamp. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Basically we have good semiautomatic tools for adding info to a reference and make it "look pretty". Example: Here [2] I used the tool described at Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Using_refToolbar on the Der Standard reference (there is also a similar tool in the VisualEditor, if you are using that). See how it appears in the Reference section compared to the older version [3]. Prettier.
I copypasted the url into the right place, clicked the little magnifying glass (autofill), and added date and a wikilink manually. It's not perfect but usually pretty good, and can also be used with ISBN, DOI and PMID. Hope this helps. Try to do this with reference 15, which is a bare url. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh!... I've just fixed that one too. I used vis ed for all of the earlier ones but it had not worked on that one so 'done the long way'. Eagleash (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you both very much! Hager Irene (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And good job on finding refs for the medals and such. Again, I don't read German, but I'll trust you that they're good. For now ;-). At this point in your editing career you should take a look at Help:Edit summary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Wilhelm von der Emde[edit]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Hallo, I just created a new draft article. It is at User:Hager_Irene/sandbox/Wilhelm_von_der_Emde. No worries, there is none to follow, just these two :-). I tried to format the reverences as you did in the article about Kroiss. A reference to his "Ehrenkreuz", 1981, I'm still missing, but I hope to get one. Could you again help me with having a look through the text? Many thanks again and a nice weekend! Hager Irene (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. I think I've heard of this guy, somewhere ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That looks pretty good to me. There are paragraphs that lacks references, but perhaps you can find them.
Gerda Arendt, can I have your opinion? These drafts:
while not perfect (what is), seems to pass at least WP:NACADEMIC with a decent margin. What do you think? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging Eagleash in case they want to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the 'ping' Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I have tidied the latest sandbox draft a bit. I don't think I would find much to complain about if either of these articles were to be accepted; I reckon they'd survive XfD. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One thing. You use the full name a lot in both articles. Use last name only or "he" more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You probably don't want to hear what I'd have to say: while notable, both are way too detailed, and underreferenced. Try a subset, with every paragraph ending in a citation. You can save the details somewhere, and add them later once referenced, - but really, who's going to read all that ;) - You can look for models for scientists in our sad list of those who recently died, - articles not by me, Francis Rapp, Rolf Huisgen, Carsten Bresch. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all and many thanks for your notes and your help! I'm going to try (at least try, for I do not know, how successful I will be) to get two or three more references to have at least one in each paragraph for the article about Emde. And I will go through the texts in regard of the use of the full names. I fear, I would not like to shorten the details. Both articles are not just meant as an addition to some list of those who recently died or something alike, but as well as a memory aid for our Institut, to have something that could act as source for information about our history. Furthermore the articles, as they are now, correspond pretty well with the already published German versions (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Kroiss and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_von_der_Emde). So, if that (the many details in the articles) does not represent an impediment to publishing, I would prefer not to shorten the texts. Besides, I'm quite sure, that the one or the other out of the huge number of friends, national and international, both Prof.s were able to gather around themselves, will read the articles. :-) Again: Many thanks for your help and valuable comments! I have learned really a lot! Hager Irene (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a, lets call it "philosophical", difference here.
First, the different language WP:s are autonomonous, policies and guidelines can differ (and nothing says they were followed in the first place). It's not that helpful comparing articles from different WP-languages, what can be used is their sources if they are WP:RS and they have them. The argument "this is unsourced, ref it or remove it" trumps "but it's what German WP says".
Any en-WP-article is meant to summarize the references it includes, especially WP:BLP:s, and the good ones do this. "a memory aid for our Institut, to have something that could act as source for information about our history." is not necessarily what is wanted here. The articles should not be a source for information per se, but they should have refs that are, so people like this guy can get some use out of them.
That said, the articles will probably be accepted, but the content may change over time. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Hi, I did some more work concerning the references and up to my opinion both articles would be ready for submission now. I'm still waiting for one reference about the Ehrenkreuz for Kroiss, but I think I could add this later. Please let me know, if from your side this is o.k. I think the article about Kroiss I have submitted already, the one about Emde, I did not yet. I really do appreciate the help you provide! Again thanks and best regards, Hager Irene (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Hager Irene! You created a thread called Categorisation of the biographical article about Helmut Kroiss at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Your submission at Articles for creation: Wilhelm von der Emde has been accepted[edit]

Wilhelm von der Emde, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Bravo! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, if you want another challenge (like having the article accepted wasn't enough). If you check the Main page, you'll see there's a section titled "Did you know ..." This is a gallery of new articles, and if you want, you can nominate your article for it. "New" is one of the criteria, so you must nominate within 7 days if you want to do it. The usual effect is more readers when it appears, example:[4]. Instructions at WP:DYK. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång, unfortunately I haven`t been here for a lot of time. But now: thanks to you for your valuable hints and advice! If my article about Prof. Kroiss passes through alike, I consider to nominate it for the gallery of new articles, you mentioned. Meanwhile: Thanks again and best regards! Hager Irene (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Helmut Kroiss[edit]

Helmut Kroiss, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

1292simon (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On countries that change and move around[edit]

Hello, hope you are well. I took your "thanks" to mean that you understood that my meaning was to insert a little historical context (compare Gandhi and Václav Klaus).

When I was in school, I was at some point taught that oxygen was discovered by a Swede, Carl Wilhelm Scheele. Possibly schools in other countries framed it differently. Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars#Nikola Tesla is an interesting example. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Hallo, thank you! Here seams all well - as far as it can be in times like this! If you mean the passus about the Weimar Repulic (as I think, you do), than a really great "thank you"! I appreciate! Dear regards! Hager Irene (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hellmut Fleckseder has been accepted[edit]

Hellmut Fleckseder, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Karlheinz Krauth has been accepted[edit]

Karlheinz Krauth, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: The submission of my article about Karlheinz Krauth had been accepted by Olaf Kosinsky by 20 August 2021. Olaf Kosinsky has obviously been blocked on 7 September 2021. Now my article has been put back as draft to my user page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Karlheinz_Krauth). It seems that this was caused by you (according to the note on the talkpage: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karlheinz_Krauth&action=edit&redlink=1). Has the article to undergo the submission process again or could you upload it? It had been assessed as C-Class, as you could read in the note above. Therefore, I suppose it would not be of bad quality. I put the article to AfC submission again by 12 September 2021. Please respond with some further information how this article would be uploaded to en.wikipedia quickly again. Thank you and best regards, Hager Irene (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hellmut Fleckseder moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Hellmut Fleckseder, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creepTalk 08:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Karlheinz Krauth (November 7)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nomadicghumakkad was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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.
Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Hager Irene! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering 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! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Karlheinz Krauth has been accepted[edit]

Karlheinz Krauth, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hellmut Fleckseder (December 2)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Missvain was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Hi - We need more sources about the subject that aren't primary. You can find examples here: WP:RS.
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.
Missvain (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Hellmut Fleckseder[edit]

Information icon Hello, Hager Irene. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hellmut Fleckseder, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Hellmut Fleckseder[edit]

Hello, Hager Irene. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Hellmut Fleckseder".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Norbert Matsché (July 21)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gusfriend was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for academics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Not clear that they meet WP:PROF.
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 after they have been resolved.
Gusfriend (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Norbert Matsché (November 2)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to
Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
While he's accomplished, and published, does not meet WP:NPROF.
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 after they have been resolved.
Onel5969 TT me 18:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Norbert Matsché[edit]

Hello, Hager Irene. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Norbert Matsché".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 12:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hager_Irene&oldid=1163016875"